Does Kerry Understand

[Tigermike 3,037]

KERRY'S NEW LOW

BY JOHN PODHORETZ

September 9, 2004 -- YESTERDAY John Kerry announced somberly that the nation had reached a "tragic milestone." He was referring to the thousandth American death in the Iraq war.

But he might well have been referring to the tragic milestone his own career reached when he ascended the podium yesterday in Cincinnati and, I believe, consigned his presidential hopes to the ash-heap of history.

For what Kerry did yesterday, in his most unambiguously anti-war speech yet, was to make an unintentional mockery of himself and his party. He has taken to calling the war in Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." But yesterday he boiled down his chief complaint against the war to an astonishingly crass level.

While paying the necessary obeisances to the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq, he quickly moved on to complain that the key problem with the cause for which they have been making these sacrifices is just too damn expensive. The $200 billion price tag, he complained, "is $200 billion that we're not investing in education, health care and job creation here at home."

You see, we could have lots of after-school programs and lots of other nice stuff if it weren't for Iraq!

"$200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford after-school programs for our children," he said. "$200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford health care for our veterans."

There is so much wrong with this argument that it's hard to know where to begin. There's the simple matter of Kerry's bald-faced falsity. First of all, the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind Act has increased by 65 percent the amount of federal money spent on schooling. Spending on veterans' health care has grown a whopping 27 percent.

Bush has spent freely, far too freely in the eyes of most of those who obsess about fiscal responsibility. But even engaging in this kind of discussion brings the issue down to Kerry's astoundingly crass level.

If Kerry wants to argue that we should never have gone to war, for whatever reason he may choose — the failure to find Saddam's WMDs, the unforeseen difficulties after the end of major combat operations, the putative recruitment of more terrorists, the tragic death toll — fine.

These are serious issues, and a serious policy discussion could ensue from a Kerry speech that raised them.

But he doesn't want to talk about serious issues, because his effort to have it every-which-way on all these matters as he bobbed and weaved his way into his party's nomination has caused him to take (by one count) eight different positions on the war so far.

So now it comes down to this: The war has cost too much. And why?

Kerry offers two arguments.  One is debatable.  One is contemptible.

The debatable argument is that the Bush administration didn't properly plan for the insurgency that followed the ouster of the Hussein regime. Bush has now acknowledged as much by discussing the "miscalculation" that occurred because no one expected the initial combat to end so quickly.

The problem for Kerry is that if he makes this debatable argument, he is forced to attack Bush from the right. To argue that Bush didn't take the insurgency seriously enough forces Kerry to argue that there needed to be more troops and that, right now, we need to finish the job in Fallujah and Najaf.

And right now, Kerry can't attack Bush from the right. Because of his incompetent conduct in the aftermath of the Democratic Convention, Kerry is facing an increasingly disgruntled and impatient Democratic base. The base is 90 percent anti-war. If he gets on their bad side, they might give up on him or even vote Nader.

That's why he prefers the contemptible argument.

Yesterday, he said that the war cost too much because George W. Bush didn't get allies who were willing to pay for it. "America has paid nearly 90 percent of the bill in Iraq," he said. "Contrast that with the Gulf War, where our allies paid 95 percent of the costs."

Well, the Gulf War cost $61 billion back in 1991, and most of it was paid for by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Does John Kerry really think we should be going to the Saudis today for money to pay for U.S. operations in Iraq? Does Kerry actually think anyone will believe that his supposed friends in Germany and France would have given him money to pay for a war against Saddam Hussein?

Americans with grave concerns about Iraq actually deserve a better advocate than Kerry, who wants to reduce those concerns to a false monetary calculation. This is a serious country, and Iraq is a serious business. Barring some event out of Kerry's or Bush's control, this unserious man from Massachusetts will not become our president.

E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/19287.htm

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

How about this astonishing admission from the same Cincinatti speech....

KERRY: Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq. More than one thousand of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom in the war on terror. And I think that the first thing that every American wants to say today is how deeply we each feel the loss

If I'm not mistaken, Kerry finally admitted that the war on Iraq is indeed part of the "war on terror"

[Tiger Al 0]

How about this astonishing admission from the same Cincinatti speech....

