Why is he better able than Bush to fight the War on Terror? Because he "promises to do it smarter." He promises? Even they don't seem to believe their own words, as they go on to observe, "Whether (Kerry) can live up to those promises remains to be seen, and his own contradictory comments about the war and a lackluster 20-year career in the Senate raise some fair doubts."
Like the Post, the Daily News is asking us to ignore Kerry's past and the transparent inconsistency of his present positions like "he won't give foreign powers a veto," even though everything else he says (global test), indicates he will do just that. How is that "smarter"?
But most revealingly, they say, "Kerry offers us the chance for a new beginning. ? Kerry offers the change that America needs for the next four years. But more importantly, at a time when the nation and the world need it most, he offers hope."
There you have it. Though Kerry has given us no legitimate reason to be confident in his promises to be tough on terror, we should find comfort in his romantic rhetoric about strong alliances and his offer of "hope," whatever that means.
This is liberal mushiness at its best. The stark reality is that we need to approach the war with deadly force, not campfire singalongs with double-minded "allies." Well-meaning nations don't need to be talked into joining this just war against the terrorists.
No matter how you cut it, other than the Iraqis themselves, the United States is going to bear the brunt of the costs and casualties in this war. We don't need someone who will lie to you and tell you otherwise.
What we need is someone who not only talks tough against terrorists sometimes, but all the time, and whose actions and record are consistent with his statements. That someone is President Bush.