Z,
I didn't say he was. Then again, I don't agree with his Iraq policy.
My recollection of your Iraq policy is that you said you would be willing to support the war if there was a commitment to stay afterwards. So it seems Bush's policy is closer to your original opinion, unless you changed it since then.
Kerry does a bad job of boiling issues down to talking points and "sound bites," no doubt about it.
I have an attention span beyond sound byte, and I don't recall anything other than gibberish out of his acceptance speech about any issue other than his service in Vietnam.
There were number of things that absolutely made no sense, and if you wish, we can analyze it.
But, Kerry is going to keep us in Iraq and bring NATO into the mix.
I don't know if there is anything that shows Kerry's naivity more (or of those who believe it) than his "promise" to bring in troops from other countries. Nobody is coming. We (under either Bush or Kerry) will be happy if nobody leaves. Kerry may have to plead to countries that he once called "coalition of bribed and coerced" to stay on. Which, BTW, ("bribed and coerced") shows what a statesman Kerry is likely to be.
You wouldn't like it, but the anti-war movement in Vietnam, for one. He's also as eloquent and stately as I'd like my leaders to be; of course, those are characteristics that most of America doesn't care about, but I do.
Yup. He was also one of the leaders in Congress supporting Communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua. I guess there are good reasons for Kerry not to highlights these two issues he has been leading on.
Joe |
