[Speed Gibson,
Sunday October 10, 2004 at 1:45pm]
What Would Wellstone Do?
Dennis Prager made this observation on his program last Wednesday.
It reminded me of an interview of Senator Paul Wellstone from the same period. Wellstone solemnly presented two or three reasons why he was voting no, but (for once!) the reporter pressed the point, asking if these objections could be resolved, would he then favor the war? Wellstone was clearly caught off-guard, and quietly said well, no, there are other problems, too... Saddam Hussein could have invaded Israel, and Wellstone would have voted no. Nothing short of a Pearl Harbor or a 9/11 justifies a war to the 60's leftists, which also includes Senator Kerry.
So Kerry is correct when he says he has always opposed the war in Iraq, He just quit saying that for a while to navigate the Primaries and win the nomination, telling each specific audience what they wanted to hear. We also know how Kerry deals with such situations, given Vietnam: cut and run. The latter won't be pretty so some significant scapegoating will also be ordered as a diversion and excuse.
The fact that John Kerry voted against the first Gulf war is enough not have him as President. You don't have to know anything else about the man. Nothing else matters in my opinion.
There we had an international coalition. There we had the UN backing. There was an invasion by Saddam Hussein of another country which he obliterated from the map and he still opposed it. Everything he claims today to be for he opposed. He's unworthy of the Presidency, but it doesn't matter.
If you hate George Bush, if the thought of having a born-again Christian who believes Jesus is his source of values, who believes that the New Testament is a better place to find values than the New York Times' editorial page, it doesn't matter. You will vote for anyone rather than him, and that is what it amounts to in large measure.
It reminded me of an interview of Senator Paul Wellstone from the same period. Wellstone solemnly presented two or three reasons why he was voting no, but (for once!) the reporter pressed the point, asking if these objections could be resolved, would he then favor the war? Wellstone was clearly caught off-guard, and quietly said well, no, there are other problems, too... Saddam Hussein could have invaded Israel, and Wellstone would have voted no. Nothing short of a Pearl Harbor or a 9/11 justifies a war to the 60's leftists, which also includes Senator Kerry.
So Kerry is correct when he says he has always opposed the war in Iraq, He just quit saying that for a while to navigate the Primaries and win the nomination, telling each specific audience what they wanted to hear. We also know how Kerry deals with such situations, given Vietnam: cut and run. The latter won't be pretty so some significant scapegoating will also be ordered as a diversion and excuse.