KerryonIraq: Flip-Flop Kerry does a Full Howard
... Dean, that is. Kerry now adopts Dean's position: "The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy -- Al Qaeda."
The FLIP-FLOP is a full bore Olympic Gold-medal-winning double-take on the whoe war effort. It's as if Kerry decided the Republicans didnt have enough Kerry Flip-flop on Iraq material to work from, and decided to add to it! Kerry was AGAINST the Gulf War I, before he was for it. (That's right, he was against the Gulf War, and then later had some 'memory' of being at the Gulf War signing ceremony ... we'll have to dig into that later.) Then Kerry was FOR Operation Iraqi Freedom before he was AGAINST it.
KERRY: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It’s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN’s "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)
2001: Kerry Says Saddam "Acted Like A Terrorist." KERRY: "He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable." (Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)
2002: Kerry Agrees With Goal Of Regime Change In Iraq. "I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)
2003: Kerry Says Disarming Saddam Was "Right Decision." KERRY: "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)
2003: Kerry Said "It Would Be Irresponsible" To Suggest President Misled On WMD. ABC’S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "I know you said you’re agnostic about whether or not he misled the public on weapons of mass destruction. But do you have a hunch on whether you think they hyped the intelligence?" SEN. JOHN KERRY: "George, again, I think it would be irresponsible of me at this point to draw conclusions prior to all the evidence being on the table." (ABC’s "This Week," 6/15/03)
It's absolutely clear: Kerry supported the war in Iraq because he thought that was good political positioning. And it was posturing. Kerry the blowhard, is a man of many words and few actions. Yet the words change. In 2001 and 2002, Kerry himself connected Saddam with terrorism. If he had a philosophic core that told him that was the case, he wouldn't be changing his viewpoints so radically.
The evidence hasn't changed. Kerry is saying now that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, and we know that is wrong. Kerry in 2001 had it right. Saddam funded numerous terrorist groups, Algerian GIA, Palestinian suicide bombers, and Ansar al-Islam (who we are fighting today). We know the 9/11 Commission report showed that Saddam had links and contacts with Al Qaeda throughout the 1990s and offered safe haven to Osama Bin Laden in 1998. There was no safe haven for terrorists in Saddam's Iraq? What about Abu Nidal, what about the 1993 WTC bomber Yasin who escaped to Baghdad, what about Abu Zarqawi?
Abu Zarqawi will be real broken up about being dissed like this. Not enough of a threat for us to go after his host country? What, isnt he a terror mastermind too?
Then Kerry does this: "As president, I will finish the job in Iraq and refocus our energies on the real war on terror."
Now consider the cognitive dissonance here. He's just said: It was the 'wrong war'; he has complained about the cost; he has shown disdain for our allies by calling the coalition 'phony' and insulting Allawi; he has insisted that America do less and other countries do more. And he has explicitly downgraded the importance of Iraq by calling it not part of the war on terror. If it's not the war on terror, then Iraq is just a 'nation-building' project about as important as Clinton's escapades into Haiti and Kosovo.
Yet Kerry wants us to believe he will have unshakable will to win in Iraq, when the pole star in Kerry's political life has been his opposition to Vietnam and he himself is comparing Iraq to Vietnam. I can't believe that. Can you? And if we can't believe it, why would the terrorists believe it?
I said in an earlier post that the clarity of a Bush position that will stay, fight to win, no matter what, or a Kucinich 'just get out' position was superior to the fog of the Kerry position. That fog would lead to the trap of a 'limited war' that we didnt have the resolve to win, whatever the cost. Kerry had a critical choice to make in the primary season on the war. He chose "All of the above", taking all possible positions depending on the ebb and flow of news and political positioning needs. Now, going full bore anti-Iraq-war and taking every opportunity to spread defeatism and gloom, Kerry is lining himself up to be the number one strategic threat to success in Iraq! After all:
How can you ask a soldier to be the last man to die in a war that Kerry as President will say is a mistake?
Kerry's plans are, at best, 'an uncertain echo' of Bush's plans. But Kerry's defeatism combined that is a toxic combination of political vacillation and bravado (perhaps what you'd expect from a guy who voted to authorize the war but voted against the occupation and security funding to secure the peace). The most important element in fully LIBERATING IRAQ is now a Bush re-election.
--- Posted by patrick @ 9/24/2004
freedomstruth.blogspot.com |
