Attacking Kerry on substance

Brian Griffin has taken notice of this post in which I relay John Podhoretz’s belief that John Kerry is a “terrible, terrible, terrible candidate”. Brian is upset that John Kerry isn’t being attacked more substantive issues than flip-flops and his voting record.
I wish I could attack him on something more substantial, but there isn’t anything substantial about this guy’s positions, at least not that he’s laid out so far. He can’t decide whether the war in Iraq would have happened if he were President. When asked to introduce himself to the country he launches into screeds about President Bush. When asked what he’d do differently in the war in Iraq he lays out the same plan that the President is using; stay in Iraq until the job is done and continue trying to get other countries to help. He can

6 comments

  1. Rob,
    Why not ask BushCo, they are the ones who sent on the snipe hunt to begin with. I guess it just doesn’t matter why we got to war, just as long as we go to war and get “them.” We all need an ego boost, a cleansing of the blood lust once in while.

  2. Rob Bernard says:

    I suggest that you ask John Kerry because he, along with the 296 Representatives and 76 other Senators who voted to authorize force in Iraq, believed the same things the Bush Administration believed and laid out the same case that the Administration laid out. They all believed Iraq to be a threat with WMD. They all believed that Iraq must be disarmed. Kerry believed that it was “clear” that Iraq had continued its quest for WMD. He quoted intelligence saying Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. He said “all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons”. He even said that we couldn’t ignore the possibility that Iraq would accidentally or purposely give WMD to terrorist groups.
    “When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force… to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.”
    If mistakes were made they were made by everybody, not just the Bush Administration. They were not alone in believing that Saddam was a threat and that he either had or was trying to acquire WMD.
    You’re not going to believe one word to come out of the Bush Administration. You don’t need to ask the Bush Administration for an explanation anyway, your own candidate was saying the same thing. He was giving the same reasons why Iraq must be disarmed. He had the same fears. I doubt though that you’ll even listen to the words of your own party’s candidate, or the 2002 version of him anyway.

  3. Gee,
    One Senator vs. the commander in Chief, who responsible for going to war? Hmmm, I wonder. CinC vs. one Senator. The Guy who is running as a War President or a guy who fought in a war, who should I ask about why we went to war?
    Rob, do you think that maybe your boy Bush was the guy who chose to go to war and the reason he claimed we had to go to war over, and could not wait mind you, was Iraq’s WMD. I am just wondering, you know, where are they?
    He said that Iraq had them. Every one of his top officials said the same thing. He was the guy who pulled the trigger on going to war, so the buck stops there. Now, if you would prefer that your guy just pass off the decision of when to go to war on to John Kerry, well I will have no problem with that.

  4. Rob Bernard says:

    I’m glad to know I wasn’t off on my “I doubt though that you’ll even listen to the words of your own party’s candidate” comment.
    It wasn’t one Senator vs. the Commander in Chief, it was one Senator (plus 76 other Senators and 296 Representatives) WITH the Commander in Chief. Kerry believed Iraq posed the same threat that President Bush believed it did.
    We went to war not just because the President thought it was time for a war. Not for a “cleansing of the blood lust” (the suggestion of which I find to be disgraceful and below you). We went to war for a number of reasons, which the President, his advisors and any number of Congressmen, including Senator Kerry, laid out before the war started. We went to war because Saddam was defiant. We went to war because everybody, and I mean everybody, thought he still had WMD. We went to war because the very real possibility existed that a Saddam-led Iraq with WMD and with ties to terror would give those weapons to terrorist organizations.
    Yes, President Bush said Iraq had WMD. Yes, his top officials said they had them. Our intelligence agencies thought they had them. Tony Blair thought they had them. The intelligence agencies of every nation out there thought they had them. Every member of Congress who voted to authorize the use of force thought they had them.
    Should the intelligence that led us to that belief be investigated? Yes, and that is happening. You can no more blame President Bush for believing the intelligence that said they existed than you can blame every member of Congress who saw the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion. The Administration did not make up the WMD threat out of thin air. They did not cherry-pick data. They trusted the data that was given them.
    You may have a good argument to make about how allies were courted, but blaming the President because he was one of the hundreds, or thousands, of leaders worldwide who believed intelligence that turned out to be wrong is not an intellectually honest argument. Hindsight is 20/20. President Bush is not to blame for believing the intelligence that everyone in the intelligence community believed.

  5. Carnival of the Bush Bloggers

    The Carnival of the Bush Bloggers: May 3, 2004 Edition

  6. WMD found in Iraq

    What appears to be a Sarin gas shell exploded with little effect today and a Mustard gas shell was found 10 days ago. Citizen Smash has a good roundup, including the always entertaining Democratic Undergound conspiracy theories. The same day…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *