Kerry took right stand from the start - LTTE in the AJC

[Mass]

http://www.ajc.com/saturday/content/epaper/editions/saturday/opinion_44b1f9cf86c5f1bc00a2.html


(It must be an answer to the column: Dean was right on Iraq. The writer is so right.

Kerry took right stand from the start


Before the last presidential election, Republicans criticized U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) for saying that the United States was fighting the wrong war at the wrong time in Iraq, and that we should work more closely with our allies through the United Nations.

Well, look at the mess we are in today. There seems to be no end to the war in Iraq. Hatred of America, and especially President Bush, has increased throughout the world.

Saddam Hussein, we were told, had to be removed because he had weapons of mass destruction to use against us and he was murdering thousands of his citizens--- but look at the number of Iraqis killed since Bush led a coalition invasion of Iraq, not to mention the number of American troops and citizens killed and wounded and the billions of dollars added to the deficit.

All we needed to do about Iraq was to tighten and enforce the embargo that was in place, and Saddam would have been contained and eventually overthrown by a combination of world opinion and his own people. History will prove that Kerry's stance on Iraq was the correct one.

EARL LITTLE, Mableton

[Island Blue]

1. Nice LTTE.

I think history will prove not only that Kerry's stance on Iraq was the correct one, but also that his stances on almost all of the issues of the day in '04 were the correct ones. Sigh.

Hopefully before '08 (if JK chooses to run) more and more people will begin to see the light. (On second thought, hopefully people will see the light even if JK doesn't run.)

[ginnyinWI]

2. Why can't the media get on this?

With *'s ratings in the toilet--why can't anybody take a glance back at who they could have had as president? A little more honesty in journalism is needed here. Are they all just so bone-lazy that they can't do a little digging and compare/contrast Kerry's positions to the realities we now all plainly see? I think I just answered my own question.

[karynnj]

3. It may be that it would be harder for them to admit

that they covered up Bush's problems and failed to cover a perfectly competent opponent fairly. If they were to admit that Kerry had positions and plans and they still look good (except Iraq where things make is 2004 and likely his 2005 positions outdated) and he really has a perfectly acceptable personality, it would mean they are to blame for the mess.

So, now we're in stage 1 - they've rejected Bush. Their own egos may keep them from stage 2 - Kerry was really OK. I think that might be why some have tried to still argue Kerry wasn't any better. He deserves better.