[TASMANIANRED]

Kerry has done a Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg. He is holding an indefensible position.

If it was wrong to go to war and remove Saddam then the US and the world must have been better off with the Status Quo.

The torture and murder in Iraq was OK with him.

The Oil for Food corruption on both ends of Saddam and the UN was OK.

The funding of suicide bombers in Israel was OK.

Funding for terrorists was OK.

Providing safe haven for terrorists was OK.

His only response to Saddam could have been removed other ways meaning the UN ignores that many UN members as individuals and our opponents france, Germany and Russia were getting rich off the scheme and had a vested interest in keeping Saddam in place.

This is supposed to be a great debater. He has painted himself into an inescapable trap of logic.

(The french don't deserve a capital letter)

[finnman69]

agreed

Indefensible.

Unfortunately the debates wont allow back and forth interaction that would likely produce the types of responses from the interview.

[Verginius Rufus]

I thought Lee's problem at Gettysburg was not that he held an indefensible position, but that he couldn't dislodge the enemy from a too-defensible position...that, and not having Stonewall Jackson. And of course Jeb Stuart's gallivanting around Pennsylvania instead of supplying Lee with vital intelligence when he needed it.

Kerry will also have to get by without Stonewall Jackson, and without vital intelligence from Jeb Stuart, Jeb Magruder, Jeb Bush, or anyone else.