In 2004, John Kerry touted his “global test“, one that suggested the U.S. should not take military action unless we had “irrefutable evidence” linking a regime to a terrorist act (note that this means we have to wait to be attacked before acting), and then even if we did act, it should be “in proportion” to that act (is he suggesting we hijack some Air Afghanistan flights and crash them into buildings in Kabul?)
And now comes the likely 2008 Democrat presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, touting a familiar policy.
“We have all learned lessons from the conflict in Iraq, and we have to apply those lessons to any allegations that are being raised about Iran. Because, Mr. President, what we are hearing has too familiar a ring and we must be on guard that we never again make decisions on the basis of intelligence that turns out to be faulty.”
So I guess if intelligence shows that Iran has a nuclear weapon and intelligence shows that the nuke is pointed at the U.S. and intelligence shows that nuke can actually reach the U.S…. we should not act until that nuke has impacted the soil inside the U.S., at which point the intelligence becomes “irrefutable” and assures us it won’t “turn out to be faulty”.
Democrats are experts at governing in hindsight. It is 20/20 afterall.
Note to terrorist regimes… when a Democrat becomes President, we’ll no longer worry about you until you attack us… and even when you attack us, be sure to cover some tracks so as to raise some questions, then you can be assured we won’t respond.
I feel safe now.