Kerry, Rice and Rumsfeld
The more I know about John Kerry, the worse I think his presidency would have been. Let's look at his recently expressed views on the qualifications of Condoleezza Rice and Don Rumsfeld to serve in the Cabinet.
Here is Kerry explaining his vote against confirmation of Rice as Secretary of State:
There isn't anybody in the United States of America who doesn't admire Dr. Rice for the journey she's made, for what she represents. And is she qualified for the job? Absolutely. Of course she is absolutely qualified. And the president has a right to make a choice.Kerry continues by stating, "...I recognized at the beginning of this hearing that Condoleezza Rice will be confirmed overwhelmingly by the United States Senate...."
In summary then, Kerry feels that Rice is "absolutely qualified" for the job and stands to be "confirmed overwhelmingly" by the entire Senate.
Yet Kerry deems it appropriate to vote against her. Says his is a vote against the nation's policies over the last four years which Rice was instrumental in developing. Kerry forgets that on November 2 the nation voted to re-elect Bush and the administration that created those policies.
(Kerry was one of two members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to vote against sending Rice's nomination to the full Senate for a vote. He was joined by Barbara Boxer; the other 14 committee members voted yes.)
Given that record, how can we take Senator Kerry seriously when he demands the resignation of another cabinet member? In a blast e-mail message Kerry sent to supporters this week, he wrote,
I'll say this in the Senate, but I'm asking you to add your voice to mine:(And he backs it up with a petition on his website calling for Rumsfeld's ouster.)
"President Bush, for the sake of our troops, replace Rumsfeld now."
His e-mail message continues by stating the reasons "WHY RUMSFELD HAS TO GO!" [The bold print, exclamation point and capital letters are Kerry's. I find that the more emphasis a statement is given, the less likely that statement is to be true--perhaps never more so than with John Kerry, the man whose least reliable memories are "seared" in his mind.]
Kerry's reason number one WHY RUMSFELD HAS TO GO! is
"Rumsfeld Blamed The Troops for Problems in IRAQ."He backs this absurd allegation by citing CNN (12/9/04) reporting Rumsfeld's statement,
As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.Kerry provided no link to the CNN article because reading the article would make it far too easy to prove his allegation wrong. Rumsfeld's statement had nothing whatsoever to do with blaming the troops. It was a reference to making sure the Army had Humvees with appropriate armor. The link is here.
There may be legitimate reasons not to want Rice or Rumsfeld in the Cabinet, but Kerry has chosen absurd ones. I am increasingly thankful that it is not a man of Kerry's judgment nominating Cabinet members in the first place.
Update: Cox & Forkum are unimpressed with Kerry and Boxer.
And LGF's Charles Johnson writes a post entitled Dems Show Their Irrelevance at Rice Hearing. His conclusion:
Our nation dodged a bullet when these people were denied the White House.