I'm tired, let's fight

The Belgravia Dispatch tries to pick apart Kerry's speech. Here's a few quick reacts from me.

This son of a millworker is ready to lead and next January, Americans will be proud to have a fighter for the middle class to succeed Dick Cheney as vice president of the United States.

Was I the only person who catched a slightly patronizing tone in Kerry's voice when the word "millworker" rolled off his Brahmin lips?

Yes, you probably are. Maybe this is one of those instances where you hear disdain because you are the one who feels it. Way to start an inane argument, though.

And I will build a stronger military. We will add 40,000 active duty troops - not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct antiterrorist operations. And we will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of the National Guard and reservists.
To all who serve in our armed forces today I say help is on the way.

As president I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal - our economic as well as our military might; our principles as well as our firepower.

Is it just me, or do you get a slightly uncomfortable feeling that "help", in this context (the "backdoor draft"), means a withdrawal (if gradual but at a good pace) from Iraq? That said "help" is really a reversion to a traditional post-Vietnam Democratic party outlook that distrusts the projection of American power overseas--viewing it as a somewhat nefarious influence on the world stage?

Oh, and let's be clear. That extra 40,000 troops? Not a single one, emphasis added above and, indeed, in the speech, are heading Baghdad way. Just in case anyone got some crazy idea...But what, heaven forbid, if they were needed there? Non-starter, it would seem. Another indication that faux-realism in Iraq is code for let's get out sooner rather than later.

As far as troop withdrawal, even President Bush had hopes that troops would be on the way out by now. It is one of the reasons we have spent more in Iraq than we predicted, which would seem to reinforce the whole lack of planning idea on the Bush side.

I think this is looked at in the wrong light as well. I believe Kerry means that we are not going to add 40,000 troops to our numbers in Iraq. These are troops that will be sent to Iraq to relieve those who have been a victim of the "backdoor draft." They will go to Iraq, but they will not raise the overall number of troops there.

As far as not adding troops to Iraq, well, I think it goes without saying that if more troops were needed that he would send them. To argue that he wouldn't under any circumstances is a paper tiger. Why not send a letter to him and ask him to clarify. You can ask what he would do if a hole sucked up 20,000 of our troops, or if a polar bear attacked. Make up your own list.

Then there is a quote from Andrew Sullivan. Here's the key point:

His strategy is pure defense. This sentence is his strongest threat: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." So let's wait, shall we?

Now we juxtapose with Kerry's speech:

Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values against a threat that was real and imminent." So lesson number one, this is the only justification for going to war.

Oh, so real and imminent threats will meet with action. Doesn't seem to be a wait and see attitude to me.

Again, that's just a quick react to the whole thing.