Kerry's incoherence on preemption

Washington Times Editorial:

...

Mr. Kerry, by contrast, has been all over the map on pre-emption over the past two years. In his Oct. 9, 2002, Senate floor speech endorsing the use of force against Saddam Hussein, Mr. Kerry made a powerful implicit case for pre-emption. "In the wake of September 11, who among us can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater — a nuclear weapon — then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios? ... [C]an we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?" Yet, minutes later, Mr. Kerry blithely asserted that the resolution he was about to vote for did not represent an endorsement of the Bush pre-emption doctrine.
By 2003, Mr. Kerry managed to transform himself into a harsh critic of pre-emption. In a Dec. 3 speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, for example, Mr. Kerry attacked the Bush administration for being "enthralled by the idea of preemption." In a speech at Georgetown University, he said the Bush administration relies "unwisely on the threat of military pre-emption against terrorist organizations." Then, on July 16, Mr. Kerry appeared to re-endorse pre-emption: "Am I prepared as president to go get them before they get us if we locate them and have the sufficient intelligence? You bet I am." Notice the use of the pronoun "I"— Mr. Kerry now seems to be saying he alone will act. (No need to consult with Jacques Chirac or Kofi Annan here.) But apparently, Mr. Kerry's latest position does not appear to have been conveyed to the writers of the 2004 Democratic platform. That document denounces Mr. Bush for pursuing a policy of "unilateral pre-emption."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more