Iraq: a distraction from the Global War on Terror

Micky Kaus, a Democrat & Kerry supporter, doesn't mind pointing out discrepancies (scroll down to "Monday, October 25, 2004") in his candidate's many positions:

Finally, the Kerry camp may regret calling attention to that McLaughlin transcript. Earlier in the interview--which, remember, took place two months after 9/11, in the middle of our Afghan campaign against the Taliban--McLaughlin asks Kerry "What do we have to worry about [in Afghanistan]?" Here's the last part of Kerry's answer:

I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis? [Emphasis added]

Wait--I thought shifting the focus to Saddam was a "diversion" and distraction from the fight against Al Qaeda! Not, apparently, when Kerry saw an opportunity to score political points by advocating it.

The emphasis in the above transcript is Kaus's. Later in the same posting, he inserts this little editorial exchange:

[But you're for Kerry--ed. Yes. But just between us he's such a pathetic bull------r.]

Comments

is it or isn't

What struck me about your heading was if the war is truly global then how can Iraq be a distraction?

Syndicate content