The Great Equivocator IV, Win the Peace
Briefly, because this issue has been buggin' me for a long time and since I'm on a Great Equivocator roll I can drop this in here, google "Kerry win the peace" and see how many references come up from the 60 or so days before the 2004 Presidential election.
The Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, was running around the country mocking President Bush because Bush "rushed into war against Iraq without a plan to win the peace." Never did I hear a reporter challenge Sen. Kerry on this comment.
If Sen. Kerry was in the United States Senate on December 8, 1941, would he have needed to see the Marshall Plan before he voted for war on Japan and Germany?
My goodness, the Senator has always talked of the war on terror as though it's the 34th game in a 162-game baseball season. No, you damn idiot, it's a war! We can lose. If we lose the war, is it really necessary to have had a "plan to win the peace"? Time and again, the President has said his plan to win the peace was "victory (google what you need to verify)" in the war. Does anyone really doubt the President is more in command of the stakes of this war than the Great Equivocator?
And, if anyone doesn't believe we are involved in a war, please provide the word you think I and 99% of the country should substitute. Or, if anyone thinks losing is not a possible outcome of this war, please let me know that, too.
Briefly, because this issue has been buggin' me for a long time and since I'm on a Great Equivocator roll I can drop this in here, google "Kerry win the peace" and see how many references come up from the 60 or so days before the 2004 Presidential election.
The Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, was running around the country mocking President Bush because Bush "rushed into war against Iraq without a plan to win the peace." Never did I hear a reporter challenge Sen. Kerry on this comment.
If Sen. Kerry was in the United States Senate on December 8, 1941, would he have needed to see the Marshall Plan before he voted for war on Japan and Germany?
My goodness, the Senator has always talked of the war on terror as though it's the 34th game in a 162-game baseball season. No, you damn idiot, it's a war! We can lose. If we lose the war, is it really necessary to have had a "plan to win the peace"? Time and again, the President has said his plan to win the peace was "victory (google what you need to verify)" in the war. Does anyone really doubt the President is more in command of the stakes of this war than the Great Equivocator?
And, if anyone doesn't believe we are involved in a war, please provide the word you think I and 99% of the country should substitute. Or, if anyone thinks losing is not a possible outcome of this war, please let me know that, too.
posted by Zack at 6:10 AM
1 Comments:
The publisher's of the major U.S. newspapers do not call me an give me advance notice of the content of their papers. My post today at 6:00 occurred before I saw any of today's newspapers.
I share this because Todd Beamer's dad was published in the Wall Street Journal today; he seems to appreciate that the United States is at war. Todd Beamer was on United Flight 93 and is widely believed to have participated in the breaching of the cockpit once it was taken over by terrorists, thus preventing Flight 93 from striking its intended target (the White House or the Capitol, I think).
I suggest all those interested in Mr. Beamer's opinion go out and pick-up the WSJ today. If you already subscribe but don't usually get to the editorial page; do yourself a favor and take a look today.
Post a Comment
<< Home