This was originally going to be a reply in this thread, but after I got off-topic, I didn't feel that would be appropriate.
Have I missed an apology from John Kerry regarding his numerous treasonous activities while still active in the military? Frankly, had Kerry's actions been pursued in accordance with the law, he wouldn't even be eligible for the Presidency.
Anyway... back on topic:
Has he retracted his objections to the first Gulf War (you know, the FIRST time he said wrong war, wrong time, wrong place)? How about to Reagan's MDS? These are the first examples of "being wrong" that spring to mind when I think of John Kerry. There are many more for which there are no apologies and no retractions. The only thing I can recall John Kerry remotely apologizing for is claiming to be in Cambodia Christmas Eve when he really wasn't, and anyone who doesn't believe the only reason he apologized for that was because there was cold, hard, irrefutable evidence to the contrary, is in severe denial or is just flat-out lying to themselves. IIRC, John Kerry even excused that with "I misspoke".
John Kerry has a pattern: when forced to admit a mistake, pick a smoke screen:
1. I misspoke.
2. I was misunderstood.
3. I slightly misspoke and was therefore slightly misunderstood.
Bush may not be very good at admitting mistakes, but John Kerry sure as hell isn't the solution to the problem of a stubborn president. Frankly, I'll take the President's flavor of stubbornness over Mr. Kerry's.
You see, some people routinely demand an apology from the President regarding the Iraq war, but what they fail to understand is what kind of message that would send to the people of Iraq, this country, soldiers' families, and of course - terrorists. If you think it would be strictly interpreted as genuine humility on America's part, you're dangerously naive.
Besides, all in all, the decision to go to Iraq was not an incorrect one:
It's funny how quickly people forget that Bush was not alone in this country when he felt Saddam should be removed from power. I'll spare you the direct quotes from folks such as John Kerry, John Edwards, and Ted Kennedy. We're all quite aware (though some remain in a state of denial) that using force was very much a united decision and that these men very specifically supported it (after all, it was POPULAR at the time!). Before you jump me with as a last resort, I'll remind you that Bush DID use it as a last resort, and he DID enlist the impotent UN to handle the situation. The fact is, the UN passed a resolution that stated This is your last chance. Comply or you will be dealt with through force. Bush is now lambasted by countries such as France, Germany, and Russia (who all had a documented significant financial stake in the former regime through the corrupt OFF program and illegal arms deals) as well as the American left for merely following through. Let's also not forget that the President had Mr. Kerry's and Mr. Edwards' support as he chose to go to war. You cannot ignore the simple fact that Kerry and Edwards both supported the President's decision until they saw political tides changing as Dean pulled ahead. To be honest, Edwards had my support up to that point. Then I saw what he was really about. The timing of that pretty much negates the whole as a last resort defense. They still supported Bush 100% when he said "time to use the last resort". Now, Kerry and Edwards have both stated that you must be willing to adjust to a dynamic environment. Please. The only dynamic they adjusted to was the public opinion of the left's core. That statement is such an obvious excuse for "we were losing, so we changed our beliefs". In 1998, these "gentlemen", along with other members (both liberal and conservative) of Congress, specifically stated that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power. Oops... there goes the whole "Bush lied to us so we shouldn't have done it" argument... unless of course you are willing to hold those individuals just as accountable. You can't have it both ways, folks. Were there intelligence mistakes? Of course there were. But two administrations and Congress fell victim to them. Singling Bush out for this is absolutely absurd and a demonstration of partisan politics at their finest.
I'll make a bold statement: it doesn't matter that they haven't found WMD, at least not in terms of hindsight evaluations and Monday morning quarterbacking. The UN constructed and passed what was supposed to be a final resolution over a decade after Saddam signed a treaty stating he would comply with weapons inspections and acknowledge no-fly zones. During that time, he shot at our planes flying in the no-fly zone, he funded and nutured a nuclear program, and was extremely obstructive when it came to the inspections he agreed to comply with. The far left would have you believe that it's Bush's fault for pushing us into war. Why the hell can't they see fit to blame the man responsible for reneging on every agreement he made to save his hide in the first Gulf War? Gee, I personally hold Saddam Hussein accountable for the war. He had all the power in the world to avoid it.
THE MISTAKE BUSH MADE IN THIS WAR WAS NOT THE FACT THAT WE WENT TO WAR, BUT RATHER NOT HAVING AN EXIT STRATEGY. HE SHOULD APOLOGIZE FOR IT AFTER THE BULK OF OUR TROOPS ARE OUT OF THE COUNTRY.
