May 7, 2004


Today, Kerry "dismissed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's apology for U.S. abuses of Iraqi prisoners and said the responsibility lies with the commander in chief." according to this report.

Does anyone else think this is just bizarre? What I mean is that by John Kerry's own admission he participated in atrocities against the Vietnamese, and yet he thinks he should be President. But George Bush, on the other hand, shouldn't be President because Iraqi prisoners were abused by military personnel. Seems to me, that by Kerry's own logic, he's unfit to be President. Wouldn't it be like one of the soldiers in the photos -- let's say the woman with the cigar -- running for President twenty years from now?

This is making my brain hurt. I shouldn't be serious on a Friday afternoon, me thinks.

Update: Since this is one of Kerry's favourite soundbites in wanting Rumsfeld to resign, you should head over here for what "the buck stops here" really means.

Posted by Ithildin at May 7, 2004 2:31 PM | PROCURE FINE OLD WORLD ABSINTHE

Well you're quite right of course. I said the same thing at Serenitys Journal.

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 7, 2004 11:07 PM

Win win deal for Kerry. He's off the hook for his "atrocities" and Bush is on the hook for the willful action of miscreants. And isn't the quintessential teaching of liberalism that no one is responsible for their own conduct?

Posted by: Peter Sean Bradley at May 8, 2004 8:32 AM

And I just read another article with Kerry demanding Rumsfeld's resignation. How does Kerry sleep at night?

Posted by: Ith at May 9, 2004 11:38 AM