And on the issue of Iraq.
President George W. Bush has never wavered from his claim that Saddam Hussein was an enemy of free people everywhere who needed to be removed from power, by diplomacy or by force. Like every president since his father, and like virtually every world leader over the last decade, President Bush expected to find weapons of mass destruction. No weapons have been discovered, but after watching Hussein ignore world opinion for a dozen years, President Bush toppled the dictator and today he sits in a jail cell, awaiting justice for his crimes while Iraq anticipates a free election.
But John Kerry's stand on Iraq is another matter (maybe I should say his position on Iraq, because he certainly has not stood on any position for very long).
On CNN's "Crossfire," John Kerry said, "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." The date of that quote was 1997.
In October 2002 Kerry voted for the war.
In an early debate this year among Democratic candidates, John Kerry said, "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we disarmed him."
In April Kerry said, "It would be unwise beyond belief for the United States of America to leave a failed Iraq in its wake."
Last month Kerry said, even knowing everything he now knows about events in Iraq, "Yes, I would have voted for the authority" of President Bush to wage war.
Now Kerry's line is, Iraq is "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."
Kerry's stump speech now declares that it was a mistake to topple Saddam Hussein. The brutal dictator, responsible for the deaths of uncountable thousands of his own country men, plus other tens of thousands in the Iran-Iraq war, should have been left in power -- according to John Kerry.
In the face of no evidence to support his outrageous claim, Kerry says that President Bush has stopped looking for Osama bin Laden. It may be impossible for John Kerry to walk and chew gum at the same time, but President Bush is quite capable of carrying on the war against terror on two separate fronts.
Meanwhile John Kerry announces that if he is elected, he will quit in Iraq and go home. If you were an Iraqi insurgent hearing that, would you stop the suicide bombings, the beheadings, and the attacks on coalition soldiers and fellow Iraqi's, or would you step up the pressure in hopes of weakening America's resolve?
And to top it all off Teresa Heinz Kerry, with a cynicism surpassing that of the junior Senator from New York, suggests that the capture of Osama bin Laden may be orchestrated in an attempt to defeat her husband.
"I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next month," she told a group of Arizona Democrats last week.
Coming from a supporter of former president Bill Clinton, that statement should surprise no one. As early as 1996, Sudan offered to give bin Laden to the United States, and the Clinton White House said, "There simply was not the evidence to prosecute Osama bin Laden. He could not be indicted, so it would serve no purpose for him to have been brought into U.S. custody." At the same time, the U.S. State Department was calling bin Laden "the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world."
Now Heinz Kerry has the temerity to suggest that the capture of Osama bin Laden would be a bad thing, politically motivated to defeat her husband.
Oh, did I mention that President George W. Bush is responsible for the crash of the Hindenburg, the Chicago fire, the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, the Lindbergh kidnapping, and the blizzard of 1888 and 1996?
=====
© 2004 Agape Press.
