Posted on 06/24/2002 6:39:59 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
“The strategy failed at Tora Bora and (in Operation) Anaconda. I believe we didn’t complete the task of killing those 1,000 people or capturing them in that mountain. We didn’t shut off the back door.” Continues.
===================================================
Sen. Gigolo -- Not Ready For Prime Time
Doing the same thing, again and again, but expecting different results. We all know it's the definition of insanity.
It's also the only word for Democrat strategy of late.
Take Sen. John Kerry's Meet The Press interview yesterday. It illustrates the point perfectly.
By almost any measure, his performance (if that's the word) was disastrous. Even a dyed-in-the-wool, partisan Democrat, I suspect, might agree. (The wire services, tellingly, initially were mum on the interview -- another grim sign.)
Clearly, Kerry is running for president, and clearly he came on the show to trash and bash Bush as Commander-in-Chief.
It was also clear he came singularly unprepared -- his words and body language conveyed it. Even the spongiest softballs seemed to confuse or perplex him.
Or elicit dear-in-the-headlights reactions.
Replies were sluggish, halfhearted; his points were pointless, his logic, lazy, his reasoning, shallow, his arguments, flimsy. And contradictory.
As for execution -- or style -- colorless and humdrum spring to mind.
In the Al Gore school of political charm, Kerry graduates summa cum laude.
From the beginning of the interview, Kerry struggled mightily for an angle of attack. He slammed Tora-Bora and Anaconda as tactical failures, not of the military, but of the Commander-in-Chief. He accused Bush of being wishy-washy, wimpy. (Dukakis II imputing spinelessness to Bush -- hilarious, eh? For the record, this genius voted against the Gulf War, arguing that sanctions would make quick work of Saddam.)
To Kerry, ousting the Taliban was no big accomplishment -- piece of cake, he implied.
Gee, the word 'quagmire' seems to ring a bell, for some reason. Weren't the Kerry clones in Big Media grousing about it back in October? And how about that 'almighty, invincible Taliban', eh? Or the thousands of bodybags of dead American soldiers? Or how the Taliban would never surrender to 'infidels'? Or how our planes would be at the mercy of 'Stinger Missiles'? That it would take years and years to pacify war-torn Afghanistan? And what of deadly guerrilla warfare? 'American troops will be bogged down forever', the naysayers grimly predicted.
All the gloomy scenarios failed to materialize, the prophets of doom were discredited.
But don't tell John Kerry that.
The Afghan operation has been a miserable failure on three fronts -- Diplomatic, intelligence and law enforcement -- according to Gen. Kerry. Pressed on what he would do differently, he fumbles and stammers and hems and haws. It seems baffling, but, from his muddled "responses", it was apparent Kerry had not thought the issue thoroughly enough -- politically nor operationally.
That Kerry isn't ready for Prime Time, seemed glaringly obvious. He showed that convincingly.
"Would you send more American troops", Russert asked. Kerry gropes for an answer, mumbling something about the need for "balance" -- the appropriate troop mix for intel gathering and war-making.
And just what, precisely, is that proper "balance"? Again, Kerry hasn't a clue.
A perpetual bleeding heart, he called for more foreign aid, believing that -- someway, somehow -- it's the way to win the War on Terror.
Go figure.
'Do Kerry's attacks on the White House signal a Democrat shift in approach vis-a-vis The War?', Beltway denizens are likely to wonder.
Wrong question, wrong premise. It assumes Democrats have pulled their punches, and clearly they haven't. It's another of Washington's myriad of myths. Since September 11, if anything, it's been one vicious attack after another. Desperate to reclaim the spotlight, worried Democrats had tried literally everything, but nothing would chink Bush's popularity armor.
As the show progressed, Kerry kept digging himself deeper and deeper in a hole.
Russert: "Are you concerned your public criticism might be misinterpreted by the enemy?"
Kerry: "No, because I'm more determined than ever to get the enemy".
After this pathetic interview, one might wonder if the "enemy" Kerry is "more determined than ever to get" is -- not al-Qaeda -- but President George W. Bush.
Memo to Sen. Gigolo: Why should the President weigh anything you say in the balance? You offer no reason why he should, yet a million why he shouldn't.
Five words of advice: Don't quit your day job.
Anyway, that's.....
My two cents....
"JohnHuang2"
One small quibble. Maybe he should quit his day job and go sample the 57 Varieties of Heinz instead.
One small quibble. Maybe he should quit his day job and go sample the 57 Varieties of Heinz instead.
Hey, you're right..hehe.
Is this really the guy the democrats are going to put forward in 04?
Campaign '04, a redux of Dukakis '88? I say, bring it on ;^)
You have my deepest sympathies...hehe.
Thanks for the recap of Kerry's lack of gravitas, I didn't see the show.
The Democrats' appear to be grasping at straws. Rather than support our nation's fight against terror, they merely seek an angle that will benefit their corrupt party.
The Democrats' appear to be grasping at straws. Rather than support our nation's fight against terror, they merely seek an angle that will benefit their corrupt party.
Well said, Fred. That's it in a nutshell.
You are very right. Plus, we get to pay for the privilege. </sarcasm>
It would be dumb beyond words to run Kerry for President:
(1) He's from Massachusetts, which will vote for the Democratic candidate anyway. The Democrats would want someone who would pull in some electoral votes, I would think.
(2) When he was running for office, he made it very clear that he was a big part of VVAW (VietNam Veterans Against the War). And, he voted for Kosovo intervention...give him an "A" in Hypocrisy 101.
(3) As a Massachusetts resident, at the time of the Kosovo bombing, I contacted my elected officials...Kennedy, Kerry, Barney Frank. Senator Kennedy's office was respectful, took in my comments, had someone involved with foreign affairs call back and discuss my viewpoints. Barney Frank corresponded, and in his comments showed a willingness to consider the viewpoints of others, and not defend the Administration in aspects of the issue that were indefensible. Kerry's office however, had a rude, sarcastic, disrespectful receptionist answer the phone. First she put me on "forever hold". When I called back, she just hung up...I mean they weren't even listening to other views.
Around these parts, he's known as "Mr. Heinz". I really think a Republican(or an impressive Democrat in a primary, for that matter) could beat him, if a motivated effort, on the scale of what was done to get Hillary in office, were initiated.
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.