July 15, 2004

For And Against, Too


From Rich Lowry at NRO: Two Johns, Two Positions: What's the Dems' position on Iraq? (Hat tip TIA Daily)

If Kerry wants to avoid the dishonor of voting for a war of choice, he has to admit that toppling Saddam Hussein was in some sense necessary. Indeed, Kerry said before the war that Saddam had to accept "rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise" (he didn't), or face "enforcement" (he did). John Edwards was even more forthright. Liberal critics have accused Bush of calling Iraq an "imminent" threat -- in their minds, the ultimate in dishonest exaggeration -- but that word never passed Bush's lips. Edwards, in contrast, used it multiple times in reference to Iraq.

John "Imminent" Edwards now has forgotten his earlier alarmism. "When John Kerry is president of the United States," he said the other day, "no young American will ever go to war needlessly because America has decided to go it alone." How does a war against an "imminent" threat suddenly become "needless"? And again, why would Edwards, together with Kerry, vote to authorize such a "needless" war?

The title for the cartoon comes from a prior Kerry cartoon.

Try TIA Daily for FREE:

Enter your e-mail address above and click on the arrow to receive a free 30-day trial of TIA Daily.

Posted by Forkum at July 15, 2004 05:36 PM