Dangerous Dan Thoughts and musings on the world

Tell me if you can figure this one out. Here’s John Kerry complaining about Bush’s handling of the current mideast crisis and how it wouldn’t have happened on his watch (he had a plan, no doubt).

“If I was president, this wouldn’t have happened.”
…
“The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East. We’re going to have a lot of ground to make up (in 2008) because of it.”
…
Hezbollah guerillas should have been targeted with other terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida and the Taliban, which operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Kerry said. However, Bush, has focused military strength on Iraq.

“This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq.…We have to destroy Hezbollah,” he said.

So…. the president’s problem was that he wasn’t using diplomacy. So he should have been using diplomacy? No, that appears irrelevant and Bush should have been using unilateral military force to invade northern Israel and southern Lebanon to take out Hezbollah. Yeah, that would have been helpful and wouldn’t have created tensions. And, honestly, how is it about American security when Hezbollah is almost exclusively Israel’s problem and, at best, tangentially ours?

Kerry is again proving himself the anti-Bush and he’s got nothing else to run on. Bush went into Iraq and, after the fact, Kerry wouldn’t have. Bush didn’t use diplomacy (false) and, after the fact, Kerry would have. Bush didn’t use military force to take out Hezbollah and, after the fact, Kerry would have despite that this contradicts his diplomatic solution approach. I’m surprised the man hasn’t started walking backwards just because Bush walks forwards.

Update: CQ has other thoughts here.