Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Kerry's News Conference
I only heard little bits here and there, as I was otherwise engaged, but I heard enough to realize that I don't trust Kerry even when he's saying things I know to be true. By that I mean, even though he might state a true fact, his analysis and proposals related to it are, at least to my way of thinking, unworkable at best and stupid at worst.
He also gave some opinions I agree with but his "plans" for doing so are either the same as what the Bush admin. is already doing or are pie-in-the-sky.
Take "We must win in Iraq" as an example. The Bush administration is already training the Iraqis to provide their own security; we already have thirty-odd countries involved (notwithstanding Kerry's sister's best efforts to alienate some of them). Who the hell is he talking about when he claims he'll get "our allies" to help? France has said that they won't send troops even if Kerry's elected. The UN? That's a joke, right? They can't or won't even do anything when it's painfully obvious that intervention is required (see, Darfur). But mostly, given Kerry's long history of antiwar activism, I just don't believe him. As I've said before, I think he'll cut and run at the first opportunity. Unfortunately, he's telegraphing it, and by doing so he is giving aid and comfort to the terrorists (not "militants" or "insurgents" or any other mealy-mouthed euphemism of the kind used by Reuters and the AP) that are trying to ruin Iraq, and their fellow travelers.
UPDATE 23 Sept: Ralph Peters has a lot more to say about this. (Credit: Powerlineblog)
Some other things I don't believe: that he'll raise taxes only on "the rich;" that he'll "balance the budget" (possible only if he pulls out of Iraq); that he'll "create jobs" (by taxing the life out of the economy?). I could go on and on.
Contrary to what you might think, I don't think Bush has done a stellar job -- he's allowed Congress to bury the budget in pork, he reined in the Marines just as they were preparing to finish the job in Fallujah, and he's made some blunders in other areas (the steel tariff comes to mind). But we only have two serious candidates to choose from, folks, and there's a vast difference between them. There's only one issue that counts -- transnational islamofascist terrorism -- and until that threat is vanishingly reduced, everything else is secondary. Bush understands that. I don't think Kerry does.
He also gave some opinions I agree with but his "plans" for doing so are either the same as what the Bush admin. is already doing or are pie-in-the-sky.
Take "We must win in Iraq" as an example. The Bush administration is already training the Iraqis to provide their own security; we already have thirty-odd countries involved (notwithstanding Kerry's sister's best efforts to alienate some of them). Who the hell is he talking about when he claims he'll get "our allies" to help? France has said that they won't send troops even if Kerry's elected. The UN? That's a joke, right? They can't or won't even do anything when it's painfully obvious that intervention is required (see, Darfur). But mostly, given Kerry's long history of antiwar activism, I just don't believe him. As I've said before, I think he'll cut and run at the first opportunity. Unfortunately, he's telegraphing it, and by doing so he is giving aid and comfort to the terrorists (not "militants" or "insurgents" or any other mealy-mouthed euphemism of the kind used by Reuters and the AP) that are trying to ruin Iraq, and their fellow travelers.
UPDATE 23 Sept: Ralph Peters has a lot more to say about this. (Credit: Powerlineblog)
Some other things I don't believe: that he'll raise taxes only on "the rich;" that he'll "balance the budget" (possible only if he pulls out of Iraq); that he'll "create jobs" (by taxing the life out of the economy?). I could go on and on.
Contrary to what you might think, I don't think Bush has done a stellar job -- he's allowed Congress to bury the budget in pork, he reined in the Marines just as they were preparing to finish the job in Fallujah, and he's made some blunders in other areas (the steel tariff comes to mind). But we only have two serious candidates to choose from, folks, and there's a vast difference between them. There's only one issue that counts -- transnational islamofascist terrorism -- and until that threat is vanishingly reduced, everything else is secondary. Bush understands that. I don't think Kerry does.
Comments:
Post a Comment
