Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Search "Jewish Current Issues"

Israel News

  • Israel News Ticker

Boker tov, Boulder!

Blog powered by Typepad

« Explaining It All Away | Main | Iran »

December 09, 2005



Reminds me of "I voted for it before I voted against it."
This loser is clueless.
I saw Kerry on Imus this morning. He was lip-sticked up and is truly stuck on stupid.

St Wendeler - Another Rovian Conspiracy

This is why Dean's anti-war stance is terrible for the Democratic party. The public already sees the Dems as being weak on defense, which dates back to the Carter years at least. Dean only solidifies that, which is problematic in its own right. But the other factor that really is cause for concern amongst "red staters" is that the Dems will act as if they're strong on defense up to point at which things get difficult. And Kerry is the personification of that phenomenon. He authorizes the war, pushes to keep the troops in and describes the calamity that would follow a premature US withdrawal, and then pushes for that very thing.

Say what you will about W, the man does not give in to the shifting political winds... He certainly is steadfast in his determination to transform the Middle East.

elsie civil

john kerry is a fraud.a jfk wannabe.he long ago realized he has the same initials as his hero and set out present himself as the new jfk.however, his 3/12 mos. on a swift boat in viet nam and his subsequent demand for medals is an absolute disgrace.i only hope (and pray) that he and hillary get into a slugfest for the dem.nomination and we get to see their real characters. e civil


The democrats will fight. It's just got to be the right cause.
To preserve slavery for instance.

civil one

Can you really equate Kerry's stance against a too soon troop withdrawal in 2003 with his call for a major but not complete withdrawal three years later? If so, do you really think that Iraq is no more secure and stable now than it was in December of 2003? Then, he was concerned we would leave too soon. And now he is concerned we will stay too long. No contradiction.


Three years ago when Kerry made these pronouncments, was a few weeks before he said "The wrong war, at the wrong place , at the wrong time" to drain offf the antiwar democrats in the Howard Dean camp.
Or to summarize, Yes, Civil One, I do equate the two statements. Neither of Kerry's positions (he has so many!)has anything at all to do with security or stability in Iraq.


Not three years...It's only been two.

Bill Faith

Excellent post. I've added a link from my "Surrendercrats" post at http://smalltownveteran.typepad.com/posts/2005/12/surrendercrats.html.


Civil One -- how nuanced! Not too soon, not too long, we'll just leave right in the middle!


The problem with Kerry's proposition that he didn't want to leave too soon, nor stay too late is that NOBODY has yet said that the Iraqis are capable of handling the security situation on their own.

Now if Kerry had gone to Iraq in the last few months, and came to that conclusion, that would be one thing. But we know for a fact, that he hasn't been to Iraq for a year. AND THAT WHEN HE CAME BACK FROM THAT TRIP, HE CALLED FOR MORE TROOPS, which he repeated as little as 6 months ago.

So last year, and 6 months ago he calls for more troops, and now 6 months later, he wants a withdraw. And NO GENERAL in the field has said that the Iraqis are ready.

So what are we to make of his statements????????????????

We know damn well what to make of it. He is trying to seal up the base of the party while Hillary is out there triangulating. That's what the hell he is doing. He is playing politics with the war. But that's not a first for him, now is it?

Why doesn't that twit just shut the hell up, and try to redress his non-existant legislative record.

Lay off foreign policy, and see if he can get something passed, other than having a post-office named for some Dem political hack.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Article Archive