By The Way, Kerry Was Right

It’s unfortunate to read the words “Kerry Was Right” on Andrew Sullivan’s blog and to read Glenn Greenwald furthering the argument, based on a column by George Will which stated:

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry’s belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that “many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror.” In a candidates’ debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be “occasionally military,” it is “primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world.”

Unfortunate in that he was indeed right, despite considerable mocking by countless uninformed fools and ignoramuses, including the voting public that actually considered Bush worthy of a second term. How many times does it have to be pointed out how obvious the choice was? It was not the Iraq War that somehow foiled a plot to blow up airplanes (if indeed this plot is revealed to truly exist), it was intelligence gathering. Law enforcement. Cooperation between foreign countries. Does anyone really believe that soldiers are dying in order to foil bomb plots? No, they are dying for politics, the same tired war rhetoric politics that Bush somehow used to win in 2004. That you may have fallen for that is sad, but it is also worse than that; it is deadly.

But even Sullivan, who came around and finally endorsed Kerry in 2004, gives this weak-ass addendum to it all:

I regret my decision to ditch Bush in ’04, despite my extreme distaste for John Kerry, with less and less regret.

Such an artful sentence, such little actual content. I will repeat until the end of time my certain and infallible belief that anyone who was paying attention would have been able to see the difference between an unknown deficiency (Kerry) and a known deficiency (Bush) and make the proper decision. The shitty candidate Kerry was clearly superior to the already well-documented shittier President Bush. It all seems so simple today just as it did then.

Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *