[zook]

The problem is, and the thing that Sullivan fails to understand is that the Dems use this "tough talk" only as a means of getting elected. They won't follow through. That's the reason for Kerry's flip flopping on Iraq.

[Poodlebrain]

The problem is that his speech is inconsistent with prior statements both John's have made and votes both John's have cast. And Edwards' provided no explanation for the change in position. Similarly, he claimed that the two John's will be able to ensure certain future events that effectively reverse past actions of other nations as well as determine their future course of events without explaining what inducements will be necessary to accomplish these sea-changes in foreign positions.

How are the two John's going to get NATO involved in Iraq? The Spanish have already cut and run; there is no widespread political support for such a mission among the members. What inducements or coercion will be required?

How are the two John's going to get other nations to forgive Iraq's debts? If the two John's are successful what argument can they make to any debtor nation why there shouldn't be a general forgiveness of international debts? If the international debts of Iraq are preventing its development doesn't the same apply to others?

Edwards' speech was full of what to do, but empty of how to do it.