Foxfyre wrote:But don't you think it is hypocritical to come to the same conclusion as your opponent when a decision was made, and then later condemn him for making that decision?
Yes.
So what should he have said?
Perhaps this:
"The President at the time decided to [etc]. At the time, I agreed. We were wrong. I can see this now. You can see this now. It is a shame that the
President isn't able to recognize he made a mistake, not even with the knowledge we now have after the fact. He doggedly insists on continuing whatever course he took, no matter how foolish, and even prides himself for it. Well, I know better now. You know better now. But he doesn't. So re-elect this President, and you'll know what you get - the continuation of ever the same mistakes, by someone who can't look back and realise where he might have gone wrong. I've learnt from what happened, and I will do it differently."
There, whaddaya think, should I apply for a job at Kerry-Edwards? ;-)
So in response: it's hypocritical, perhaps, to condemn him for something he did Kerry himself agreed with - but that doesn't make the condemnation itself any less correct. It
was wrong. If Kerry doesn't want to acknowledge that he was wrong himself as well, that reflects badly on him; but I'm glad he
does now note that it was wrong - and it
is right to note so.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:The next time Kerry changes his mind because of the direction of the wind, it may just as easily be from a position you think is right to one you think is wrong.
Could be. But the chance of Bush moving to a position I think is right (on the issues I most care about, in any case) is next to zero, so the choice remains simple enough.
