|
Page 1 2 3
Official 2004 Presidential Endorsement, Second Revised Edition
by Jason Roth
What's so good about this (regardless of what the President says in his own speech) is that if people vote for Bush, they are signing on to the continued execution of the war. The Republicans are not only presenting a specific position, but if they get elected, they know that people are behind them in that position. They won't have to worry (as much) about the polls. I.e., they won't feel the need to do the right thing by fighting the war while at the same time convincing the public that they're not really fighting it. They can be loud and proud.
(By the way, I say "war on terrorism" rather than "war on militant Islam" because the Bush administration has steered safely away from the "I" word. As many have already pointed out (especially Daniel Pipes), "war on militant Islam" would be better because it would reflect the reality of who the terrorists are.)
Another Democrat besides Senator Zell Miller who understands that the war on terrorism the most important issue is Ed Koch. He identifies two John Kerry quotes which show Kerry's weakness on the issue:
"...I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam, and when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."
(First Democratic debate, May 3, 2004)
And, responding to a Chris Matthews question on January 6, 2004, "Are you one of the anti-war candidates?"
"I am - yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely."
Kerry doesn't care whether his statements add up to a cohesive whole, or even whether his individual sentences make any sense. He's clearly one of these classic politicians who thinks a position is the same thing as pointing out inconsistencies in another candidate's position. Too bad his standards for George Bush aren't standards he can meet himself.
|
