|
On Flip-Flopping
by Carlos
It's now pretty difficult for John Kerry to dodge the label of flip-flopper. Speaking at the Republican Convention tonight, both Zell Miller and Dick Cheney provided a lengthy catalogue of Kerry's backward somersaults. It's worth reviewing, and easily available on the web.
But here is just one more example you probably haven't heard. It's not any more important than the others, just funnier. It happened when John Kerry, who we now know is real tough on terrorism (except when he's being "sensitive"), voted against the first Gulf War:
Operation Desert Storm went ahead anyway, and none of Kerry's dire predictions came true.
At which point - with public opinion running heavily in favor of the war - Kerry started waving the flag, hailing Bush Sr.'s "moxie" in leading the war effort.
That flip-flop was hilariously brought out when one of Kerry's constituents accidentally was sent copies of two letters from the senator - one targeted at anti-war constituents and one at those who supported the war.
The first stressed Kerry's demand that "economic sanctions be given more time to work" and how he'd warned the Senate "that a decision to go to war was 'rolling the dice' with our future."
The second, dated just nine days later, emphasized how "I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established... in standing up this shocking aggression in the Persian Gulf."
(Eric Fettmann, "All Over the Map on Iraq," New York Post, August 11, 2004.)
OK, so politicians are supposed to be insincere. But does one really have to be so shameless about it?
Dick Cheney put it well tonight: "Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas. It makes the whole thing mutual - America sees two John Kerrys."
And now, with the glee of a kid sister catching her brother with his hand in the cookie jar, the Democrats seize upon a comment by Bush suggesting that the war on terrorism might actually be a difficult one to win, as if to say, "Oo lookit, he does it too!"
Is that really the best they can do in their pitiable effort to prove that Bush is as lacking in integrity as Kerry? The need to reach so far to find this measly mite only shows more clearly the difference between the two men.
Agree with Bush or disagree, like him or hate him, at least his word counts for something. At least you know where he stands.
Kerry's flip-flops all have to do with taking both sides of an issue. They show contempt for the public's intelligence, as well as a deep cynicism. Bush's little flub on the war against terrorism was evidence of no such inconsistency. He has always maintained that this war would be long and hard-fought, and different from other wars. Putting this comment in the same class as Kerry's duplicity is a sign of sheer desperation.
If flip-flopping were an Olympic sport, John Kerry would win the gold.
One final observation. I didn't need any newscasts to tell me what went on with the massive demonstrations this week. I live one block from Union Square, and almost didn't survive my immersion in the crowds when they came to town. Those demonstrators displayed far more hatred for America than outrage at the terrorists. And John Kerry, who tells us he defended his country and who keeps insisting that Bush disavow his overzealous partisans, had nothing to say about it.
It is hard to believe this is happening in a city that just three years ago suffered the most devastating attack ever on American soil.
Bush has his faults. But John Kerry simply does not inspire the confidence needed in a leader at this critical time in history.
But maybe Kerry has a good strategy after all. If you keep taking both sides of issue, then you're always sure to be right.
And a stopped clock is right twice a day.
|
