Posted on 09/11/2004 11:57:25 PM PDT by crushelits
From The Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook September 10, 2004
John Kerry could well be our next President, which is why we keep looking for signs that he'd be a good one, especially on national defense. Even a hint of Harry Truman would make us sleep better. But the more he talks about Iraq, the more the Senator seems bent on proving that his critics are right: He really is in a Presidential debate with himself.
First, back in October 2002 when the polls showed large public support, Mr. Kerry voted for the war. "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein," he said in one of the early Democratic debates. ...
But then Howard Dean rose in the polls as the antiwar candidate, and Mr. Kerry suddenly turned against the war too. "Are you one of the anti-war candidates?" asked Chris Matthews back in January on MSNBC's "Hardball." Mr. Kerry: "I am -- Yes..."
Or at least he was until he routed Mr. Dean, when he became prowar once again. Throughout the spring he vowed to stay the course ...
But now, suddenly and in the campaign's home stretch, Mr. Kerry has again turned antiwar -- and with a passion that would make Mr. Dean proud. ...
Mr. Kerry is even reviving the old liberal isolationist line that money spent fighting our enemies in Iraq should be better spent at home. ... And like George McGovern promised about Vietnam in 1972, he's clearly signaling that he'll bring Americans home from Iraq, as early as his first six months in office.
It's anyone's guess why Mr. Kerry has taken this latest flip. Perhaps now that he's trailing in the polls, and his image on national security has suffered, he feels he can only win as the antiwar candidate. ...
Americans aren't looking for perfect consistency in a candidate. But in the wake of 9/11 in particular, they do want some proof of conviction and constancy, especially on national security. Agree with him or not, President Bush has told Americans pretty clearly where he stands -- on Iraq, and on the war on terror, which he argues are part of the same fight. Mr. Kerry argues -- what, exactly?
We're not the only ones who've noticed that Mr. Kerry's statements on Iraq aren't so much "nuanced" as simply irreconcilable. Just yesterday the New York Times implored him to stake out a clear position on the war. And the liberal and anti-Bush New Republic magazine recently observed that on Iraq Mr. Kerry has gone from "inscrutable" to "indefensible." ...
For Entire Article Please Visit: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109477182067814219,00.html (Subscription Required
This reminds me that I'm hungry - I'm going to make some toast - LOL.
Yes, let's not just report the news, lets beg candidates (Democratic ones) to take positions which will help them win. They are so transparent.
Me too....think I'll put on my flip-flops and go to the Waffle House for breakfast
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.