I sincerely hope that all of you enjoyed Senator John Kerry’s pleasant idyll through Election 2004, because it’s officially over:
Senator Kerry’s voting record on national security raises some important questions all by itself. Let’s begin with the matter of how Iraq and Saddam Hussein should have been dealt with. Senator Kerry was in the minority of senators who voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991. At the time, he expressed the view that our international coalition consisted of ” shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden.” Last year, as we prepared to liberate Iraq, he recalled the Persian Gulf coalition a little differently. He said it was a “strong coalition,” and a model to be followed.
Six years after the Gulf War, in 1997, Saddam Hussein was still defying the terms of the cease-fire. And as President Bill Clinton considered military action against Iraq, he found a true believer in John Kerry. The Senator from Massachusetts said, quote, “Should the resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take action.” He further warned that if Saddam Hussein were not held to account for violation of U.N. resolutions, some future conflict would have ” greater consequence.” In 1998, Senator Kerry indicated his support for regime change, with ground troops if necessary. And, of course, when Congress voted in October of 2002, Senator Kerry voted to authorize military action if Saddam refused to comply with U.N. demands.
A neutral observer, looking at these elements of Senator Kerry’s record, would assume that Senator Kerry supported military action against Saddam Hussein. The Senator himself now tells us otherwise. In January he was asked on TV if he was, quote, “one of the anti-war candidates.” He replied, “I am.” He now says he was voting only to, quote, “threaten the use of force,” not actually to use force.
Even if we set aside these inconsistencies and changing rationales, at least this much is clear: Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, today, in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait. (Laughter.)
Yup, Cheney’s speech. Damn feisty one, and from the accounts that I’ve heard so far from my fellow VRWCers, well presented, too. Now, I’m sure that a lot of you are prepared to spin, explain, redefine and (probably, in a couple of cases at least) correct Cheney’s comments… but I would seriously recommend against thinking that this was not bad mojo for Kerry, skillfully applied. I’m betting that this one is going to have an impact past the base (who will spread it far and wide; we’ve been chomping at the bit lately*), so watch out.
Of course, if you feel confident enough, you can ignore my advice completely. I have it on excellent authority that my side is all made up of dunderheaded poltroons.
Moe
Read more