Asking for too much?
No, this article isn't about Bush finding a way to actually speak tonight. . .
I'm hoping beyond hope that someone tonight asks Sen. Kerry: If it's the wrong war at the wrong time, why would you keep troops there?
The way I figure it, that ideology and that policy are mutually exclusive.
If it's the wrong war, then why would you have your troops stay there, risking their lives for one second longer than it takes to sign the order for them to skedaddle? Wrong is wrong, and the President needs to have the moral courage to stand up for what he believes.
BUT, if the stakes in Iraq are so high that our troops' lives are worth the sacrifice, then it isn't the wrong war. Period. Anything with that high of "stakes" with regards to terrorists/insurgents/the security of our interests abroad, whatever--it's a fight worth fighting now.
I don't care if it was the wrong choice back in April of 2003 (a choice that he, by the way, agreed with at the time--and don't give me some whining about misleading. Kerry, as Senator, was one of 500-ish people in America that the President actually has to petition for approval before committing our troops to war--either he took the job seriously and made up his own mind based on the information that he had EXCLUSIVE of the President's propoganda, or he didn't care what happened with our troops. Either way, he can't spin this in a way that makes him look capable of actually being the commander in chief)--I care about what choice is going to be made on Jan. 21st.
Either the troops stay because it is a worthwhile venture--in which case Kerry should apologize publicly to the troops for his most infamous sound bite.
Or it is in fact, in Kerry's mind, the wrong war--in which case Kerry owes it to everybody to tell them the truth about his intentions.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can someone else see this logic? Someone in St Louis, by chance?
I'm hoping beyond hope that someone tonight asks Sen. Kerry: If it's the wrong war at the wrong time, why would you keep troops there?
The way I figure it, that ideology and that policy are mutually exclusive.
If it's the wrong war, then why would you have your troops stay there, risking their lives for one second longer than it takes to sign the order for them to skedaddle? Wrong is wrong, and the President needs to have the moral courage to stand up for what he believes.
BUT, if the stakes in Iraq are so high that our troops' lives are worth the sacrifice, then it isn't the wrong war. Period. Anything with that high of "stakes" with regards to terrorists/insurgents/the security of our interests abroad, whatever--it's a fight worth fighting now.
I don't care if it was the wrong choice back in April of 2003 (a choice that he, by the way, agreed with at the time--and don't give me some whining about misleading. Kerry, as Senator, was one of 500-ish people in America that the President actually has to petition for approval before committing our troops to war--either he took the job seriously and made up his own mind based on the information that he had EXCLUSIVE of the President's propoganda, or he didn't care what happened with our troops. Either way, he can't spin this in a way that makes him look capable of actually being the commander in chief)--I care about what choice is going to be made on Jan. 21st.
Either the troops stay because it is a worthwhile venture--in which case Kerry should apologize publicly to the troops for his most infamous sound bite.
Or it is in fact, in Kerry's mind, the wrong war--in which case Kerry owes it to everybody to tell them the truth about his intentions.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can someone else see this logic? Someone in St Louis, by chance?
1 Comments:
I agree with you, but I am in New York.
Post a Comment
<< Home