Posted on 09/16/2004 4:41:39 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
On Oct. 11, 2002, U.S. Sen. John Kerry voted in favor of a resolution authorizing President Bush to go to war against Iraq. That decision has haunted Kerry ever since, as it should. With that vote, a man who learned firsthand about the tragedy of fighting an ill-conceived war with no clear-cut goals agreed to commit another generation to another such war.
Today, Kerry claims that the only reason he voted to authorize war was to strengthen the president's hand in negotiating with Iraq. As Kerry points out, Bush was publicly insisting back then that he had made no decision to go to war, and in fact would do everything possible to avoid it.
But if Kerry truly did take Bush at his word, as he now claims, then this campaign is for naught because he is too big a fool to serve as president.
Even at the time, it was absolutely clear that Bush was dead set on ousting Saddam Hussein by force. All of Bush's public talk about negotiations and working with the United Nations was so much window-dressing, a transparent and in the end unsuccessful effort to woo international support for a war he was already intent on fighting. Kerry had to know that.
That says something about the Democratic candidate, and it's not flattering. In fact, while an enormous amount of ink and air time has been wasted rehashing what Bush and Kerry did during the Vietnam War, the ongoing war in Iraq provides voters a far more accurate guide to their individual capabilities and weaknesses, and what they may do in the future.
We can never know exactly what thought process led to Kerry's vote on the Iraq war, but it is possible to indulge in informed conjecture. First, Kerry has said that he saw Saddam as a regional threat that eventually would have to be confronted. Second, he could not conceive that the Bush administration would bungle the operation as badly as it has.
And third, by the time the Senate vote took place, the Bush administration had whipped the American people into a major panic attack about Iraqi nukes and unmanned aerial vehicles, and Kerry wasn't about to buck that tide. He understood all too well that if the coming invasion proved even moderately successful, an anti-war vote would be a political liability.
That is not a profile in political courage. It suggests a man with a realistic outlook on the world, but also a man guided by calculation even on a vote of moral consequence. If the conservative assault on Kerry as a waffler has been effective, it's in part because it contains a degree of truth.
However, if Kerry is guilty of acquiescing to the worst American foreign-policy decision in the nation's history, his opponent is responsible for actually making that tragic decision. In an admittedly difficult first term, Bush has proved to be a man of limited insight and experience, shortcomings that make him easily manipulated by those around him. Tragically for this country and the world, that includes Vice President Dick Cheney and others who believe that in the U.S. military, they have a tool by which to transform the world as they see fit.
It's important to listen to what the Bush administration is really promising in this campaign, because on this point they are being relatively honest. They not only claim that our invasion of Iraq has been a success, they also celebrate it as a model for similar operations in the future. Conversely, their critique of Kerry as insufficiently aggressive is based on the very real fact that he now sees Iraq not as a model to be repeated, but as a disaster to be avoided.
That leaves voters with a clear choice: Those who believe that invading Iraq has harmed rather than enhanced our nation's security should cast a vote for Kerry, who now shares that sentiment. Those who see Iraq as a model for future operations should vote to re-elect the president. However, they should also understand that with so much of our manpower committed to Iraq for years to come, the U.S. military will be able to take on new commitments only if it is significantly expanded. And that probably means a draft.
After all, if transforming the world through our military is truly our goal, it can't be done on the cheap.
Bump!
"the U.S. military will be able to take on new commitments only if it is significantly expanded. And that probably means a draft."
Not if we develop more unmanned munitions delivery systems.
I thought Bookman was the default font on my 1972 IBM Selectric.
Vote for Kerry or you'll be drafted.
Seriously, I started to read this and was going to refute some of the points the author is trying to make, but there's just too much garbage here for me to waste my time on.
Kerry losing women's support***Of all the challenges that Democrat John Kerry faces in his presidential campaign, perhaps none is as critical as building a decisive advantage among women voters.
In the past month, the president has started whittling away at a gender gap that has long provided an essential lifeline to Democrats running for the White House. Less than seven weeks before Election Day, strategists from both parties say there are a growing number of suburban, independent-minded voters who believe Bush would do a better job securing America.
It's politically impossible for a Democrat to win the presidency without a strong majority of women. As the race tightens, Kerry is struggling to develop the double-digit margins that propelled the candidacies of Bill Clinton and even Gore.
"There are Sept. 10 people and Sept. 11 people and I'm a Sept. 11 person. It scared the life out of me," said Conway, 31. "I'm not one of those hard-core, all Republicans, all the time, but I don't believe there is another man alive that could run this country better with respect to our safety."***
"But if Kerry truly did take Bush at his word, as he now claims, then this campaign is for naught because he is too big a fool to serve as president."
In other words, he's qualified to be president if he lied.
This is very true....LOL
In other words we need Clinton/Halfbright foreign policy. Well the '90s led directly to 9-11. If we followed this appeasment policy and Atlanta was a waste land from a "dirty bomb" the writer would be feeling very morally superior.
"W" now stands for Word, Microsoft Word.Spread the "Word".
Or, as my signature block says...
Henry Lee II
"Leftists are crazed and violent people,
with the blood of millions on their hands.
The contrast of those two pics is unbelieveable, isn't it? I can't imagine why anyone with a functioning brain doesn't see it so clearly, so as to know what the real choice is in November.
And I just can't imagine the left-wing wacko lib-dem trash hating America and W so much that they're blinded to the reality of what peril this Nation is in from the murderous Muslim subhumans.
Dont ya love the hi-water pants and the socks?
Can you believe it? Once Atlanta was a Southern city with corresponding values. You go there now and you find that whereas a Southern accent is not exactly a rarity, it's not commonplace, either. I don't have any figures but I think I can say that there are a lot of "immigrants" from other states residing in that fair city.
Atlanta's media reflect this change of values. The "Atlanta Journal Constitution" truly is the "New York Times" of the South.
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.