Flip-flopper-in-chief shows his stuff once again
JFK II today:
We know the verdict of our generals: the war cannot be won militarily…Iraqi politicians have proved that they respond only to deadlines – a deadline to transfer authority, and deadlines to hold three elections. It was only the most intense eleventh-hour pressure that pushed aside Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and brought forward a consensus prime minister. It was only the most intense eleventh-hour pressure that forced the Iraqis to complete their government. That is why we need a deadline now for Iraqis to stand up and fight for their own country. It is time to announce that our combat troops are coming home in 2006.
So Kerry’s conclusion today is that Iraqis would dawdle and fool around and the Americans would be in Iraq indefinitely if not for the US setting a “deadline.” In order to believe that, you have to think that Iraqis are very happy to have American troops in Iraq for a long time. Kerry’s position is therefore incompatible with the idea that Americans are feuling the insurgency, that we are “part of the problem.” But here’s what he said a few months ago on CBS:
And part of the problem that feeds the insurgency today is that we are, like it or not, the inheritors of the legacy of both the British and the French. It is not a pretty legacy in that part of the world.
The CBS Kerry thinks American presence is part of the problem feeding the insurgency. Today’s Kerry thinks that the Iraqi government will keep US troops around indefinitely unless he sets a deadline. Which is it? Was he for the insurgency before he was against it? Oh, never mind. Was there ever a worse use of time than trying to tease consistency out of the statements of the flip-flopper-in-chief?
UPDATE
Would Kerry have been with the 256 or the 153 in the House? Was he among the 93 or the 6 in the Senate? Or was he on both sides? And does anyone care?
June 16th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
He was one of the 6 in the Senate.