More on Kerry's speech from Monday
Apparently, Kerry's new line is: "Saddam was bad--but if we'd known two years ago that all of our efforts in Iraq would ONLY accomplish the removal of Saddam from power, then I think that the war would not have been supported. Or at least, I wouldn't have supported it--and I definitely wouldn't have taken this country down that road!"
A response that I'd like to see: a gentle reminder that as far back as 1998, this country's policy towards Iraq was the support of regime change. The big "idea" behind HR 4655: "the United States . . . look(s) forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government." This resolution was signed into law by Pres. Clinton on Halloween, 1998, under the title "The Iraqi Liberation Act".
Most noteworthy of 4655: nary a word about WMD. Not a single one.
But the following comprises the entirety of paragraph 2: "Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region."
That's the law of the land, good Senator. Aren't you supposed to uphold the laws of the land?
If so, then how can you say that the removal of Saddam was "not enough"? How can you say that the enforcement of a law almost 5 years on the books--that you voted in favor of-- is not the "right" course of action for this country to pursue? And how can you seriously believe that the efforts the U.S. has has made in Iraq--all of which are in perfect keeping with the Iraqi Liberation Act--have somehow been at odds with the security interests of this country?
I think there's some room for the Bush campaign to bring this out. The only downside: it doesn't deal with 30 years ago. I wonder if Kerry would even engage on this topic?
A response that I'd like to see: a gentle reminder that as far back as 1998, this country's policy towards Iraq was the support of regime change. The big "idea" behind HR 4655: "the United States . . . look(s) forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government." This resolution was signed into law by Pres. Clinton on Halloween, 1998, under the title "The Iraqi Liberation Act".
Most noteworthy of 4655: nary a word about WMD. Not a single one.
But the following comprises the entirety of paragraph 2: "Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region."
That's the law of the land, good Senator. Aren't you supposed to uphold the laws of the land?
If so, then how can you say that the removal of Saddam was "not enough"? How can you say that the enforcement of a law almost 5 years on the books--that you voted in favor of-- is not the "right" course of action for this country to pursue? And how can you seriously believe that the efforts the U.S. has has made in Iraq--all of which are in perfect keeping with the Iraqi Liberation Act--have somehow been at odds with the security interests of this country?
I think there's some room for the Bush campaign to bring this out. The only downside: it doesn't deal with 30 years ago. I wonder if Kerry would even engage on this topic?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home