The Jerusalem Post finds an example of John Kerry changing his tune on the issue of the Israeli security fence. (The Jerusalem Post requires registration to access its archives.) On Monday Kerry made this statement:
“It is ironic that this act of terror takes place on the eve of consideration by the International Court of Justice of Israel’s security fence. The court does not have and should not accept jurisdiction over this case,” Kerry said in a statement released by his campaign Monday.
“Israel’s security fence is a legitimate act of self defense,” he added. “No nation can stand by while its children are blown up at pizza parlors and on buses. While President [George W.] Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians, Israel has a right and a duty to defend its citizens. The fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel.”
Now, if that is Kerry’s actual position, it’s a laudable one. However, this contradicts what he said in October:
In his October speech to a conference held by the Arab American Institute in Michigan, Kerry stressed the fence’s negative aspects.
“I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build the barrier off of the Green Line – cutting deep into Palestinian areas,” Kerry said. “We don’t need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis’ security over the long term, increase the hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.”
Of course, that opinion is in direct contradiction to his earlier statement, in which he argued that the fence was necessary and proper.
Kerry has been wildly inconsistant in his views, which is not necessarily bad in itself, but it is symptomatic of Kerry’s larger problem – Kerry’s record shows a clear lack of leadership. His actions in regards to the POW/MIA issue are reprehensible and even the hyper-liberal Village Voice argues that Kerry willfully covered up evidence of living US POWs in Vietnam in a whitewashed investigation. His legislative record shows equally that he has failed to support the militay and voting against the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 is absolutely reprehensible.
That’s the problem with John Kerry – the only thing he seems to believe in is his own political career – and we don’t need another self-serving opportunist in the White House, especially not in a time of war.
Kerry’s consistent–he stressed the PATH of the fence in both talks. Kerry did not say in October “the fence is a bad idea and should not be done.” He said that taking the fence through Palestinian territory, adding yet another complaint to the long, long list of grievances of Palestinians against Israel, would make the task of peacemaking that much more difficult. “Cutting deep into Palestinian areas” presented “a barrier to peace.”
Argue it for its merits or demerits, but it’s a consistent position. If you had him saying that he opposed the fence, instead of just pointing out a legitimate criticism of the way it was created, you’d have a point. This is exactly like my view on NAFTA–I support it, but I think it needs to go further on environmental and labor concerns. Put NAFTA in front of me, and I’ll point out faults while maintaining support for it in general. Kerry found a fault in something he still believed should exist, and he pointed it out.
Isn’t it funny how you’re attacking him for pointing out the holes in the wall that make it weaker? Irony, irony….
“and we don’t need another self-serving opportunist in the White House, especially not in a time of war.”
Yeah, one self-serving opportunist is doing just fine on his own!