First Read on Kerry's Criticism of the War
First Read recognizes Kerry for being one of the few Democrats to be speaking out against the war (contrary to the claims of the Kerry bashers in the blogosphere):
The ease with which Bush rhetorically links Katrina, the WOT (war on terror) and Iraq to bolster public support stands in marked contrast with Democrats’ efforts to do the same in criticizing him. The focus on the GOP split over government spending on hurricane relief has temporarily obscured Democrats’ ongoing conundrum over Iraq. A few Democrats, like John Kerry, have tried to weave the war into a broader critique of Bush. But the louder and more harshly party lawmakers attack Bush on his response to Katrina, on gas prices, on ethics, and on alleged cronyism and incompetence, the more noticeable their collective silence on the war becomes.
posted by Ron Chusid at 7:04 AM
5 Comments:
It is truly a shame that during the 2004 campaign Sen. Kerry didn't just say to the American public what he said privately to an acquaintance of mine.
'Dick Cheney lied to me face to face about the certainty of Saddam having nuclear weapons. And that's why I regrettably voted for his war resolution. I won't be taken in by such liars again.' Then your understandably defensive post would not have been necessary.
It is truly a shame that during the 2004 campaign Sen. Kerry didn't just say to the American public what he said privately to an acquaintance of mine.
'Dick Cheney lied to me face to face about the certainty of Saddam having nuclear weapons. And that's why I regrettably voted for his war resolution. I won't be taken in by such liars again.' Then your understandably defensive post would not have been necessary.
It would also not be necessary to defend Kerry from such attacks if people paid attention to all of Kerry's statements on the war, including his reasons for voting for the IWR as stated in his Senate floor speech.
When the full story is examined, the IWR vote is trivial and Kerry's opposition to Bush's policies in Iraq is clear. Kerry's vote for the IWR was not an endorsement of going to war in the absense of evidence that we were threatened by WMD, and Kerry argued multiple times that war was not necessary.
Do not get me wrong, Dr. Chusid.
I am an admirer of Sen. Kerry, possibly since before you were born. He is an able and valuable man in the U.S. Senate--which institution must take the lead in rectifying the many disasters the Bush-Cheney presidency, has brought and--may yet try to bring upon our planet.
Notably the Cheneyacs plan a war--involving so-called 'mini-nuclear weapons' against Iran, or possibly N. Korea, at the earliest time upon which a concocted excuse is available. The Cheney group has no interest in winning wars--only in starting them--so don't bother attacking their military tactics. It is the Roman Legions approach-- perpetual war as a method of governing a 'world empire.'
This Cheneyac 'flight-forward' attitude involves an hysterical attachment to attempting to bail out the financial bubble embodied in the hyper-inflationary oil and real estate prices now defining the US economy.
The 'general welfare,' on the other hand, demands a return to Franklin Roosevelt's --not John Roberts--view of the Constitution.
I have no doubt Sen. Kerry agrees. I would very much appreciate his showing the leadership to say so, publically, and soon.
Kerry has been speaking out against both Roberts and against the Bush/Cheney foreign policy.
For Kerry to really be effective in stopping Bush/Cheney, our chances would be best if the Democrats could regain control of the Senate, and restore the checks and balances on the Executive Branch.
Post a Comment
<< Home