Sunday, October 24, 2004

Kerry gives strong, compelling, nonanswers

According to this WaPo article, Kerry is avoiding answering tough questions from Woodward even though President Bush submitted himself to them:

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. [emphasis added to increase hilarity]
“Yeah, we’re not going to answer those questions, but if we did…Man! Would our answers be great!” No one knows what the Zell his answers would be, but since Kerry's giving them, we're in for a treat! This is typical Kerry behavior: I would be a better President than Bush because I am John Kerry. By mere virtue of my service in Vietnam, senatorial demeanor, uncommon intelligence, aristocratic blood, and service in Vietnam, I can rule you peons better than anyone. Submit to your rightful ruler.

Of all of Woodward's questions, I would most like to see Kerry answer this one:
6. On June 1, 2002, President Bush announced his preemption doctrine.

Questions: Do you agree with it? What are the acceptable conditions for preemptive war? Bush has said that he believes the United States has a "duty to free people," to liberate them. Do you agree? Under what circumstances?
Kerry has thus far come across as fiscally liberal-bordering-on-socialist, but as a foreign policy realist. Kerry has said:

the goal here . . . is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy. I can't tell you what it's going to be, but a stable Iraq. And that stability can take several different forms.
Stability over democracy? Different forms? A cynical realist position, devoid of idealism and in sharp contrast with Bush’s gung-ho crusade for democracy and freedom. How can so-called “liberals” support such an illiberal candidate?

Oh yeah, right. He’s not Bush. I guess its worth compromising on the spread of human freedom to unseat Bushitler since he, you know, can subpoena your library record --screeching violin music—without you knowing!

What a bunch of tools.


Post a Comment

<< Home