I went and read the Kudlow drivel.  He actually wrote, uh, nothing.  Other than pure partisan drivel, his piece was void of anything credible to really mention.  In other words, a load of talking points issued by the Bushies.   (By the way, for those who don't know Kudlow's past, he's a "reformed" moralistic, family values (except for me) cokehead - who of course missed military service, but is still a hawk).

For one thing, Kudlow never mentions why Kerry voted against Gulf War I and there are still major questions over the reason for this war  (Recall, Bush I sent a diplomat to Iraq who told Hussein that the US had no interest in a Kuwait/Iraq skirmish - this is well documented.  Also, there is dispute over the Bush I claims of Iraq amassing military equipment on the Saudia Arabian border  - hm...SA again.  Later CIA spy photographs did not depict this event.  Next, recall the babies pulled from incubators fabrication).  For all anyone knows, Kerry's litmus test back then (i.e. America must be under immediate threat or its interests in dire jeopardy) - I don't know what it was back then. 

But here is what Kerry said the other night:

"No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

 

So, tell us Kevin G, what is wrong with what Kerry stated?  Read that last line and tell us what is wrong with being able to prove to the world that a pre-emptive is legitmate?   Are you saying that it is okay with you for the US to just drop a bomb because it wants to?

Tell us Kevin G, where has Kerry EVER said or written that he would allow a UN veto or foreign country veto to stop US pre-emptive action?  Where has Kerry ever said or written that his doctrine would first include the US being attacked before he would take action? 

Here was good one by Kudlow - he says it is a contradiction for Kerry to mention that Bush I didn't have an exit strategy for a Baghdad in Gulf War I.  Well, guess what character stated in a certain 2000 debate that a president MUST have an exit strategy before comitting US troops...I'll give you a clue - it wasn't Kerry or Al Gore.