Kerry’s Remarks Were At The Wrong Time And Place
By Monte Kuligowski (09/10/04)
“It’s the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.” Those words from Senator Kerry don’t date back some 30 years to his anti-war protesting days. They weren’t uttered at an anti-American rally, and they’re not in reference to Vietnam. Those words from John Kerry date back to last Monday while campaigning in Pennsylvania and they’re in reference to the Iraq War.
The former mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, was right. Senator Kerry still has time to change his position on the war a few more times before the election. With the left-wing media reporting hard on the death toll in Iraq reaching 1,000, the political winds are swirling. And it appears to be impossible for political opportunists to stand against the force of those winds.
The death toll is being reported as a “grim milestone,” and liberal reporters are using the number of fallen troops to emotionally reinforce their position. You know, that the war with Iraq is unnecessary and not at all related to the global war on terror. How else do you explain the following diversion in the middle of a troop-death-toll-story by Associated Press writer, Hamza Hendawi: “The Bush administration has long linked the Iraq conflict to the war on terrorism. The Sept. 11 Commission, however, concluded that Iraq and al-Qaida did not have a ‘collaborative relationship’ before the 2001 attacks . . . .” Can you say, non sequitur?
Before commenting on Kerry’s taking of the media bait, the above bit of reporting needs to be addressed, at least briefly. Can you follow the liberal logic? Bush linked Iraq to a terrorist threat. But the Commission found that Iraq wasn’t involved with 9/11. Therefore, Iraq was not a real threat to America. If Saddam wasn’t a real threat, then the war was unnecessary and our troops died in vain.
In order to take the bait, liberal Democrats had to go so far out on a limb that they are now unable to return to a reputable position on the war.
Yes, Bush said, and continues to say, without flip-flopping, that Saddam was a friend of terrorists and Iraq was a haven for the same. And as everyone knows, the 9/11 Commission noted that although Iraq wasn’t involved with the airplane bombings, a relationship between Saddam and terrorists – including Bin Laden himself – did exist. With Mr. Hendawi’s piece of misleading reporting aside, let’s apply just a smidgen of common sense. Saddam hated America (He still does, but it’s sort of irrelevant now). Muslim terrorists hate America. Saddam once had and used chemical and biological weapons, causing mass destruction. Saddam had no inhibitions against killing tens of thousands of people with chemical weapons – remember the mass graves found? How much of a stretch would it be to imagine Hussein selling a few artillery shell-heads filled with sarin gas to terrorists to be used against America? You know, just like the ones found in May of this year in WMD-free Iraq.
The war on terror is a proactive war. On 9/11 America learned that we can’t sit around waiting for the U.N. to protect us. Now is no time to be ambivalent on this point; especially in light of the focus on the death toll reaching 1,000 in Iraq. The Democratic candidate calls this number a “tragic milestone,” in the “wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.” But the use of anti-war language is no way to comfort the families of the soldiers, sailors and airmen who gave their lives for our country. And, although Mr. Kerry says “our nation honors their service,” his contradictory words would seem to deflate any sense of honor for those brave individuals who gave the ultimate sacrifice. The Democrats are making a terrible mistake by hinting at the present war being Bush’s Vietnam. If they can’t distinguish Iraq from Vietnam, they are still living in another era.
No, we’re not in the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place. But certainly, Mr. Kerry’s remarks were at the wrong time in the wrong place. Someone aspiring for the office of Commander-in-Chief should be able to sincerely honor America’s fallen heroes – without dishonoring them in the same speech.
If only Mr. Kerry could have stuck with his original position on the war. He then could be viewed as a man of principle and he would be able to truly honor the troops; both the living and the dead.
The one-thousand “milestone” is no reason to backtrack when the cause is just. Remember D-Day, when three times that number of American troops fell in a single day; in an effort to liberate our fair-weather ally, France. I guess the naysayer could say the battle on the shores of Normandy was unnecessary and the plan could have been better. But such a naysayer does not possess the requisite moral fortitude to be our next Commander-in-Chief.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Monte Kuligowski
