What Kerry really wants to say.
What better way to answer this question than to peek inside the mind of John Kerry and see what he would really like to say. So I put on my tinfoil hat, attached electrodes to my AM radio, turned the knob, and there it was. I had tuned into the frequency of John Kerry’s internal dialogue. Here is the transcript of what I heard.
Reporter: Duelfer also said that Saddam fully intended to resume his weapons of mass destruction program because he felt that the sanctions were just going to fitter away.
John Kerry’s Internal Dialogue: Yummy fritter’s! I love fritters. I bet Bush hates fritters. Were fritters invented in France? I bet the world would be a happier place if I gave fritters to everyone. I could give fritters to Iran and if they eat them, they will like me. I bet Saddam would like a fritter. I wonder if fritters taste good with ketchup on them? I will have to ask Teresa.
Reporter: You just said [Bush] fictionalized him [Saddam] as an enemy. Now you just said he’s dangerous?
John Kerry’s Internal Dialogue: NO, I DID NOT SAY THAT! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM? I am John ‘three purple hearts, war hero’ Kerry. What I said is I have a plan; a plan that involves free fritters for everyone. The President does not want to give free fritters to anyone. The president wants all the fritters for himself. If I were president, Saddam would not have been dangerous. I would have traveled to Iraq, meet with Saddam, and offered him a fritter. The president went about this war the wrong way. He rushed to war without a plan to win the peace; I told the president that to win the peace he must give the Iraq’s fritters. And that is all I have to say about that. Free Kool-aid for everyone.
Well it is obviuos that Kerry thinks the whole world needs a fritter. And if you believe in the John Kerry’s Fritter Plan, then drink some more Kool-aid and go to the polls Nov. 2 and vote for John ‘Fritter’ Kerry.
Loading ...
What is RSS?
Ghost Dansing
Kerry should really point out that Pentagon officials have indicated that they plan to send as many as 15,000 more troops to Iraq during the first four months of 2005, and President Bush continues to insist that ”we will stay the course” until Iraq is stabilized.
Where will the additional troops come from? The Bush administration insists that there will be no draft, but the ”backdoor draft” that has kept so many from the Reserve and National Guard on active duty has backfired, as quotas for new enlistments have not been met. So plans are already advanced for fully mobilizing the Reserve and National Guard.
But how many troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq? The well-respected International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, before which the president spoke last November, says 500,000. Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told Congress publicly before the war that ‘’several hundred thousand” troops would be needed. It turns out that he was asking for 400,000, fully aware that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was planning to attack and occupy Iraq with just a fraction of that. Rumsfeld gave him the back of his hand.
At this point, to be unaware of the requirement for additional troops while watching the burgeoning chaos in Iraq, requires a Ph.D. in denial. Indeed, cracks can be seen within the president’s own camp regarding what is happening in Iraq.
While the president promotes the bromide of ”months of steady progress” in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., calls this a ”grand illusion.” Last month, Secretary of State Colin Powell gave tacit, but unambiguous support to the gloomy conclusions reached in the recent National Intelligence Estimate.
President Bush says that he will provide more troops if commanders ask for them. But it would mean early retirement for any general making such a request before the election.
As for the resistance to U.S. occupation, disingenuousness persists. The president has assured us that there are only ”a handful of people who are willing to kill” to thwart U.S. aims.
The confirmations that Bush lied about Saddam’s non-existent ties to Al Quida, 9/11 and Weapons of Mass Destruction mean one vital thing above all: this administration can no longer conduct a credible foreign policy. Not in the next four years, four months or four days.
It’s not about whether the Iraqi invasion was “worth it.” Or whether the world is safer without Saddam Hussein.
It’s about the inevitable next crisis. About the fact that this administration has taken the world to war on false pretenses.
And that it will never be believed again: It lied to the American people. It lied to Congress. It lied to the global community.
Next time, Bush will not be believed by any of them, no matter what the truth or urgency of the situation. The public, the Congress, the UN have all been burned, and “won’t be fooled again.”
So in all practical terms, Bush has nullified his ability to act on the world stage.
Therefore, he cannot conduct a credible foreign policy. He cannot protect America. He must resign.
October 8th, 2004 at 7:07 pmThe Yell
We are continually recruiting Iraqi forces to take over the security and defense of Iraq. Random violence hasn’t interfered with that process.
October 8th, 2004 at 7:26 pmI question the competence of any British organization to draft plans for the deployment of 500,000 troops. The entire British Army is only 140,000 men.
We have left over 90% of reserves unmustered, and a temporary shortfall in recruiting can be answered with a extension in troop rotation.
No general was forced into early retirement for disputing the Admin war figures.
Anonymous
It’s so hard at times to pick between the less of two evils, especially when what we are doing is fighting evil itself. That being said after the Dulfur report and seeing the way the president responded has lead me to the conclusion that I can’t support him this year. The reason I don’t agree with you any more is the new report that came out yesterday. I no longer can say with a clear conscience that Iraq was an imminent threat, and I think that the President is stubborn to a flaw in not admitting his mistake. I think in the time we’ve wasted in Iraq, Iran and North Korea have become stronger and have made both us and our allies less safe as a result. In addition, I do agree and have agreed with a point Kerry made tonight that our ports are not safe right now and the likelihood of terrorists shipping a weapon through those ports is indeed the threat of the future.
October 9th, 2004 at 5:19 pm