Strong and Compelling Answers

Kerry has been saying lately, “I have been consistent all along on Iraq. I would have done things differently.”

I’ll tell you this – I follow politics daily, and I have no idea what Kerry’s plan is. He says he’s going to be tough on terror, he wouldn’t go into Iraq, Saddam had to be removed, we did it the wrong way, we must pass a global test first… blah blah blah. After all this time, I can’t figure out his position. “I am against the war I voted for, I would have done things differently but we would have had the same result only better” is the best I can come up with.

I understand George Bush’s plan. Kerry’s attempted to make Bush look like Bush is the one flip-flopping, but that’s a goofy strategy. Everybody knows what Bush’s strategy is: mow terrorists down with tanks. Bush is steadfast and unmoving on this point, and it’s precisely because Bush doesn’t flip flop that the anti-war left hates him.

Bob Woodward of the Washington Post decided to put these concerns to rest. He planned to interview George Bush first, then Kerry second and let Kerry rebut point-by-point what Bush did.

Here’s how that plan went:

At the end of last year, during 3 1/2 hours of interviews over two days, I asked President Bush hundreds of detailed questions about his actions and decisions during the 16-month run-up to the war in Iraq. His answers were published in my book “Plan of Attack.” Beginning on June 16, I had discussions and meetings with Sen. John Kerry’s senior foreign policy, communications and political advisers about interviewing the senator to find out how he might have acted on Iraq — to ask him what he would have done at certain key points. Senior Kerry advisers initially seemed positive about such an interview. One aide told me, “The short answer is yes, it’s going to happen.”

In August, I was talking with Kerry’s scheduler about possible dates. On Sept. 1, Kerry began his intense criticism of Bush’s decisions in the Iraq war, saying “I would’ve done almost everything differently.” A few days later, I provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush’s actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations. The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.

Huh. “The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.”

I still don’t know what Kerry’s plan is, but I can be assured Kerry has strong and compelling answers. Whatever they are.

Intelligence Reform

Via the Washington Post

The Senate voted overwhelmingly yesterday to revamp the structure of the nation’s intelligence community by creating a national intelligence director, a counterterrorism center and other agencies in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The legislation passed 96 to 2. Hmm… that only adds up to 98 Senators. I wonder who didn’t vote on this important counterterrorism legislation? Could it be Senator Gone and Senator Goner?

Yup. That’s right. The Democratic Saviors and Presidential Wannabees Kerry and Edwards can’t be bothered to show up to vote.

Bush Apologize? I Think Not.

There are a couple of liberal websites I read; I find most of them full of vitriol and I avoid them, but some of them have polite, civil discussion. One of them is Something’s Got to Break. He’s posted an article that calls for Bush to apologize for the Iraq war.

I was intrigued by this position; I don’t think Bush has anything to apologize for. I believe, as I’m sure Bush believes, that Iraq was a danger to the US, itself, and Iraq’s neighbors, that Saddam had developed a “just-in-time” capability of WMDs, that sufficient sarin, mustard gas, and enriched uranium has been found, that stopping the torture and mass graves was a very humanitarian thing to do. That the Oil-for-Food program was making Saddam, UN and France officials rich and that’s why they still opposed force after 12 years.

In short, America did what America does best; they liberated a country and are now rebuilding it. No other country that I know of would have attempted such a thing without also attempting to lay claim to Iraq’s soveriegnty.

Something’s Got to Break has also linked to a Dallas News “conservative political columnist and Bush supporter” to call for the apology. After reading the article, he doesn’t sound very conservative to me, but basically he hinges the whole call for apology on a Washington Post poll that says only 45% of the public think the war was worth fighting versus 57% a year ago. I think that could be attributed to a number of things; partially hindsight on the poor quality of our intelligence, but also the unrelentless negativity from the media. If you read most of the liberal news, you’d think there was no evidence of WMD’s, that Americans were happily killing babies in the US quest for more oil. The news doesn’t portray any of the positives; the statues Iraqis have built in praise of American soldiers, the new schools America is building, the Baghdad stock market opening last week (and half of the floor traders are Iraqi women). News like that barely gets mentioned, if at all.

Anyway, if you’d like a more liberal view of the world than can be found here, but a polite, civil, liberal view, I think Something’s Got to Break might fit your needs. I disagree with almost everything he says, but he’s mostly polite about it. 😛