This is a valid and interesting criticism of Kerry.

I confess, that his standing as a mainstream DLC
democrat has made me lazy about scrutinizing him very
closely.  His overall values and intelligence and
willingness to bring a pan-spectrum coalition of DC
professionals to replace the monstrous cult now
controlling the republic... these things are adequate
for me.

But I am willing to begin accumulating and listing
suspicions, demerits and deficits.  What you describe
below, if accurate, reflects perhaps a too strong
aversion to war sometimes seen in combat veterans.  Or
perhaps too strong a reflex aversion to Bush Sr.  Or
perhaps a strong sense that the sheiks are not our
friends, never were, and that our sons should not be
spent for their sake... or....

I will keep my eyes open.  Thanks.

May (God willing) John Kerry be a topic of major
conversation on Brin-L for the next four years.  I
have had enough talking about fanatical shrubs.


--- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> --- David Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > False distraction.  If Kerry opposed the 91
> > campaign,
> > I have yet to see evidence for that.  In any
> event,
> > if
> > he did, that is but one strike against him.  I'll
> > take
> > note.  It brings his list up to W's toes.
> 
> He absolutely did oppose it - he voted against the
> first Gulf War and his grounds, IIRC, were that
> there
> was an insufficient international coalition in favor
> of it.  Which is, of course, absurd.  This is the
> criticism that people have to address about Kerry,
> Dr.
> Brin, and I don't see you doing it.  I think it's
> entirely fair.  What does "bring our allies in" mean
> _other than France_?  The British supported us.  The
> Italians supported us.  The Spanish supported us
> (although they do not now support us, of course). 
> The
> Japanese supported us.  The Australians supported
> us. 
> The South Koreans supported us.  As soon as Angela
> Merkle wins the next German election (and she will)
> the Germans will support us.  The Danish supported
> us.
>  The Netherlands supported us.  So what does it mean
> to say that we didn't have international support? 
> Does it mean Russia and China?  If it does, then you
> can't possibly favorably compare Kosovo to Iraq,
> because Russia and China were every bit as opposed
> to
> Kosovo as they were to Iraq.  So, other than a cheap
> bit of dishonest rhetoric on Kerry's part about
> allies, what the hell is that supposed to mean, and
> what is he going to do when he finds out on his
> first
> day in office that Jacques Chirac is giving him the
> finger from across the Atlantic?  Furthermore, given
> France's behavior over the last 10 years, shouldn't
> we
> be _proud_ that France is opposed to us?  Do we want
> to be on the same side as the country that aided and
> abetted the Rwandan genocide?  This does not seem to
> me a place of honor.  If the criticism of the Bush
> Administration is that it is inept (and I think it
> is)
> surely it's fair to ask Kerry what the hell he means
> by statements that are far more clearly a lie than
> anything you've ever criticized Bush about.  If he
> couldn't even bring himself to support the Gulf War
> in
> 1991, then the next time somebody kills a few
> thousand
> Americans (and it will happen) what is he going to
> do
> when France, Russia, and China doesn't give a
> response
> their seal of approval (and they won't)?
> 
> 
> =====
> Gautam Mukunda
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Freedom is not free"
> http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com
> 
> 
>               
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> finish.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
> 

_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to