Saturday, October 02, 2004

A Kerry Mistake in The Debates That Is Gaining Some Traction

Power Line discusses it here. Send this link to all the news media you know and all your friends. I think it says a lot about who Kerry really is. (Note: There's nothing inherently bad about who Kerry really is, but he'll lose the election if that becomes clear to the electorate. That's why it's surprising that he let these statements slip.)


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yep, I'm pretty sure you've got a winning argument there. Pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons would clearly make the world a safer place. As stupid as the "Bush Doctrine" is I don't think even he is so stupid as to use nukes pre-emptively. But what if it is to eliminate WMD's you might ask? How the hell are we ever going to be able to trust that the intelligence is correct in identifying such a thing? I really don't believe you will realize just how big a mistake this iraq situation was until you can look at it removed from the present political situation.

Saturday, October 02, 2004 3:09:00 PM  
Blogger The Hedgehog said...

Dear Anonymous:

Kim Jong Il and his ilk need to know that they will not be able to hide if he ever is foolish enough to use nukes against the U.S. or a U.S. ally. That's the thinking behind the bunker buster nuke. In the Cold Wat they called that a deterrent. In the Cold War John Kerry was for a nuclear freeze, just like he apparently is now.

Fortunately his point of view did not prevail then. With nuclear freeze, the Soviet Union may well have been able to survive.

Of course, your guy was opposed to the Gulf War in 1991 too. (Even the French were involved then. In fact, Bush the elder had a huge international coalition, including all of Europe. Kerry still voted against it.)

Let's see, against the nuclear buildup that beat the Soviets. Against the Gulf War that three Saddam out of Kuwait. And now against the Iraq Ward (I think, it's so hard to tell).

So in J.F. Kerry's world: (1) the Soviets would still be in power, (2) Saddam would still be in power, and (3) Saddam would still be in Kuwait.

Are we seeing the point here?

Saturday, October 02, 2004 10:07:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home