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

Coherence v incoherence

Cal Thomas:

In his speech Tuesday to the United Nations General Assembly, President Bush was a beacon of coherence, further distancing himself from Senator's Kerry's incoherence on Iraq, as he again unapologetically stood by his decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

The president's speech was a study in convictions (his) and contrasts (with Kerry). In his response, Kerry again mentioned few concrete proposals other than his previously stated promise to withdraw troops within four years.

...

In a response to the president's U.N. address, Senator Kerry said the president had "failed to level with the American people." That from someone who has been on so many sides of the Iraq issue he resembles a person suffering from multiple personality disorder.

...

Kerry now says he is glad Saddam is gone, but he doesn't like the way the president chose to get rid of him. But Kerry has never provided a credible alternative to ousting Saddam, or said how he would have forced Saddam to comply with U.N. resolutions or stop the murder of his own people, beyond the already proven empty rhetoric of asking for help from our European "allies" (who have made it quite clear they have no intention of helping in Iraq no matter who is president next year).

Perhaps realizing that more help is not on the way, Kerry's response to the president's address included this slight position shift: "Even if other nations won't undertake risky operations, they can do something." Cooking, perhaps? Tour guides? Song leaders? Whatever could he mean?

War needs soldiers. Too many of those who want the benefits of peace are unwilling to fight for it under the misguided impression that their pacifism (or cowardice) will buy them protection. It won't. It only delays the inevitable threat to free people everywhere.

Kerry's belief that multilateral approaches to fighting terrorism demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of fighting a war against islamic terrorist. From the very beginning President Bush has said that the coalition would vary depending on the current target. There is nothing inherently wrong with that approach It is a mistake to require consensus of parties whose interest do not coinside with ours in order to take actions. Since the fall of Iraq, there has been significant evidence that many who opposed the US liberation of Iraq had financial interest in keeping the despot in power. Why would Kerry think it important that these people agree with us before taking action. The fact of the matter is that he did not want to take action and he is using then as a convient excuse. Kerry wanted to bluff and posture and hope but not really take decesive action. In other words, he wanted to use the Clinton 98 approach that was previously unsuccessful but backed by "all the right countries."