August 10, 2004

So is it over?

As widely reported:

"Kerry said he would have cast the same Yes vote in Congress that he did on Oct. 11, 2002, to authorize the president to launch a pre-emptive war that began March 19, 2003, even if Kerry had known that Saddam Hussein had no ties with Al Qaeda terrorists, no weapons of mass destruction and posed no real threat to the world."

How is this anything less than Kerry slitting his own throat? Besides just being wrong in principle, it makes no sense politically. If Kerry can't distinguish his stance on Iraq from that of Bush, he's nowhere.



Lane Collins said...

That sounds like a giant "DOH!"

goldman said...

There just aren't that many reasons for taking this stance. Basically, you do it so you can have the same power as president ... to declare pre-emptive war.

What the fuck is that?!

I think this will be pointed to as the moment where he lost the campaign.

goldman said...

And the sad thing is, how much can his losing matter if he would've had the same fucked up stance on invading Iraq.