“Any attack will be met with a serious response.”
What about acting proactively, to prevent attacks? See the previous post to see why I disagree with this.
Yes, as soon as he’s consulted the French.
Right on. I -so- want to be able to vote for Kerry, but hearing this…it confirms my fears.
As Hugh Hewitt pointed out earlier today, this is the most important line of the speech. Americans must die before he will act. And for that reason, if for no other, Kerry must be defeated.
I was trying to think of what else made me uneasy with “Any attack will be met with a serious response.”
It is the use of ‘response’ rather than ‘retaliation’. In fact, I think the reason he needs to insert the adjective ‘serious’ is to avoid ‘retaliation’ while strengthening the word ‘response’.
Am I being to suspicious of John here, or is the words ‘serious response’ to finesse(hide) what he really feels, that UN approval is required before retaliation?
‘serious response’, like endless UN resolutions against Saddam, and EU’s soft power to disarm Iran?
Serious response: “You are going to be in serious trouble, you man, if you don’t behave! I mean it! 1, 2, 2.25, 2.5.”