he still would have voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq, even if he had known in October 2002 that US intelligence was flawed, that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.I say "seemingly" because the answer and explanation of the answer are positively Clintonian in their parsing of words. President Bush clearly challenged Kerry by saying "My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq". Yet Kerry's answer, while seeming like support for the war, is actually only support for giving the President "the authority" to invade Iraq. Kerry, once again, wants to not take any position on this issue; he supports authorizing the decision to go to war, but not the actual decision to go to war - in effect the Clintonian position of authorizing the ends (Saddam's removal), but not the means of accomplishing it. This is simply unserious.
To add to this, Kerry posed four questions to President Bush, once again displaying his acceptance of the loony-left accusations against President Bush.
My question to President Bush is: Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth? Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?These arguments have all been thoroughly discredited, yet Kerry still resorts to them for fear of losing his base, the anti-war far left. His arguments are the perfect way to convince our Islamofascist enemies that we are not really serious in fighting them or winning.
No comments:
Post a Comment