I am gratified that John
Kerry has finally decided to bring his campaign into the present millennium and
focus on Iraq. Now, let's have a genuine discussion about that issue.
Based
on his speech in New York on Monday, it's obvious that Kerry wants to limit the
discussion to President Bush's policies on Iraq, leaving his own mindless meandering
on the matter out of the equation.
Sorry, but that just won't get it. In
order to evaluate the issue of the Iraq War for purposes of the presidential race,
we need to know what Kerry would do there (beyond his generalized four point plan)
-- and what he would have done there.
With that in mind, I'd like to see
the media ask Kerry a few questions about his Iraq policy. Of course, that would
require Kerry to come out of hiding and submit to a real interview with real questions.
Here are just a few, multi-part, somewhat complex questions -- to satisfy Kerry's
signature fondness for complexity.
Senator, in the finest moment of eloquence
in your career -- at least in your mind -- you asked, "How do you ask a man to
be the last man to die (in Vietnam) for a mistake?" To refresh your memory, Senator,
you were urging that the United States withdraw from Vietnam posthaste because
we were engaged in an illegal, immoral war. You have never retreated from that
statement and continue to wear it as a badge of honor. Unlike your medals -- or
was it ribbons? -- you will never throw this one away.
In your New York
speech, sporting the same antiwar mindset you proudly wore in 1971, you essentially
pronounced America's military action against Iraq a mistake. You said we should
"begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring
all our troops home within the next four years." Which brings me to my first question.
If
our military action against Iraq was and is a mistake, Senator, how do you ask
a man to be the last man to die (in Iraq) for a mistake? Why not withdraw our
troops in four months? Better yet, four weeks? Four days? Four hours?
Next,
Senator, let's take you at your word -- as utterly unbelievable as it is -- that
in 2002 you voted to give President Bush authority to attack Iraq with the understanding
-- that you must have divined from some powerful '60s tea leaves -- that he would
not attack until he'd satisfied a number of conditions. One of those conditions
was that the president would continue to grovel at the defiant feet of Saddam
Hussein and ask him countless more times to please quit being so mean to the U.N.
weapons inspectors.
Another was that the president would agree to play "Mother
may I?" with France, Germany and Russia until they stopped being on the take in
the U.N. "Oil for Food" scandal. Yet another was that President Bush, before initiating
"shock and awe" would devise a failsafe plan for "winning the peace." Apparently
what this meant was that the president, with a clairvoyance usually reserved to
God himself, should have been able to devise a military course of action that
would not only rout Saddam Hussein in short order, but would guarantee there would
be no insurgent and terrorist resistance. I suppose it also meant that this plan
should have ensured that we would not sustain 1,000 casualties, given the seemingly
magical significance of that number.
But wait. You raised something else
in your speech -- not for the first time -- beyond the pre-war conditions. You
also invoked your next favorite line of attack (or should I say "excuse?"): that
you voted to give the president authority to attack Iraq primarily to arm him
with leverage to carry out a meaningful threat against Saddam.
Taking you
at your word (an extremely charitable gesture, I might note) that you only voted
for the Iraq war resolution based on your list of conditions and to give the president
bargaining power against Saddam, I have another question.
If Iraq did not
constitute a significant threat to the United States and did not have ties to
Al Qaeda, Senator, as you also said in your speech, then precisely what did you
think the president should threaten Saddam about? And if indeed Saddam was no
threat, why did you insist on imposing all those meaningless pre-war conditions
on the president? If, as you say, the war was a mistake, there is no purpose in
those pre-war conditions or threats.
Correction. There is a purpose: to
provide you cover for your many irreconcilable positions on this war.
All
pages copyright David Limbaugh 1994-2004
