Posted on 04/26/2004 10:23:46 AM PDT by new cruelty
In 1952, a presidential candidate running against an administration that had gotten the U.S. into a debilitating and inconclusive war abroad pledged: "I will go to Korea." He won. A half century later, a presidential candidate running against an administration that has gotten the U.S. into a debilitating and (thus far) inconclusive war abroad, pledges: "I will go to the UN." Electrifying, is it not? And Democrats are wondering why their man is trailing a rather wounded George Bush not just overall, but on Iraq - and precisely at a time when Iraq is going so badly.
"If I'm President," Kerry said, "I will not only personally go to the UN, I will go to other capitals." For Kerry, showing up at Kofi Annan's doorstep and sweeping through allied capitals is no rhetorical flourish, no strategic sideshow. It is the essence of his Iraq plan: "Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the UN and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world."
This is an Iraq policy? Never has a more serious question received a more feckless answer.
Which might help inside-the-Beltway Washington find its way out of its conundrum over the latest polls. No one can understand how, with Bush being pummeled daily on the front pages by Richard Clarke, the 9/11 hearings, the Bob Woodward book and the eruption of Iraq into open warfare again, Bush nonetheless has gained over Kerry on the issue of national security.
The answer is simple: Americans are a serious people, war is a serious business, and what Kerry is offering is not serious. Americans may be unsure whether Bush has a plan for success in Iraq. But they sure as hell know that going to UN headquarters, visiting foreign capitals and promising lots of jaw-jaw is no plan at all.
I give Kerry credit for not taking the easy antiwar path. He agrees that abandoning Iraq would be catastrophic for the U.S. and for the war on terror. He did flirt with Howard Dean in the primaries but has consistently opposed "cut and run." True, it would be politically suicidal to zigzag yet again on the war. After having voted no on the Gulf War, yes on the Iraq war, no on the $87 billion for reconstruction and today advocating a firm yes on finishing the job, to now reverse himself once again would be a politically fatal flip-flop.
But his tortuous path to his current position has left him politically bereft on Iraq. Ralph Nader has now made himself the antiwar candidate by calling for a pullout in six months. With that, his candidacy found a rationale beyond mere vanity and may draw serious Democratic support. Many liberals will find it hard to support a Democratic candidate who, like Hubert Humphrey in 1968, advocates staying the course on a war they hate.
Kerry's political problem is that he supports Bush's Iraq objective and differs only on the means. Unfortunately for Kerry, "I will go to Turtle Bay" is not the stuff of legend. Unless he comes up with something better, Kerry may lose the war issue that was his for the taking.
Originally published on April 25, 2004
Krauthammer is on the verge of becoming Fox News' George Will, i.e. believing what you say because you said it not because there is real substance there. Of course O'Reily is unrivaled in this horse race, the Swaps, Nashua and Man of War all rolled into one.
Too late.
He's dead, Jack.
Doubtful whether anyone would do this as it would thoroughly destroy LeJean F'n Kerry to where he might just ride off into the sunset in his family's SUV.
It is coming into focus daily that the DemonRats, in their haste to Beat Bush, threw their support behind a frontrunner, Dean, who imploded and then took the next best thing only to see him implode to an even greater magnitude.
Thus the NAGging question, pun intended, of whether LeJean is only a conduit to get the party from here to there and, alas, withdraw for health reasons (feigned gasp - and the hearts and minds of America turn to the injured underdog in much the same manner as they empathized with Rudy Guiliani) and cede the party's nomination to - Gosh - Who could handle that mantle of responsibility? Who could possibly grasp the reins of the party and rally its base? Who could accept the baton of the injured war hero and run the anchor leg to election day to give hope to the down trodden masses, the women whose lives are in danger whenever they conceive, whose children are in danger from every conceivable Republican inspired harm. Who?
Remind John to take his Visa, his American Express, and Teresa's check book because the UN doesn't do anything unless you bribe the hell out of them. Just ask Saddam.
Sort of like the Republicans did with Bob Dole and "Anyone But Clinton" in 1996? I mean, Dole is a good and decent man, but he was one of the worst presidential candidates I had ever seen (until I saw Howard Dean and John Kerry as presidential candidates, of course!).
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.