KERRY: Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq. More than one thousand of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom in the war on terror. And I think that the first thing that every American wants to say today is how deeply we each feel the loss

If I'm not mistaken, Kerry finally admitted that the war on Iraq is indeed part of the "war on terror"

Can you find an instance where he said otherwise?

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

"Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time and for the wrong reason" is I believe his mantra of the moment

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

If you don't like that one, how about his continuous spewing that the war on Iraq has taken our focus off the real war on terrorism.

I may be a "idiot" as Tereza might say, but that plainly states that Iraq is not part of the war on Terror

I think a better exercise might be for you AL, to show the rest of us how Kerry has always thought that the war in Iraq is a legitamate part of the war on terror.

Actually, I wish you could find any issue that Kerry has had ONE CONSISTANT view on in his entire career.

[Tiger Al 0]

How about this astonishing admission from the same Cincinatti speech....

KERRY: Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq. More than one thousand of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom in the war on terror. And I think that the first thing that every American wants to say today is how deeply we each feel the loss

If I'm not mistaken, Kerry finally admitted that the war on Iraq is indeed part of the "war on terror"

I don't see where he said this in that speech. Was it from some other one?

LINK

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...ck_2.guest.html

may not have been that same speech but stated none the less

If you dont like a Rush link heres an ABC news link

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040907_1264.html

[Tiger Al 0]

I believe that Iraq is part of the war on terror NOW, because terrorists have flocked there to kill Americans since we attacked. I don't believe that in March of 2003 Iraq was a threat to us.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

al... :roll:

[rexbo 104]

I believe that Iraq is part of the war on terror NOW, because terrorists have flocked there to kill Americans since we attacked. I don't believe that in March of 2003 Iraq was a threat to us.

We have had this argument before, but I will point it out again. No one in August of 2001 thought Afghanistan was a threat to the United States. Don't bring your hindsight argument; there was no one calling for GWB to attack Afghanistan before 9/11. And if he had even thought it out loud, the liberal press and the weaklings sitting on the UN Security Council would have screamed bloody murder. But of course, we heard the criticism afterwards that he was "asleep at the wheel" for not attacking them before.

[rexbo 104]

"Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time and for the wrong reason" is I believe his mantra of the moment

And just as his words in 1971 hurt American soldier's moral and mission during that foreign conflict, so his words in 2004 are doing the same damage. And this time is even much worse, in my opinion, since he a current US Senator and running for Commander in Chief. How motivated are our soldiers in Iraq, working hard to help the people of Iraq live in freedom and create a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, going to be be after Jan 2005 if this man is sworn in as their Commander in Chief after this ludicrous statement? Unfrigginbelievable that this man would speak these words while Americans are fighting for their country. Which side is he on?

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

I believe that Iraq is part of the war on terror NOW, because terrorists have flocked there to kill Americans since we attacked. I don't believe that in March of 2003 Iraq was a threat to us.

Al, you are sounding more and more embarrased to defend your boy Kerry.

[Tiger Al 0]

I believe that Iraq is part of the war on terror NOW, because terrorists have flocked there to kill Americans since we attacked. I don't believe that in March of 2003 Iraq was a threat to us.

We have had this argument before, but I will point it out again. No one in August of 2001 thought Afghanistan was a threat to the United States. Don't bring your hindsight argument; there was no one calling for GWB to attack Afghanistan before 9/11. And if he had even thought it out loud, the liberal press and the weaklings sitting on the UN Security Council would have screamed bloody murder. But of course, we heard the criticism afterwards that he was "asleep at the wheel" for not attacking them before.

We bombed sites in Afghanistan before 9/11. The Taliban was always known to cavort with terrorists. But, you're correct that before 9/11 not many people, conservatives included, would've been too keen on attacking a country in the absence of clear and present danger.

As far as Iraq is concerned, since we've had this argument before (many, many times) you know I'm not arguing from hindsight.

[Tiger Al 0]

"Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time and for the wrong reason" is I believe his mantra of the moment

And just as his words in 1971 hurt American soldier's moral and mission during that foreign conflict, so his words in 2004 are doing the same damage. And this time is even much worse, in my opinion, since he a current US Senator and running for Commander in Chief. How motivated are our soldiers in Iraq, working hard to help the people of Iraq live in freedom and create a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, going to be be after Jan 2005 if this man is sworn in as their Commander in Chief after this ludicrous statement? Unfrigginbelievable that this man would speak these words while Americans are fighting for their country. Which side is he on?

