Last December John Kerry made it clear where he stood on post-war Iraq:
"We need reasonable plan and a specific timetable for self-government. That means completing the tasks of security and democracy in the country -- not cutting and running in order to claim a false success."
As I pointed out last week, Kerry has backed off of the claim that establishing democracy should be our primary goal:
"I have always said from day one that the goal here … is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy. I can't tell you what it's going to be, but a stable Iraq. And that stability can take several different forms."
Kerry attempts to makes the audacious claim that his position has not shifted, but the Washington Post isn’t buying it:
Where once he named democracy as a task to be completed, and the alternative to "cutting and running" or a "false success," Mr. Kerry now says democracy is optional. Where once he warned against setting the conditions for an early but irresponsible withdrawal of U.S. forces, now he does so himself by defining the exit standard as "stability," a term that could describe Saudi Arabia or Iran -- or the Iraq of Saddam Hussein.
The editorial goes on to critique Kerry’s “stability” proposal:
Mr. Kerry now argues that there is a third option. But what would that be? "I can't tell you what it's going to be," he said to reporters covering his campaign. "That stability can take several forms." True; in the Middle East, there is the stability of Islamic dictatorship, the stability of military dictatorship and the stability of monarchical dictatorship. In Lebanon, there is the stability of permanent foreign occupation and de facto ethnic partition. None is in the interest of the United States; all have helped create the extremism and terrorism against which this nation is now at war.
Ouch. When even the Post claims the “shift on such a basic question after just a few months is troubling and mistaken” you know the issue has hit the tipping point. The constant flip-flops, position changes, and waffling are growing rather tiresome. Even as a Republican who wants to see Bush reelected, I am becoming perturbed by the lack of consistency.
While I don’t agree with many of the political positions of my friends in the Democratic party, I do think they deserve better than what Kerry has offered. Democrats deserve a candidate who presents their ideas and policies in a clear and concise manner while Republicans deserve the opportunity to present and explain how their positions differ. Vigorous debate on the issues is healthy for a democracy. But our Republic is poorly served by a major Presidential candidate who refuses to choose consistency.
(Hat tip: The Bush/Cheney Offical Blog)
1
our republic has been poorly served for quite some time by having two political parties with inconsistent platforms. many are not represented by either candidate this election, as was the case in the 2000 election and will be in the future.
posted on 04.21.2004 11:41 AM2
Well, then, start your own. Or work to make the Greens or the Libertarians or the Constitution Parties more like yourself. Or become active in the Democratic or Republican party, working to built consensus among like-minded people.
That's the way a Democratic Republic works.
posted on 04.21.2004 9:30 PM