Thursday, July 29, 2004

Dems Extreme Makeover:: Wow. I have a respectful disagreement with a number of people about the war in Iraq. I think they are very wrong, but I respect their somewhat intelligent ideas, which seem to keep consistent over time.

This 11 minute video very clearly shows that Kerry is a different sort. He believes something only so far as his convoluted speech allows for multiple loop-holes, and the media doesn't have the attention span to watch his views morph over time.

It is clear from the video that Kerry changed his opinions on the war in response to the Dean campaign. This is far worse than Dean himself, despite his spastic shortcomings, who at least was honest.

The point isn't that Kerry is correct now or was wrong before, but that he cannot be trusted to do more than respond to the changing winds. This might be something of value in a long serving senator, but with the quick decisions that must be made as Commander and Chief, there is no choice but stalwart dedication to principled action.

This is why Kerry shouldn't be president: not because of a relatively irrelevant voting record, but what his record says about his character.

In the run up to the Iraq war the Daily Show did a segment of George W Bush debating George W Bush on the subject of nation building. Funny to watch, but a cheap tactic, really. It's obvious that changing circumstances will change your positions -- there's a famous quote about that that's on blogs all the time when someone acuses someone else of hypocrisy.
What changed to make Kerry against the war? He seemed to change around the rise of Dean, and nothing else. Also, his complaints didn't so much relate to the situation on the ground, but on how the war was started. Considering it is a view on a past event, I see little that motivates the change but politics.
I changed my views on the war after the congressional vote. I was staunchly pro- going to war based on the fact that I assumed that the Whitehouse wasn’t lying, but when I saw the horseshit intelligence that Powell took up to the UN, I felt that we were going to war based on lies. I seem to recall Kerry saying the same thing during the primaries. Does that make us inconsistent?
In my mind the only place you can reasonably fault Kerry on his iRaq policy is in trusting the administration in the first place a crime of which none of us save Miguel are innocent.

Actually, I was fairly war-neutral for a while, figuring (like everyone) that the government wasn't molesting its intelligence. Plus I reckoned there would be public outcry if we didn't take on a proactive foriegn policy (I think Democrats would've blown up even more stuff after 9-11, given their military insecurity). Eventually, though, I concluded that the war was actually quite contrary to our interests, and was won over argument that Bush's failures in business and Texas governance make him a poor choice to be anything but a do-nothing president (the type typically admired by libertarians). He has not been a do-nothing president, much to my dismay -- his claims of conservatism notwithstanding. I was won over to this position a little before Oded but semi-supported the war to my mom ("eh, it's not so bad, mom") for a little while.
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?