Sunday, October 31, 2004
John Kerry is an ass. I've lost any inherent respect for him. Perhaps I shouldn't have let any linger after he was such a public dick to a man assigned to take a bullet for him, but... He must have such utter contempt for the basic intelligence of anyone following these issues. Kerry said this 3 days ago.
"Brokaw: This week you've been very critical of the president because of the missing explosives in Iraq.The fact is, senator, we still don't know what happened to those explosives. How many for sure that were there. Who might have gotten away with them? Is it unfair to the president, just as you believe he's been unfair to you, to blame him for that?
Kerry: No. It's not unfair. Because what we do know, from the commanders on the ground, is that they went there, as they marched to Baghdad. We even read stories today that they broke locks off of the doors, took photographs of materials in there. There were materials. And they left.
Brokaw: The flip side of that is that if you had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Because you...
Kerry: Not necessarily at all.
Brokaw: But you have said you wouldn't go to war against him...
Kerry: That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons.
Brokaw: But he wasn't destroying them...
Kerry: But that's what you have inspectors for. And that's why I voted for the threat of force. Because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's absolutely impossible and irresponsible to suggest that if I were president, he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone. Because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war. And we might have gone to war. But if we did, I'll tell you this, Tom. We'd have gone to war with allies in a way that the American people weren't carrying the burden. And the entire world would have understood why we were doing it.
If those explosives were such a risk then that proves Bush's point. Ignoring the fact that someone from the army has already come forward to say that they moved the explosives. Ignoring the fact that it's been well documented that the UN wasn't going to act. Ignoring the fact that we've already seen that inspections and sanctions were worthless. Ignoring the fact that France and Germany have repeatedly said that they won't help no matter who wins. Ignoring the mass graves full of babies, some with bulletholes to the back of the skull. And finally ignoring the fact that John F Kerry voted against the first Gulf War when we did have a UN resolution and allies out the wazoo, and when Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds was new news...
"In January 1991, Kerry opposed the resolution authorizing Bush's father to go to war to eject Iraq from Kuwait, arguing that the U.N. sanctions then in place should be given more time to work. When former Vermont governor Howard Dean recently challenged Kerry to square those two votes, aides said that the 1991 vote was not one in opposition to the use of force, just as Kerry has said his 2002 vote was not in support of the use of force.
In his 1991 floor speech, Kerry accused President George H.W. Bush of engaging in a "rush to war" -- language similar to that he used in criticizing the current president on the eve of the Iraq war a year ago. Kerry argued in 1991 that there was no need to pass the resolution to send a message threatening force against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, although that was his justification for supporting the 2002 resolution.
Before and after last year's war on Iraq, Kerry criticized the president for failing to assemble the kind of coalition Bush's father put together in 1991. But in his 1991 floor statement, Kerry was dismissive of the elder Bush's coalition. That effort, he said, lacked "a true United Nations collective security effort," and he was critical of the then-president for trading favors for China's support and cozying up to Syria, despite its human rights record.
"I regret that I do not see a new world order in the United States going to war with shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden," he said then. "It is too much like the many flags policy of the old order in Vietnam, where other countries were used to try to mask the unilateral reality. I see international cooperation; yes, I see acquiescence to our position; I see bizarre new bedfellows and alliances, but I question if it adds up to a new world order."
The language raises the question of what kind of international coalition meets Kerry's standards. Cutter said that, in 1991, Kerry was concerned that the United States would bear a disproportionate burden of the casualties, despite the coalition assembled, and preferred to give Hussein "a little more time" to withdraw before launching the war."
John Kerry I have learned to revile you. Not because your political opinions differ from mine, but because you as a person are a complete ass.
. . .
. . .