Monday, October 25, 2004

Kerry's interview with Katie

In an interview with Katie Couric airing on October 25, Kerry goes back to his old book - bring up Vietnam at any chance you get but on the last question his answer is very odd.

"Couric: I was surprised in the New York Times Magazine that you said that you had not been changed by 9/11. That's something the president brought up in his radio address this weekend. Do you regret saying that? Because at first blush, one can't imagine not being changed by that day.

Sen. Kerry: I knew that terror was a problem. And I wrote a book about it eight years ago. Having been to war and been through what I went through, it rekindled in me the same kind of responses. But it didn't change. It made me intent on winning. That was something that I knew as a response to the war I fought in — that we have to win."

Huh? He learned that "we have to win" from his experience with Vietnam yet when he was done with his service he protested the war in Vietnam and testified against the war and threw medals/ribbons away. Did we have to win then? Or do we just have to win now? How did your experience in Vietnam and/or your protesting afterwards lead you to believe that "we have to win" the war on terrorism?

Another excerpt:
"Couric: Some voters have said, “Hey, the United States hasn’t been attacked since September 11, George Bush must be doing something right, and we're too nervous to vote for a change at this point in time.” You would say to them?

Sen. Kerry: I would say to them that this administration has told you, George Bush and Dick Cheney have said to you, “It is not a matter of if we're going to be attacked — it’s a matter of when.” This administration has neglected homeland security. Do you know that the president … said he doesn’t know if America will ever be safe. Well, I do know that America will be safe under my leadership.

Couric: But can you really, Senator, make the guarantee, in all honesty…

Sen. Kerry: You bet, because we can win."

Maybe its just me but does this just ooze arrogance? If homeland security has been so neglected why haven't there been any more attacks? Is he guaranteeing no more terrorist attacks if he was elected? Its simply preposterous.

No comments:

Post a Comment