Back in 2004, John Kerry got hammered relentlessly for likening the fight against terrorism to the fight against crime.
"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," Kerry said. "As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."
Will the same folks that beat on Kerry now slam the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace?
Asked in [an] interview, on MSNBC, if the United States was winning in Iraq, the general replied: "You have to define winning. I dont mean to be glib about that. Winning to me is simply having each of the nations that were trying to help have a secure environment inside of which their government and their people can function..."
"Example: Here in Washington, D.C., theres crime, but theres a police force," he said. "And the police force keeps the level of crime below the level at which the government can function. Thats really what winning in the war on terrorism is." (emphasis mine)
Don't get me wrong; I'm not a big fan of Massachusetts' dorky, superior-than-thou junior senator. But I did think he got a raw deal on that particular comment. And it's interesting to see how the thinking on Iraq is shifting.
