Freddoso then uses Kerry’s own September 6, 2002 New York Times op-ed to save us the “guesswork” of knowing what Kerry would have done as president. “Kerry laid out a very specific plan for dealing with Iraq in an op-ed in the New York Times. And looking back now at that op-ed, it almost appears that Bush took his advice, step by step, through the entire process.” Let me refresh your memory. When Kerry wrote this, the Democrats were having a cow because the polls showed them losing in the election 60 days away.
Bush was running away from them on the war issue, so they wanted back in. Bush already had a resolution authorizing force from Congress, but the Democrats wanted another one ? which is what Kerry argued for in this op-ed that has now come back to bite him. Kerry: “If Saddam is unwilling to bend to the international community and its already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States ? a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.”
Did the administration fool Kerry with falsified WMD intel as Kerry claims? No! Kerry “is on the record talking about Iraq’s WMD threat in 1998, when he said, simply, ‘Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction.’ As early as 1990, he stated in the Senate that ‘Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program.'” I think I’m going to like this Kerry guy for all the fun we’ll have with him, even if he’s a dryball who’d be totally colorless if he didn?t have varicose veins.
You should also read George Neumayr’s column, “John Lennon Kerry.” He gives an interesting take on these so-called foreign endorsements, writing, “[W]hy wouldn’t European appeasers root for a Kerry victory? He’s one of them. From his days as a student at a Swiss boarding school to his 80s nuclear freeze activism in Geneva, Kerry has drunk deeply from the well of continental liberalism, an ideology of appeasement which takes skeptical pride in remaining neutral between good and evil.” Boy, if that doesn’t describe liberals and moderates to a tee, no single sentence does.