Kerry's Iraq 'Stability'

As the election debate over Iraq unfolds, we're struck by the role reversal of the two major parties on one of the central questions of U.S. foreign policy. To wit: Is it in America's interest to aggressively promote freedom around the world, or is it generally better to satisfy ourselves with "stability" and the status quo?

Democratic Presidential contender John Kerry appeared to take the latter position last week, when he declared that "the goal here . . . is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy. I can't tell you what it's going to be, but a stable Iraq. And that stability can take several different forms." ... In historic terms, this is a remarkable reversal. Once upon a time Democrats were the great promoters of morality and idealism in foreign policy. During the Cold War, those Democrats included Harry Truman and John Kennedy, the latter most famously in the aspirations of his inauguration speech to "pay any price" and "bear any burden" in the cause of liberty.

It's both insightful and ironic that Dems, in the spirit that there is nothing a Republican administration can do that deserves credit, now criticize Bush for nation-building when clearly in the nation's self-interest as in Iraq (as distinguished from Clinton's use of the military for social-assistance programs), and for calling for the advance of Freedom and Democracy in this unsafe world. Thus Bush's initiatives relegate the Dems, desperate for survival, to take wholly untenable positions that are directly contrary to those of Wilson, FDR and JFK, while proceeding to the electoral polls in a hand basket.

"the goal here . . . is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy. I can't tell you what it's going to be, but a stable Iraq.

Kerry doesn't know what the outcome will be, but George Bush knows for a fact as he is making it happen.

We need leaders not fools running the show.

"the goal here . . . is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy. I can't tell you what it's going to be, but a stable Iraq. And that stability can take several different forms."

Stability gave us North Korea. Stability gave us Castro. Stability gave us Saddam. Stability gave us Assad's Syria. Stability gave us the Taliban. Stability gave us the West Bank and Gaza strip. Stability gave us 9/11.

Settling for stability means tolerating our enemies' existance.

Status quo, you know, that is Latin for "the mess we're in."

- Ronald Reagan, U.S. president. Address, 16 March 1981 to Associated General Contractors of America.

I hope the GOP hits back, hard. Soon.

On the contrary, let Kerry keep running his mouth off. Kerry does a better hit piece on Kerry than any republican can with regard to his policy on the war on terror. I have a couple of liberal friends that say Kerry is wrong on Iraq. They can't stand the fact that Kerry wants to give control over to the UN in the face of the Oil-for-Food program corruption and the UN itself said it's too dangerous for them to be in Iraq. At least some liberals understand that the UN is unfit and unwilling to do anything in Iraq.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.