Friday, October 29, 2004

 

Kerry Makes a Case For the War and Defines His Global Test

Tom Brokaw interviewed John Kerry last night. John Kerry is now trying to deny that Saddam would still be in power had he been president.

Brokaw: "If you had been President, Saddam Hussein would be in power."

Kerry: "Not necessarily."

Brokaw: "You 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: "That's what you have inspectors for. 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 irresponsible to suggest that if I were President, he wouldn't be gone. He might be gone, because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war, but if we did, we would have gone with allies, so the American people weren't carrying the entire burden. And the entire world would understand why we did it."

Several Points:

1. Despite voting to gut the national defense and intelligence for years, Kerry thinks that a legitimate threat of force is needed to get things done. Now he did not define that statement and that is classic Kerry since now he can define legitimate as anything he wants. Kerry may even think that Zell Miller's spitballs are legitimate. Let's see if the anti-war base catches Kerry comments about the threat of force.

2. Kerry now defends exactly why we went to war. He says that if Saddam did not comply, we might have had to go to war. How many UN resolutions does it take? We had already watched the UN pass 18 resolutions and Saddam was still hiding weapons from inspectors, still refusing to account for all his chemical and biological weapons and still harboring aspirations of building up his arsenal in the near future. This was good enough reason for the 70 supporting countries, 21 of whom supplied troops. Apparently this was not enough of a coalition for Kerry.

3. The global test rears it's ugly head again. A new twist on the global test is that "...the entire world would understand why we did it." So I guess that right or wrong is not the issue but as long as everyone understands are motives, then it's OK. This reminds me of the kind of psychology which gives and excuse for anyone to do anything as long as they had some motivation which they could not resist. This is exactly why the global test is bunk and why, when it comes to defending our security, we don't need to explain ourselves to anyone.

4. Notice this exchange:

Brokaw: "You 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: "That's what you have inspectors
for.


Read between the lines here. Kerry is acknowledging that the inspections were not working and that Saddam was not destroying his weapons. This is the same Kerry who has said time and again that the inspections were working and just needed more time. I smell a flip-flop.



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?