In a knee-jerk, anti-Vietnam-like, deja vu moment, the enlightened senator and best friend of that intoxicated-even-when-he-isn't-drunk flamethrower, Ted Kennedy, promised to avoid a quagmire in Iraq, saying, "It will not take long to do what is necessary" there.
Then, doing an unwitting impersonation of the man (Richard Nixon) all Democrats continue to loathe almost as much as President Bush, Kerry said, "It will not be like Vietnam. I will get our troops home from Iraq with honor and with the interests of our country entirely protected." Hold it -- isn't that exactly like Vietnam was supposed to be? Vietnamization, anyone?
Disturbingly, ominously, Kerry referred to Iraq as the "death zone." "I'm not going to tell you we won't shift deployments from one place to another, but we're not going to be engaged in an active kind of death zone the way we are today," said Kerry.
Chew on that for a minute. We can conduct war from distant ships that fire cruise missiles or from bombers 30,000 feet over enemy terrain, but we will not put our troops in harm's way.
I challenge you to find some coherency in John Kerry's approach to terrorism and Iraq. If our cause in Iraq is important, wasn't it worth pursuing despite our failure to persuade every last one of the nations Kerry deemed indispensable to the coalition, like France and Germany, to join us?
And shouldn't we continue until we complete the mission, rather than allowing the antiwar voices at home to prevail -- as Senator Kerry and his ilk did 30 years ago?
At this point in our national history, nothing is more important -- apart from spiritual things -- than how we provide for our national security. With President Bush, at least, we know where we stand. We know where he stands.
We know he has the courage and leadership to steer the ship of state in the direction of the nation's best interests during this time of war. With John Kerry, we truly don't have a clue.