It's just like when the left tried to blame Bush for 9/11. Gee, you wouldn't want to hold accountable the man that virtually ignored and dismissed the FIRST bombing of the WTC, along with the bombings of a naval vessel and two US embassies. This man's greatest accomplishments in the White House include the largest tax hike in the history of man and an extramarital hummer in the oval office. He practically ignored terrorism from the first day of his term to the last (well, you can't really say he TOTALLY ignored it... he did pardon a number of convicted Cuban terrorists in the last weeks of his Presidency, but that's for another debate I suppose). Granted, Bush didn't directly deal with terrorism until 9/11, but again: singling Bush out like this is absurd. I have never once heard a liberal hold Clinton accountable for his jaw-dropping mistakes with regard to terrorism... but if a gun gets through an airport terminal, we want Bush's resignation. One of the greatest differentiating factors between Bush and Clinton with regard to terrorism is that Clinton, when he could be bothered to deal with it, would go after an individual here and there. The Bush administration was spot-on when they said that the states that sponsored the individuals also needed to be dealt with. That changed the face of how the US dealt with terrorism.
I'm sure I'll be labeled a necon by some of you. It seems to be the posh thing to do when someone comes along with an opposing opinion. But know that I have my issues with Bush and the Republican Party. I've written my core beliefs down before just so I could see precisely where I stand with respect to each party. By tally, I'm actually a liberal (by 4 issues, to be exact). For instance, I'm an advocate of strict gun control and I very much oppose the Death Penalty. However, I'm also Pro Life. I just can't seem to jump on board with a party who thinks terrorists, serial killers, and rapists deserve more government protection than the heart beating within a conceived child. Each party has their hypocrisies, but that one takes the cake and it's one I've never been able to swallow. Most of the other issues with each party I can deal with.
Regarding John Kerry specifically, aside from his acts of treason, my biggest issue with him is this:
John Kerry: "I demand full disclosure of George Bush's military records!"
Okay. Now can we see yours?
John Kerry: "HALLIBURTON!"
That's him and his hypocrisy in a nutshell. I must say, I am more curious about what is collecting dust in Kerry's military past (like what his true discharge status was before he was Honorably Discharged in 2001 - decades after he actually left the military) than I am about anything else in this election.
Whatever it is, John Kerry is scared to death of it.
Have I missed an apology from John Kerry regarding his numerous treasonous activities while still active in the military? Frankly, had Kerry's actions been pursued in accordance with the law, he wouldn't even be eligible for the Presidency.
Anyway... back on topic:
Has he retracted his objections to the first Gulf War (you know, the FIRST time he said wrong war, wrong time, wrong place)? How about to Reagan's MDS? These are the first examples of "being wrong" that spring to mind when I think of John Kerry. There are many more for which there are no apologies and no retractions. The only thing I can recall John Kerry remotely apologizing for is claiming to be in Cambodia Christmas Eve when he really wasn't, and anyone who doesn't believe the only reason he apologized for that was because there was cold, hard, irrefutable evidence to the contrary, is in severe denial or is just flat-out lying to themselves. IIRC, John Kerry even excused that with "I misspoke".
John Kerry has a pattern: when forced to admit a mistake, pick a smoke screen:
1. I misspoke.
2. I was misunderstood.
3. I slightly misspoke and was therefore slightly misunderstood.
Bush may not be very good at admitting mistakes, but John Kerry sure as hell isn't the solution to the problem of a stubborn president. Frankly, I'll take the President's flavor of stubbornness over Mr. Kerry's.
You see, some people routinely demand an apology from the President regarding the Iraq war, but what they fail to understand is what kind of message that would send to the people of Iraq, this country, soldiers' families, and of course - terrorists. If you think it would be strictly interpreted as genuine humility on America's part, you're dangerously naive.
Besides, all in all, the decision to go to Iraq was not an incorrect one:
It's funny how quickly people forget that Bush was not alone in this country when he felt Saddam should be removed from power. I'll spare you the direct quotes from folks such as John Kerry, John Edwards, and Ted Kennedy. We're all quite aware (though some remain in a state of denial) that using force was very much a united decision and that these men very specifically supported it (after all, it was POPULAR at the time!). Before you jump me with as a last resort, I'll remind you that Bush DID use it as a last resort, and he DID enlist the impotent UN to handle the situation. The fact is, the UN passed a resolution that stated This is your last chance. Comply or you will be dealt with through force. Bush is now lambasted by countries such as France, Germany, and Russia (who all had a documented significant financial stake in the former regime through the corrupt OFF program and illegal arms deals) as well as the American left for merely following through. Let's also not forget that the President had Mr. Kerry's and Mr. Edwards' support as he chose to go to war. You cannot ignore the simple fact that Kerry and Edwards both supported the President's decision until they saw political tides changing as Dean pulled ahead. To be honest, Edwards had my support up to that point. Then I saw what he was really about. The timing of that pretty much negates the whole as a last resort defense. They still supported Bush 100% when he said "time to use the last resort". Now, Kerry and Edwards have both stated that you must be willing to adjust to a dynamic environment. Please. The only dynamic they adjusted to was the public opinion of the left's core. That statement is such an obvious excuse for "we were losing, so we changed our beliefs". In 1998, these "gentlemen", along with other members (both liberal and conservative) of Congress, specifically stated that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power. Oops... there goes the whole "Bush lied to us so we shouldn't have done it" argument... unless of course you are willing to hold those individuals just as accountable. You can't have it both ways, folks. Were there intelligence mistakes? Of course there were. But two administrations and Congress fell victim to them. Singling Bush out for this is absolutely absurd and a demonstration of partisan politics at their finest.
I'll make a bold statement: it doesn't matter that they haven't found WMD, at least not in terms of hindsight evaluations and Monday morning quarterbacking. The UN constructed and passed what was supposed to be a final resolution over a decade after Saddam signed a treaty stating he would comply with weapons inspections and acknowledge no-fly zones. During that time, he shot at our planes flying in the no-fly zone, he funded and nutured a nuclear program, and was extremely obstructive when it came to the inspections he agreed to comply with. The far left would have you believe that it's Bush's fault for pushing us into war. Why the hell can't they see fit to blame the man responsible for reneging on every agreement he made to save his hide in the first Gulf War? Gee, I personally hold Saddam Hussein accountable for the war. He had all the power in the world to avoid it.
THE MISTAKE BUSH MADE IN THIS WAR WAS NOT THE FACT THAT WE WENT TO WAR, BUT RATHER NOT HAVING AN EXIT STRATEGY. HE SHOULD APOLOGIZE FOR IT AFTER THE BULK OF OUR TROOPS ARE OUT OF THE COUNTRY.
It's just like when the left tried to blame Bush for 9/11. Gee, you wouldn't want to hold accountable the man that virtually ignored and dismissed the FIRST bombing of the WTC, along with the bombings of a naval vessel and two US embassies. This man's greatest accomplishments in the White House include the largest tax hike in the history of man and an extramarital hummer in the oval office. He practically ignored terrorism from the first day of his term to the last (well, you can't really say he TOTALLY ignored it... he did pardon a number of convicted Cuban terrorists in the last weeks of his Presidency, but that's for another debate I suppose). Granted, Bush didn't directly deal with terrorism until 9/11, but again: singling Bush out like this is absurd. I have never once heard a liberal hold Clinton accountable for his jaw-dropping mistakes with regard to terrorism... but if a gun gets through an airport terminal, we want Bush's resignation. One of the greatest differentiating factors between Bush and Clinton with regard to terrorism is that Clinton, when he could be bothered to deal with it, would go after an individual here and there. The Bush administration was spot-on when they said that the states that sponsored the individuals also needed to be dealt with. That changed the face of how the US dealt with terrorism.
I'm sure I'll be labeled a necon by some of you. It seems to be the posh thing to do when someone comes along with an opposing opinion. But know that I have my issues with Bush and the Republican Party. I've written my core beliefs down before just so I could see precisely where I stand with respect to each party. By tally, I'm actually a liberal (by 4 issues, to be exact). For instance, I'm an advocate of strict gun control and I very much oppose the Death Penalty. However, I'm also Pro Life. I just can't seem to jump on board with a party who thinks terrorists, serial killers, and rapists deserve more government protection than the heart beating within a conceived child. Each party has their hypocrisies, but that one takes the cake and it's one I've never been able to swallow. Most of the other issues with each party I can deal with.
Regarding John Kerry specifically, aside from his acts of treason, my biggest issue with him is this:
John Kerry: "I demand full disclosure of George Bush's military records!"
Okay. Now can we see yours?
John Kerry: "HALLIBURTON!"
That's him and his hypocrisy in a nutshell. I must say, I am more curious about what is collecting dust in Kerry's military past (like what his true discharge status was before he was Honorably Discharged in 2001 - decades after he actually left the military) than I am about anything else in this election.
Whatever it is, John Kerry is scared to death of it.
Facebook
Twitter