Kerry: Bush Rushed Off to War
From al-Reuters:Democratic challenger John Kerry charged on Friday that President Bush undermined America's safety by having "rushed off to war" in Iraq without adequate help or "a plan to win the peace."
"I believe that the Bush administration -- and I say this carefully and thoughtfully ... made America less safe, not more safe, with their blustery arrogant foreign policy," Kerry said at town hall meeting with military veterans and family members.
"I believe our troops are in greater danger today, exposed to more gun fire and more mortar attacks and more ambushes than they had to be if we had done what common sense dictates ... which is to build alliances and share the responsibilities," Kerry said.
Kerry made the comments as he touted his proposed new national security strategy, unveiled the day before in Seattle, to forge a coordinated global alliance against terror and end what he has described as Bush's divisive bullying tactics.
Matt's Chat
For the love of -- Alright, folks, let's do this one more time. The Bush administration spent fourteen months trying to get the Unimportant Nobodies to enforce their own resolutions which they chose not to do because the UN and a number of other significant countries were on Saddams payroll with UNSCAM. Fourteen months is hardly "rushing" in my book.The "plan to win the peace" argument is misstated. The Bush administration and the Pentagon appear to have had a plan, it just hasn't been successful yet. History will be the judge of the success or failure of Iraqi Freedom NOT the junior senator from Taxachusetts. One would think that an experienced veteren like John Kerry (who, I don't know if you've heard, was in Vietnam, by the way) would come to the conclusion that Iraqi Freedom was a failure after merely a year. By historical standards, the casualty rates are significantly low. I don't know about you, but I question whether or not he has the ability to lead our nation in a time of war if John Kerry can't see that we're winning at this point.
America is most definately more safe, Mr. Kerry, since taking this war to the enemy. As I've said elsewhere, I'd much rather have the fighting going on in Baghdad rather than Boston; in Fallujah rather than Fairfield, OH. Most Americans, I think, would agree that we are in fact safer for that very reason. Thinking that Spetember 11th was it for al Qaeda is naive. Had we done nothing (which is what a Gore administration would have done), the attacks would have continued.
"Blustery arrogant foreign policy" is an interesting way to put it. I call it putting American interests first. Again, America was attacked in a very horrible and brutal fashion. It was important that America strike back. And not just at al Qaeda but at the root of the evil: Islamofascism. Al Qaeda isn't a nation-state; you can't point to it on a map. It was neccessary to make this be about something more than simple retribution, which is exactly why containment (Kerry's preferred strategy, I'm sure) was not going to work. How can you contain something that is all over the world already? The only option available to the President was to form a coalition of nations willing to take the fight to the enemy for the sake of all mankind. This is bigger than just America. It has been from the very beginning.
If the troops are in greater danger today, just think of how much danger they'd be in if that $87 billion aid package that John Kerry voted for before he voted against it hadn't passed. Kerry himself said a vote against that would be "reckless and irresponsible." Apparently, by Kerry's own admission, he is reckless and irresponsible. Is this who you want for Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces? The guy politicized this issue with his "protest vote." That's not what I want in the White House when a crisis is at hand: a man who will be too busy making his point showered in nuance while our troops need his support.
Mr. Kerry would have us believe that the President took us to war with no allies. That is 100% not true. The Coalition of the Willing includes: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. That looks pretty multilateral and internationalist to me. There are plenty of responsibilities being shared. Make no mistake, this is mainly our effort; we retain the leadership role and with that comes a number of responsibilities among them being a significant portion of the troops and material. Would it make sense to give France the command and control over our troops in this conflict? John Kerry is long known for wanting to give control of our military to the Unimportant Nobodies. Is that what you want for America? How do you think Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan feels when they hear this kind of nonsense coming from a guy who has even a remote chance of being the next President of the United States:
"If it is worth for the United States of America to be there to fight the war on terror, it is worth other countries being there as well," Kerry said to sustained applause.Talk about blustery arrogance...
