The DNC in action.
Posted on 11/02/2003 5:01:49 AM PST by Tom D.
Democrat 'Metrosexuals' Hard to Believe
November 2, 2003
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
I see Howard Dean has told residents of Boulder, Colo., that he's a ''metrosexual.'' Not familiar with the term? Don't worry. It may be a critical Democratic Party demographic group, but it barely exists outside the style sections of the chichier publications. A metrosexual is a heterosexual man who has a gayish sensibility in his dress, cologne, home decor and album collection; if men are from Mars, it doesn't mean they can't be in touch with their Venusian side.
There seem to be several metrosexuals in the Democratic field. Look at Gen. Wesley Clark, America's most famous political metrosexual. He may have spent the last year giving off warlike vibes but he insists that his orientation is strictly anti-war. He may have flirted with the Republicans at fund-raiser after fund-raiser but he got into bed with the Democrats. Sure, the column he wrote in the Times of London just after the fall of Baghdad reads like a love letter to Bush and Blair, but at heart he's always been with the trust-fund protesters jumping up and down in the streets last weekend waving placards asserting ''BUSH KILLS U.N. HEALS!''
And let's not forget his fellow metrosexuals John Kerry and John Edwards. A year ago, they voted for war; Sen. Edwards was boasting that he'd practically written the Patriot Act. Now they're saying whoa there, feller, don't leap to conclusions: Voting to authorize the president to go to war was just our way of expressing our principled anti-war position.
What is it that these boys think Bush did wrong? Simple. In his 18-month rush to war with Iraq, he didn't have a plan. ''When you put American troops in harm's way, you better not do it without a plan,'' says Clark. ''I said at the time that it was critical for us to have a plan,'' says Edwards. ''This president has no plan of any kind.''
So presumably Clark, Kerry and Edwards have a plan? You better believe it! Years ago, John Lennon and Paul McCartney said, "There are always two things we do when we sit down and write a song. First we sit down. Then we write a song." That's the Democratic plan for Iraq in a nutshell. Their big in-depth plan is to (a) sit down and (b) make a plan. The sitting-down part -- with the U.N., the French, the Guinean foreign minister, etc. -- could easily have gone on so long they'd never get around to (b).
Under John Kerry's ''plan,'' Saddam would still be in power, the French would still be selling him the 68mm missiles used in the attack on Paul Wolfowitz's Baghdad hotel last week, and Iraqis would still be being fed feet first into the industrial shredders. Or have I missed something?
Indeed, so eager is Kerry to subordinate U.S. foreign policy to Saddam's patrons that his attacks on America's real allies have become increasingly obnoxious. In the last presidential debate, Kerry said:
''This president has done it wrong every step of the way. He promised that he would have a real coalition. He has a fraudulent coalition.''
What's ''fraudulent'' about the coalition that toppled Saddam? The principal players -- the Americans, British and Australians -- are three of only a handful of countries to have been on the right side of every major conflict of the last century: the First World War, the Second, the Cold War and now the war on terror. I bet on form. When it comes to standing up against totalitarianism, the heavy lifting has been done by America and the British Commonwealth. Kerry's the first to get all hoity-toity if he feels someone is insufficiently deferential to his war service. So who's he to mock the brave Royal Marines, Desert Rats and other British forces who took and held southern Iraq? Who's he to mock the Australian SAS who did such a great job in seizing so many Baathist bad guys in northern and western Iraq? Or the Polish troops leading the multinational contingent in central Iraq right now?
It's taken as a given among Democrats that somehow this administration has needlessly offended the French and Germans. But insulting Britain, Australia and Poland as a cheap way to get at Bush demonstrates your superior sense of the subtleties of foreign policy? I'd say it's going to be very difficult for President Kerry to work with these chaps after his election victory -- or I would say it if I could type that sentence without collapsing in giggles.
The really ''fraudulent'' coalition is the one Kerry wants: one that gives the Belgians and Syrians a veto over U.S. action for nothing in return. The ''fraudulent'' coalition is Clark's from the Kosovo war, where all ''allies'' were entitled to advance operational information regardless of whether they were actually contributing to any of the operations, and where, as Clark himself noted in his memoir, ''one of the French officers working at NATO headquarters had given key portions of the operations plans to the Serbs.''
I can stand anything from politicians except being taken for an idiot. The wackos end of the Democratic field -- Kucinich and Co. -- are admirably straightforward. But when Kerry says that his vote for war wasn't a vote for war, he's insulting every Democratic voter. When Clark says, ''I've been against this war from the beginning. I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now,'' he's also insulting every primary voter, who should look him in the eye and serenade him with the immortal words of Robert Goulet in ''Camelot'':
''If Ever I Would Believe You
It wouldn't be in summer . . ."
Oh, no, not in springtime, summer, winter or fall, no, never would I believe you at all. If the candidates' position is that Bush's photo-op on the Lincoln was the worst kind of premature triumphalism, what are we to make of Clark's call -- on April 10 -- to break out the champagne: ''Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue.'' This guy was so ''consistently anti-war'' he was practically marching on Syria.
Trying to work out what Clark and Kerry truly believe reminds you that what defines metrosexuals isn't that they're gay or straight but that they're preening narcissists. You want to know what's ''fraudulent''? These guys' campaigns. Driving through a big swathe of western and northern New Hampshire the other day, I saw gazillions of Dean signs and none for any other candidate except one Edwards sign in Hanover. Kerry's been in the Granite State a lot longer than the Americans have been in Iraq, and he's getting nowhere, he's bogged down in a ''quagmire.'' Maybe the reason he keeps mentioning Vietnam every 10 minutes in New Hampshire is because for him the parallels between the latter and the former are becoming more and more ominous. Could it be that he and Clark went into this thing without (drum roll, please) a plan?
Maybe it's time to start thinking about an exit strategy.
Or maybe that 7.2 percent economic growth will collapse to 6.4 percent ...
Good point Steyn.
...The wackos end of the Democratic field...
I would seriously like it if someone could tell me where are any non-wackos in the Democratic field.
Let's slam this down Clark's pie-hole a time or two.
The irony is that he won't get it anyway after all this groveling before them. Dean has the anti-war crowd locked up. Kerry looks very much like a big hypocrite and a fool for chasing after that vote.
Of course, we should lead with our positive material, and then contrast it with their wacko comments in the crat debates.
Just keep talking, crats.
You should have more respect for the world's oldest profession.
Not as long as we're around to remind them:
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ...
He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
Then there's Hillary, who believes that there is proof (not just *evidence*) linking those who attacked us on 9-11 (al Qaeda) with Saddam:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
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.