The most liberal member of the United States Senate seems to be having a great deal of difficulty telling us exactly where he stands on our current war.
During the Democratic primaries Senator John Kerry told a New Hampshire audience that he wanted to “repeal” the “phony” Medicare prescription drug program. Then last week, speaking in the solidly Republican state of Nevada, he told a group of elderly Americans, "I don't want to repeal it. I want to fix it.”
Lying to old people is Democrats’ new forte.
Kerry also wants President Bush “to get out of the way of Americans being able to import drugs from Canada at a lower price…” This was not an especially surprising suggestion, except to those of us who had not yet been told that Mr. Kerry believes in competition.
Senator Kerry has been in a lot of trouble lately, and not just with Teresa. The most liberal member of the United States Senate seems to be having a great deal of difficulty telling us exactly where he stands on our current war. Personally, I await with enthusiasm the day that he huffily throws some of his anti-war memorabilia — like a copy of the Congressional Record from the day he voted against funding our soldiers — over the White House fence, only to be met by dozens of brawny Secret Service officials. Relying strictly on precedent, this will be how Kerry will oppose the war in Iraq, assuming he eventually gets around to deciding what he thinks of it.
As part of my endless efforts to determine what Kerry thinks about Iraq, I’ve found some interesting quotes:
If the history of the last six years…has taught us anything, it is that Saddam Hussein does not understand diplomacy, he only understands power, and when he brandishes power in a manner that threatens or violates internationally accepted standards of behavior, we must be prepared to respond — and with force if necessary.
–John Forbes Kerry, September 5, 1996
If you were to ask any student in college, first year of foreign policy, “Do you think it's a good idea for the United States of America, almost alone, to occupy a Middle Eastern nation," what do you think the answer would be?
–Kerry, April 8, 2004
George W. Bush rushed into war without our allies, without a plan to win the peace and without properly equipping our troops.
–Susan Rice, Kerry’s senior national security adviser, August 6, 2004
…it was right to hold Saddam Hussein accountable and we're glad he's gone.
–Rice, August 6, 2004
My question to President Bush is why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?
–Kerry, August 9, 2004
I believe [going to war in Iraq] was the right authority for a President to have.
–Kerry, August 9, 2004
What we would like to hear from Mr. Kerry is how the events of the last year have changed his own thinking…. we would like to know whether, as president, John Kerry would insist on a higher threshold [for war] than he settled for as an opportunistic senator in 2002.
–The New York Times, lead editorial, August 15, 2004
Kerry would rather talk about a war he opposed 35 years ago than talk about or oppose the war we’re in now. (I guess it’s easier to call GIs murderers when every major news agency doesn’t have cameras in the combat zone.)
Kerry would likely tell you that he supported regime change in Iraq but opposed the way the White House went about it. But without articulating how his strategy would have differed from Bush’s, that doesn’t mean anything. It’s easy to oppose a policy, but it’s somewhat harder to come up with a better one. To say only that you favor “winning the peace” doesn’t suffice — unless you tell us what “winning the peace” means. If it means “no shootings, no domestic disturbances, and no religious conflicts,” then we’re at war not only in Najaf, but in every city in America.
When Kerry has some substantive thoughts about Iraq, I’ll be listening. Until then, he might as well heed the words of his adoring wife and shove it.
isterrett@hotmail.com
Read more articles by Isaiah Z. Sterrett