If that's what he believes right now, then when would you give him permission to talk about it?

[Tiger Al 0]

I believe that Iraq is part of the war on terror NOW, because terrorists have flocked there to kill Americans since we attacked. I don't believe that in March of 2003 Iraq was a threat to us.

Al, you are sounding more and more embarrased to defend your boy Kerry.

I don't know where you got that I was/am embarrassed. I do feel pity for those who blindly defend Dubya.

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

I believe that Iraq is part of the war on terror NOW, because terrorists have flocked there to kill Americans since we attacked. I don't believe that in March of 2003 Iraq was a threat to us.

Al, you are sounding more and more embarrased to defend your boy Kerry.

I don't know where you got that I was/am embarrassed. I do feel pity for those who blindly defend Dubya.

It just sounds like you are getting very tired of trying to rationalize evey position change that Kerry makes on a daily basis. By the way you still have not named a single position that Kerry has kept the same position on in this campaign or his career in that other thread? WAITING

[Tiger Al 0]

I believe that Iraq is part of the war on terror NOW, because terrorists have flocked there to kill Americans since we attacked. I don't believe that in March of 2003 Iraq was a threat to us.

Al, you are sounding more and more embarrased to defend your boy Kerry.

I don't know where you got that I was/am embarrassed. I do feel pity for those who blindly defend Dubya.

It just sounds like you are getting very tired of trying to rationalize evey position change that Kerry makes on a daily basis. By the way you still have not named a single position that Kerry has kept the same position on in this campaign or his career in that other thread? WAITING

I haven't checked it out because I realize that people's views change because of circumstances and/or our understanding. I'm sure yours have. I know mine have. Sometimes we learn more about something, sometimes conditions change that force our views to change. Two years ago I don't think any person on this board or in this country would've disagreed with that. In fact, if someone had disagreed and said that holding onto one's beliefs, even in the face of changing circumstances, was the only correct choice, he or she would've gotten a steady dose of how they could be foolish by doing so. Suddenly, we're not allowed to use our God-given ability to reason and discern or we 'flip-flop.' Two years from now it'll be OK again (if Bush wins).

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

I believe that Iraq is part of the war on terror NOW, because terrorists have flocked there to kill Americans since we attacked. I don't believe that in March of 2003 Iraq was a threat to us.

Al, you are sounding more and more embarrased to defend your boy Kerry.

I don't know where you got that I was/am embarrassed. I do feel pity for those who blindly defend Dubya.

It just sounds like you are getting very tired of trying to rationalize evey position change that Kerry makes on a daily basis. By the way you still have not named a single position that Kerry has kept the same position on in this campaign or his career in that other thread? WAITING

I haven't checked it out because I realize that people's views change because of circumstances and/or our understanding. I'm sure yours have. I know mine have. Sometimes we learn more about something, sometimes conditions change that force our views to change. Two years ago I don't think any person on this board or in this country would've disagreed with that. In fact, if someone had disagreed and said that holding onto one's beliefs, even in the face of changing circumstances, was the only correct choice, he or she would've gotten a steady dose of how they could be foolish by doing so. Suddenly, we're not allowed to use our God-given ability to reason and discern or we 'flip-flop.' Two years from now it'll be OK again (if Bush wins).

Al, even you must agree that a person with any moral integrity has ceartain core values. I'm just asking you to show me any proof that Kerry has a single CORE value. I think even you can see that his positions on everything change like a chameleon depending on who he is trying to impress.

[rexbo 104]

"Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time and for the wrong reason" is I believe his mantra of the moment

And just as his words in 1971 hurt American soldier's moral and mission during that foreign conflict, so his words in 2004 are doing the same damage. And this time is even much worse, in my opinion, since he a current US Senator and running for Commander in Chief. How motivated are our soldiers in Iraq, working hard to help the people of Iraq live in freedom and create a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, going to be be after Jan 2005 if this man is sworn in as their Commander in Chief after this ludicrous statement? Unfrigginbelievable that this man would speak these words while Americans are fighting for their country. Which side is he on?

If that's what he believes right now, then when would you give him permission to talk about it?

