[lit-ideas] l[it-ideas] Kerry Hawk?
- From: Carol Kirschenbaum <carolkir@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 13:39:40 -0700
Today William Safire wrote in the NYT that Kerry is a actually neocon, and
comments:
"His abandoned antiwar supporters celebrate the Kerry personality makeover.
They shut their eyes to Kerry's hard-line, right-wing, unilateral,
pre-election policy epiphany. "
Safire's take on politics usually turns my stomach. Even here, his rhetoric
is over the top with nastiness. However, he's addressing an aspect of
Kerry's agenda that most Dems have shied away from, in our post-debate
elation.
Question: Does Kerry think that Bush stuck us with this Iraq occupation or
war, and if he or anyone else is elected, they've gotta clean up the mess by
"winning" the war, not simply pulling out US troops?
Or, as Bush continually intimates by citing Kerry's recent voting record,
does Kerry believe, along with Bush, that the US should have invaded Iraq?
(Forgive me if I skip over the "doing it differently" details.)
This distinction is critical. Just as critical is Kerry's--and Bush's--idea
of what "winning the peace" in Iraq would look like. As we're seeing in the
US preparations for elections, ensuring "free elections" is far from a cinch
right here in our fatherland--or homeland--and few of us anticipate being
picked off by gun-toting snipers at the polling place. Clearly, "peace" in
Iraq, in Dems' terms, would have to amount to more than a puppet Allawi
government.
But what else? What criteria do you think would amount to the US "winning
the peace"? I assume, btw, that Bush thinks we've already done it, so enough
about him.
best,
Carol K.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
