Wednesday, April 21, 2004

Mr. Kerry Revises (washingtonpost.com): "'Iraq,' Mr. Bush said at his news conference last week, 'will either be a peaceful democratic country or it will again be a source of violence, a haven for terrorists, and a threat to America and to the world.'
Mr. Kerry now argues that there is a third option. But what would that be? 'I can't tell you what it's going to be,' he said to reporters covering his campaign. 'That stability can take several forms.' True; in the Middle East, there is the stability of Islamic dictatorship, the stability of military dictatorship and the stability of monarchical dictatorship. In Lebanon, there is the stability of permanent foreign occupation and de facto ethnic partition. None is in the interest of the United States; all have helped create the extremism and terrorism against which this nation is now at war."


WaPo gets it. I'm glad to see that they are critical of Kerry, and that they understand exactly what is at stake in Iraq. I've heard Kerry saying over the past week or so that we need a stable Iraq in whatever form we can get it, and that infuriates me. As the WaPo says here, it would be a return to the old status quo of propping up friendly dictators--the very status quo that got us where we are now. Read the whole thing. (And no, I didn't post this just because it's critical of Kerry and not Bush. They also criticize the President, so there.)

No comments: