Monday, November 01, 2004
PARTISAN SCREED OF THE DAY
Another reason I hope the election results are clear is so I can get off my partisan high-horse (low horse?) and get back to normal living. But not today.
Every time I hear John Kerry spout his "we had Osama bin Laden trapped in Tora Bora but then we outsourced the job to Afghan warlords" line, my blood starts to boil. Why?
Here is what John Kerry had to say at the time about the U.S. strategy he now criticizes:
And when asked whether American troops should go in to Tora Bora with napalm and flamethrowers, Kerry said this:
John Kerry, the best Monday-morning quarterback to ever lace up the cleats and play on Lambert field.
I might be inclined to give Kerry's argument some more credence if he would have
1) Acknowledged that his opinion has changed and, therefore, what he said in 2001 was mistaken.
2) Come out clearly in favor of sending more troops to Afghanistan either at the time or now. Ditto for Iraq and Kerry's criticism of the missing explosives. The only way I can see that one can lay this at Bush's doorstep is to argue that Bush listened to Rumsfeld rather than Shinseki et al and the relative lack of troops is responsible for missing OBL in Tora Bora and the missing explosives in Iraq. But does Kerry advocate sending more troops to the Middle East? No. He has gone out of his way to make it clear that he won't (remember the convention speech in which he called for 40,000 more troops but "not for Iraq."). So what is the point of criticizing Bush for doing what you approved of at the time and have declared that you will continue to do in the future?
Every time I hear John Kerry spout his "we had Osama bin Laden trapped in Tora Bora but then we outsourced the job to Afghan warlords" line, my blood starts to boil. Why?
Here is what John Kerry had to say at the time about the U.S. strategy he now criticizes:
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: I think our guys are doing a superb job. I think we've had, things break for us, the way, one would want them to, but in addition, I think the people you just heard, they are trained, they are ready. I think we have been smart, I think the administration leadership has done it well and we are on right track.
And when asked whether American troops should go in to Tora Bora with napalm and flamethrowers, Kerry said this:
"But for the moment, what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way.
John Kerry, the best Monday-morning quarterback to ever lace up the cleats and play on Lambert field.
I might be inclined to give Kerry's argument some more credence if he would have
1) Acknowledged that his opinion has changed and, therefore, what he said in 2001 was mistaken.
2) Come out clearly in favor of sending more troops to Afghanistan either at the time or now. Ditto for Iraq and Kerry's criticism of the missing explosives. The only way I can see that one can lay this at Bush's doorstep is to argue that Bush listened to Rumsfeld rather than Shinseki et al and the relative lack of troops is responsible for missing OBL in Tora Bora and the missing explosives in Iraq. But does Kerry advocate sending more troops to the Middle East? No. He has gone out of his way to make it clear that he won't (remember the convention speech in which he called for 40,000 more troops but "not for Iraq."). So what is the point of criticizing Bush for doing what you approved of at the time and have declared that you will continue to do in the future?
