We have questioned the extent to which John Kerry, if elected, will commit political capital to redeem George Bush's mistakes in Iraq. Consequently, we get nervous when we see him introducing 'wiggle room' in his policy pronouncements:
One reporter cited Mr. Kerry's famous query in 1971, upon returning from Vietnam, about how the country could ask men "to die for a mistake," and asked whether he believed that is happening now in Iraq.
"It is not a mistake to want the outcome of Iraq to be a stable, ultimately democratic, pluralistic society," Mr. Kerry responded. "But this president may have chosen ways - he certainly has chosen ways - to make it more difficult. The question remains whether or not he's going to make it impossible."
Yes, we understand that he can not promise miracles, and maybe the situation really will be beyond redemption by January 2005. But I wish he would wait until we got a bit closer to that bridge before he started warning us that we might have to jump off it.
Bonus Point - we love the way his attitudes from 1971 are projected onto the current situation - yet another problem for him to tackle.
Second Bonus: Kerry: "You have to change the entire dynamic," he said, expressing confidence that he could lure reluctant allies like France into the coalition".
Does he read the newspapers? I think he is a day late with the France invite.
Isn't it about time we started asking the obvious question about "Cut and Run Kerry"? His Swift Boat peers almost to a man, think he's unfit to be Cof C. Are they thinking of his cutting and running from his commitment after four months and three scratches back in 1969--and even Theresa admits they have the moral standing to ask such questions.
Is it beyond the pale to surmise that Kerry's now discredited testimony about atrocities being committed (supposedly under orders of American senior officials)was a smoke screen to obscure his actual record in combat? While it is understandable that a man might want to escape being shot at, how does that man at the same time preserve his viability within the system, in order to attain his boyhood dream of being JFK II?
Aren't the voters justified in asking if that character trait might re-surface in a War President?
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | May 16, 2004 at 12:43 PM