George Bush is right. People know where he stands. Kerry is also firmly positioned, it's just the ground under him that keeps moving. It's like he's firmly positioned on one of those moving sidewalks that they have in the airports. Fortunately for Kerry, he has the tool of literate vagueness to defend his firm positions.
John Kerry wants to "improve alliances". How? He didn't quite get into that during the debate. But he did complain about Bush's failure to transfer authority to the U.N. after the fall of Baghdad:
"...Kofi Annan offered help after Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that and did what was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run."
So we can infer what is meant by "improving alliances". He means ceding national security decisions to other nations. The fighting wasn't over for Christ's sake, and Kerry is willing to pass the buck on protecting the lives of American soldiers.
We also know that Kerry does not understand the war against terrorism:
"I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden."
First of all, John Kerry is a sleazeball. The implication is that it takes the "focus" (one of Kerry's favorite words) of the entire U.S. military to look for bin Laden. I.e., since we're in Iraq, we're obviously not "focusing" on bin Laden. What a narrow-minded prick. Second of all, this is a war against terrorists funded and supplied by nations. The goal is not Osama bin Laden. His is just one of the many corpses that will need to be stepped over on the way to tutoring certain terrorist-supporting theocracies in the practice of nonviolence.
"Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us."
But wait, John. It wasn't Osama bin Laden who attacked us. It was a bunch of hijackers, and they're all dead.
Perhaps John Kerry wants to interview al Qaeda members one by one before we fire a bullet, just to make sure we don't kill any terrorists without a direct connection to September 11.
Kerry also said that the President "didn't have a plan to win the peace". His evidence, obviously, is the fact that terrorists still exist in the country he claims has nothing to do with terrorism.
Jim Lehrer asked John Kerry, "Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, 'How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?' Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?"
Kerry's answer was:
"No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering."
So, now it wasn't a mistake? Here's some advice. Never trust a dishonest man. Words to live by, huh?
Here's one of Kerry's more outrageous statements about Iraq:
"Now, if you break it, you made a mistake. It's the wrong thing to do. But you own it. And then you've got to fix it and do something with it."
Evidently, Kerry thinks that Iraq is worse off now than with Saddam Hussein in power.
Here's my favorite John Kerry line of the night:
"Well, first of all, I appreciate enormously the personal comments the president just made. And I share them with him. I think only if you're doing this -- and he's done it more than I have in terms of the presidency -- can you begin to get a sense of what it means to your families."
Pretty soon these Democrats will be telling us that they invented the Internet.
George Bush didn't win the debate with a knockout. But he did win it on points, with Kerry throwing the occasional weak jab and getting away with a few shots below the belt. Bush was clear, direct, explained his positions, and was even ballsy.
How often does a politician bring up a controversial stance, in order to make a point about his willingness to make independent decisions and to explain his reasoning behind it? Bush did that:
"My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions.
And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.
And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted.
My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense. I'm interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America."
In contrast, take Kerry's most courageous act of unilateral doubletalking:
"No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
In Kerry's view, preemptive war is acceptable "when you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." In other words, it's legitimate when you have legitimate reasons. I think what Kerry is really saying is that preemptive war is ok just as long as it's not preemptive.
Maybe the "global test" is sort of like a pregnancy test. The United States should shove the entire planet between its legs and see if it changes color.
"Well, the Earth turned purple. It must be ok to attack!"
John Kerry is like a bad movie villain. He's way too easy for the good guys to shoot down.