He can talk about it all he wants, like telling us in some realistic and reasonable detail how he will complete the mission of securing Iraq and making sure they transition to a democratic government if he is elected. But if he really wants to do that, he will not say things that demoralize our soldiers currently serving in that war, and words that give hope to the enemy. These words are EXACTLY what the enemy wants to hear. You cannot convince your enemy that you are on the right side and determined to win, if you tell them and the world that you are on the wrong side.

[Tiger Al 0]

He can talk about it all he wants, like telling us in some realistic and reasonable detail how he will complete the mission of securing Iraq and making sure they transition to a democratic government if he is elected. But if he really wants to do that, he will not say things that demoralize our soldiers currently serving in that war, and words that give hope to the enemy. These words are EXACTLY what the enemy wants to hear. You cannot convince your enemy that you are on the right side and determined to win, if you tell them and the world that you are on the wrong side.

So then how should he get the point across that he believes Bush has made a multitude of mistakes without actually saying that Bush has made a multitude of mistakes? You seem to be saying that he can criticize Bush all he wants but he just can't say what he is specifically opposed to. Yet, if that was what Kerry did, then you'd be saying that all he does is throw out broad dissatifaction of Bush, never saying what he specifically disagrees with.

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

He can talk about it all he wants, like telling us in some realistic and reasonable detail how he will complete the mission of securing Iraq and making sure they transition to a democratic government if he is elected. But if he really wants to do that, he will not say things that demoralize our soldiers currently serving in that war, and words that give hope to the enemy. These words are EXACTLY what the enemy wants to hear. You cannot convince your enemy that you are on the right side and determined to win, if you tell them and the world that you are on the wrong side.

So then how should he get the point across that he believes Bush has made a multitude of mistakes without actually saying that Bush has made a multitude of mistakes? You seem to be saying that he can criticize Bush all he wants but he just can't say what he is specifically opposed to. Yet, if that was what Kerry did, then you'd be saying that all he does is throw out broad dissatifaction of Bush, never saying what he specifically disagrees with.

I would rather hear what he is for. What are his REAL solutions? What is he REALLY for? Why does he REALLY want to be pres.? How will he fight a BETTER war on terror? How will he REALLY create jobs? Please tell me something other than "I fought in Vietnam" to tell me what he truely believes in. If you can decipher his many stances on every issue PLEASE GIVE US SOME INSIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tiger Al 0]

He can talk about it all he wants, like telling us in some realistic and reasonable detail how he will complete the mission of securing Iraq and making sure they transition to a democratic government if he is elected. But if he really wants to do that, he will not say things that demoralize our soldiers currently serving in that war, and words that give hope to the enemy. These words are EXACTLY what the enemy wants to hear. You cannot convince your enemy that you are on the right side and determined to win, if you tell them and the world that you are on the wrong side.

So then how should he get the point across that he believes Bush has made a multitude of mistakes without actually saying that Bush has made a multitude of mistakes? You seem to be saying that he can criticize Bush all he wants but he just can't say what he is specifically opposed to. Yet, if that was what Kerry did, then you'd be saying that all he does is throw out broad dissatifaction of Bush, never saying what he specifically disagrees with.

I would rather hear what he is for. What are his REAL solutions? What is he REALLY for? Why does he REALLY want to be pres.? How will he fight a BETTER war on terror? How will he REALLY create jobs? Please tell me something other than "I fought in Vietnam" to tell me what he truely believes in. If you can decipher his many stances on every issue PLEASE GIVE US SOME INSIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!

I did this once already.

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

The only problem is that at one time or another he has also been against all of that stuff. Again please let us know where his true core beliefs lie.

I'll bet for every issue you say he stands for, I can show you where he has either voted against it or stated that he is against it.

[Tiger Al 0]

The only problem is that at one time or anothe he has also been against all of that stuff. Again please let us know where his true core beliefs lie.

Such as?

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

The only problem is that at one time or anothe he has also been against all of that stuff.  Again please let us know where his true core beliefs lie.

Such as?

Please provide me with any tax cut that Kerry has ever voted for. He now claims that he will cut middle class taxes, but has never to my knowledge ever voted for a tac cut on anyone in the middle class. He says he will do it now because the polls tell him that undecideds want to hear it.