I know it's several days since the Diane Sawyer's interview of Sen John Kerry, but it has been pounding in my head today.
Would any thinking person follow someone into battle when the leader is not convicted enough to give a solid answer?
Here is an excerpt from the interview on ABC’s "Good Morning America."
Diane Sawyer: Was the war in Iraq worth it?
John Kerry: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.
Diane Sawyer: So it was not worth it.
John Kerry: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.
Diane Sawyer: So if it turns out OK, it was worth it?
John Kerry: No.
Diane Sawyer: But right now it wasn’t … –
John Kerry: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we’ve done what he’s — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That’s the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.
Diane Sawyer: But no way to get rid of him.
John Kerry: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.
Diane Sawyer: So you’re saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . .
John Kerry: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don’t twist here.
It's crazy! What kind of decisions can be made with this thinking process. If you are in the a small group and you are trying to determine who is going to be the leader, are you going to choose the person that can't answer a question clearly or the person that can answer it clearly and is convicted about his decision?
Kerry followers, please explain why you continue to follow this man. Anyone but Bush isn't an answer either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Saddam was bad. So what. Many dictators are bad. What's the point? Do you propose the U.S. military attack every dictator on the planet? You do realize, of course, this would involve attacking many dictators that the U.S. installed (Saddam being just one of them). Of course no one likes Saddam. Does that justify a war based on deception. Of course not. Bush and company said there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had WMD. There was doubt. They lied. End of story.
The point of the post was to say I wouldn't follow a man who wouldn't decide if an action was the right action until the outcome. Then what the outcome was would determine if it was right or not.
Let's just say that Germany won the WWII. Since in this scenario we lost the War, does that mean standing up against Hitler was wrong? Of course not. If you stood up to the bully who was beating up someone to get his marbles in grade school and you ending up getting beat. You would still have been right in standing up to him.
Kerry and Edwards both stated that Saddam was the most dangerous leader and must be taken out.
Deception? Kerry and Edwards both were a part of that deception then. Along with over 30 other nations.
Saddam broke every resolution the UN put in place. The action that was suppose to be taken if he broke those resolution, was force.
Yes, there are a lot of evil dictators in the World, but Saddam had restrictions placed on him from the UN.
Post a Comment