| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Boston Globe Gives Flip Flopping Advices |
| 2004-09-08 |
| PRESIDENT BUSH has thrown down the gauntlet by asserting that he and his opponent share the same position on Iraq. Kerry's response, included in the Sept. 1 American Legion convention speech, has been that he would have given the inspectors the time they needed to do the job and he would have fought the war differently, with more allies, bigger body armor for troops, and a plan to win the peace. So how much time would the inspectors have needed? The situation would never have changed, just the weather. But giving inspectors more time would have shown that Iraq had no WMDs and no nuclear program that threatened us, meaning there was no justification for war. The inspections would not have shown that, they would only have shown more Saddam tricks. To prevent Bush from painting Kerry as a supporter of this misappliciation of US power, Kerry must firmly establish that he would have followed a much different course. Oh really. And what kind of course. Breakfasts at the Elysée? |
| Posted by:True German Ally |
| #5 Kerry would be Carter with a New England accent and a really rich wife. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-09-08 6:52:35 PM |
| #4 I should add that it would only be fair for Kerry to build into his statement about fighting the war differently the assumption that he had successfully opposed all of the weapons procurement he voted against as list by Zell Miller in The Speech. "And then I would have ordered the First Spitball Deployment Brigade to approach Baghdad from the south. In a sensitive way, of course." Also, I wonder how having a hypothetical Franco-German division along in the drive to Baghdad would have actually affected operations. The Brits and Aussies were positive contributors, to say the least, because they fight hard and, literally, speak the same language. How many operational orders would the French government have phoned in to Saddam? |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-09-08 1:30:12 PM |
| #3 So basically Kerry would have refought Vietnam. I'm sure he knows a hotel in Paris where he could hold peace talks. |
| Posted by: RN 2004-09-08 12:34:21 PM |
| #2 "How would he have fought the war differently?" Good question. Since Tommy Franks has taken responsibility for the overall warfighting strategy, and since it's clear that tactical decisions (e.g., the Thunder Runs, the Marine assault into Baghdad) originated with the commanders on the scene, I suppose you have to infer that Kerry would have (1) overridden Franks or replaced him, even though Franks had just demonstrated his command ability in the campaign against the Taliban, and/or(2)interfered from the White House with field-level tactical decisions. So basically Kerry would have refought Vietnam. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-09-08 12:28:59 PM |
| #1 More allies? From where? How? How long would it have taken? How long was he planning to allow Saddam to flout the 14 UN resolutions? How long was he willing to allow the butchery of Iraq's people to go on? How long was he willing to retain the sanctions that Saddam was allowin to starve the people of Iraq? How long was he willing to allow the French to rob the people of Iraq blind in the Oil for Palaces graft program? How long was he planning to wait and allow Saddam to pay $25K to suicide bombers in Israel? How would he have fought the war differently? Kerry reminds me of an obnoxious richie-rich little league bench-riding prick who claims he can do it all better in order to try to pull down the poorer kid who is the starte, but has no ability when confronted with having to make the play on the field or hit when at bat (and then blames the coach, his bat, his glove and the "sun was in my eyes", etc). And his obnoxious old man (the press) is there bellowing at the coach to get his son in the game. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-09-08 1:15:35 AM |