September 02, 2004

Fair and Valid Criticism; or a Case of 20-20 Hindsight?

"When it comes to Iraq, itÕs not that I would have done one thing differently, I wouldÕve done almost everything differently."

-- John Kerry, speaking yesterday.

More soon.

Posted by Gregory at September 2, 2004 01:50 PM
Comments

er...hindsight

Posted by: zz at September 2, 2004 02:39 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Fair game.

Posted by: praktike at September 2, 2004 03:40 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

John F. Kerry -- He would have everything differently; that is, until he opted to do everything the same.

Posted by: Capt America at September 2, 2004 04:59 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Specific proposals - fair criticism.

No specific proposals - hindsight.

Posted by: Scott Free at September 2, 2004 05:23 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Given his record, his statements about the UN and allies and his personality, it's very unlikely that Kerry would have sent troops to either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Posted by: Jake at September 2, 2004 05:28 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I will continue to criticize Mr. Kerry. But if you believe in the war on al Qaeda terrorism, as I do, you should try to persuade the Democrats to fight that war effectively, rather than pretending that the Democrats don't want to fight that war. So while I loved Mr. McCain's speech, I hated Mr. Miller's, and barring unforeseen developments, I have now decided that I will vote for Mr. Kerry, because vicious lies ought not to be rewarded.

Posted by: Arjun at September 2, 2004 06:54 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

From what I've heard, he wouldn't have gone to war with Saddam Hussein back in 1990. We would now face a nuclear armed Saddam in possession of the Kuwaiti and maybe Saudi old fields. So yes, everything in Iraq would be different if Kerry had been President back in '90.

Posted by: PJ at September 2, 2004 07:06 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

John Kerry, like the Democratic faithful, are not running on any specific platform but opposition to Bush. Rather can campaign on ideas, they campaign on hatred for an individual. And THAT is ridiculous.

I've seen this argument from children on the playground. Children won't argue the merits of why they should get their way, they just want their way and will throw a perfect tantrum to get their way.

Will America be governed by adults or children for the next four years?

Posted by: lugh lampfhota at September 2, 2004 08:20 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Arjun,

You've got it exactly backwards. It's not our job to convince the Democrats that they should put America first, and help fight the war on terror.

Its the Democrats job, as American Citizens, to put Country first, Party second, and cheerfully and eagerly join in the fight to make America safer.

Unless, that is, YOU believe that only Republicans really care about making America safer?

Posted by: Greg D at September 3, 2004 09:12 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

My use of the word "persuade" was a poor choice. However, I never said that the Democrats don't want to help fight the war on al Qaeda terrorism. The Democrats do want to fight the war on terrorism, but they may have somewhat different ideas than the Republicans on how to do that.
What I was trying to say (I admit not very well) is that if you believe in the war on al Qaeda terrorism, it's perfectably acceptable to harshly criticize the Democrats' ideas on how to win that war, but it's divisive and dishonest to falsely accuse the Democrats of not believing in that war. I'm not against "politicizing" the war on al Qaeda terrorism -- it's the most important "political" issue -- but I am against vicious slander.

Mr. McCain's speech exemplified legitimate criticism, whereas Mr. Miller's speech exemplified false accusation.

Posted by: Arjun at September 5, 2004 06:59 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm changing the subject, but what does winning the war on al Qaeda terrorism have to do with the Bush Administration's "tax relief" for Paris Hilton? Doesn't national security cost a lot of money? And doesn't that money come from taxes?

The American Civil Liberties Union shouldn't run the war on al Qaeda terrorism, but neither should the Cato Institute, or Americans for Tax Reform, or the Club for Growth.

Posted by: Arjun at September 6, 2004 01:56 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
"Must-read list"
--Washington Times
"Always Thoughtful"
--Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit
"Pompous Ass"
--an anonymous blogospheric commenter
Recent Entries
Search
English Language Media
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
U.S. Blogs
Western Europe
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Central and Eastern Europe
CIS/FSU
Russia
Armenia
East Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
Middle East
Egypt
Israel
Lebanon
Syria
Columnists
Think Tanks
Security
Books
B.D. In the Press
Archives
Categories
Syndicate this site:
XML RSS RDF

G2E

Powered by