Posted on 09/24/2004 3:08:03 PM PDT by Pokey78
WE REALLY DON'T KNOW what a President John Kerry would do about Iraq. His flip-flops about the war, his inconsistencies, the ambiguity of his current position (win or withdraw?)--all of these mean we can only guess about a Kerry presidency. He would probably be inclined to get out of Iraq as soon as possible; it might be the case, however, that as president he would nonetheless find himself staying and fighting. Who knows?
What we do know is this: Kerry and his advisers have behaved disgracefully this past week. That behavior is sufficient grounds for concern about his fitness to be president.
On Tuesday, President Bush spoke to the United Nations General Assembly. Senator Kerry decided not to say anything supportive of the president as he made the American case to the "international community." Nor did he simply campaign that day on other issues. No. Less than an hour after President Bush finished speaking in New York, Kerry was criticizing his remarks in Jacksonville, Florida: "At the United Nations today, the president failed to level with the world's leaders. Moments after Kofi Annan, the secretary general, talked about the difficulties in Iraq, the president of the United States stood before a stony-faced body and barely talked about the realities at all of Iraq. . . . He does not have the credibility to lead the world."
So Kerry credits Kofi Annan--who a few days before had condemned the "illegal" American war in Iraq--as a more accurate source of information on the subject than the president of the United States. Kerry also seems to think it significant that the General Assembly sat "stony-faced" while the president spoke. Would the applause of delegates from China, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and, yes, France, have made the president's speech more praiseworthy in Kerry's eyes?
Then Kerry was asked about Kofi Annan's description of the war in Iraq as an "illegal" invasion. Kerry answered: "I don't know what the law, the legalities are that he's referring to. I don't know." So the U.S. government is accused of breaking international law, and Kerry chooses not to defend his country against the charge, or to label it ridiculous or offensive. He is agnostic.
Then Kerry continued: "Well, let me say this to all of you: That underscores what I am saying. If the leader of the United Nations is at odds with the legality, and we're not working at getting over that hurdle and bringing people to the table, as I said in my speech yesterday, it's imperative to be able to build international cooperation." It's our fault that the U.N. is doing almost nothing to help in Iraq. After all, according to Kerry, "Kofi Annan offered the help of the United Nations months ago. This president chose to go the other way."
Leave aside the rewriting of history going on here. The president of the United States had just appealed for help from the United Nations and its member states to ensure that elections go forward in Iraq. Kerry could have reinforced that appeal for help with his own, thereby making it a bipartisan request. He chose instead to give the U.N., France, Germany, and everyone else an excuse to do nothing over these next crucial five weeks, with voter registration scheduled to begin November 1. If other nations prefer not to help the United States, the Democratic presidential candidate has given them his blessing.
Two days later, Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi spoke to a joint meeting of Congress. Sen. Kerry could not be troubled to attend, as a gesture of solidarity and respect. Instead, Kerry said in Ohio that Allawi was here simply to put the "best face on the policy." So much for an impressive speech by perhaps America's single most important ally in the war on terror, the courageous and internationally recognized leader of a nation struggling to achieve democracy against terrorist opposition.
But Kerry's rudeness paled beside the comment of his senior adviser, Joe Lockhart, to the Los Angeles Times: "The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."
Is Kerry proud that his senior adviser's derisive comment about the leader of free Iraq will now be quoted by terrorists and by enemies of the United States, in Iraq and throughout the Middle East? Is the concept of a loyalty to American interests that transcends partisan politics now beyond the imagination of the Kerry campaign?
John Kerry has decided to pursue a scorched-earth strategy in this campaign. He is prepared to insult allies, hearten enemies, and denigrate efforts to succeed in Iraq. His behavior is deeply irresponsible--and not even in his own best interest.
There is some chance, after all, that John Kerry will be president in four months. If so, what kind of situation will he have created for himself? France will smile on him, but provide no troops. Those allies that have provided troops, from Britain and Poland and Australia and Japan and elsewhere, will likely recall how Kerry sneered at them, calling them "the coerced and the bribed." The leader of the government in Iraq, upon whom the success of John Kerry's Iraq policy will depend, will have been weakened before his enemies and ours--and will also remember the insult. Is this really how Kerry wants to go down in history: Willing to say anything to try to get elected, no matter what the damage to the people of Iraq, to American interests, and even to himself?
It couldn't be clearer - Libya is a sponsor of terrorism and GWB folded. Do you do business there?
I believe Libya surrendered. I suppose nuking Tripoli was an option...
I suppose that you hope as much - do you do business with Libya? Are murderers of Americans to be pardoned for oil?
I see that you are an advocate of capitulation to terrorist states - how much are you paid?
Wrong - are you a registered lobbyist for Libya?
Read post 100. Where is oil mentioned? Do you know who imports the most Lybian oil? Ummm... Try FRANCE!
And you think this is a BAD thing?
Your brains are fried...
Kristian,
Superb post and its great to hear feelings like this from a European.
Thank you.
"He should quit now and get someone else to write his articles for him."
Like the famous memo writers RATher or Burkett?
With the United Nations poised to remove economic sanctions against Libya after a settlement in the Lockerbie bombing case, Washington will face new pressure to lift its own sanctions against the government of Muammer Gaddafi.
US business groups, led by oil companies that hold concessions in Libya, met this week to gear up efforts to persuade the administration of President George W. Bush to ease a trade ban that was imposed on Libya in 1986. "They have changed and we ought to recognise it with some reciprocal actions on our part," said William Reinsch, of the National Foreign Trade Council. Washington had refused to consider easing the sanctions until Libya accepted responsibility for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people.
But the deal announced last week could end that stalemate. The Libyan government yesterday began depositing more than $2.7bn (€2.4bn, £1.7bn) that could be paid out to the families of the bombing victims. Forty per cent of that amount will be distributed when the UN Security Council revokes multilateral sanctions against Libya, an action that is expected next week. Unless the US lifts its own sanctions within eight months, half would revert to Tripoli. Administration officials have so far opposed lifting US sanctions or removing Libya from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
Critics say, however, the US is ignoring dramatic changes in Libya's behaviour, particularly in cutting links with terrorist groups. "The changes which have taken place in Libya in the past eight years have been enormous," said Oliver Miles, former UK ambassador to Libya and chairman of MEC International, a London consultancy. "It's been more than 20 years now since any Americans have had much direct knowledge of Libya. There's a great deal of ignorance." With the removal of the UN sanctions, he said, the US would be the only significant country maintaining commercial sanctions against Libya. The UK removed its own in 1999 after Libya agreed to turn over the two Lockerbie bombing suspects.
The commercial stakes for the US are substantial. Four US oil companies - Occidental, Amerada Hess, Conoco Phillips and Marathon - hold concessions that could eventually be revoked by Libya if the sanctions were not lifted. More importantly, Libya is considered one of the world's most promising sites for further oil exploration, with non-US companies now pursuing more than 100 exploration licences.
Critics of the Bush policy argue there are still bigger reasons to begin easing sanctions. An Atlantic Council report in April said Libya would be a test case for whether the US was willing to reward positive changes by once reviled regimes.
Business pressure alone is unlikely to sway the administration, particularly if the US families of the Lockerbie bombing victims continue to oppose easing the sanctions. But James Kreindler, whose New York law firm represents 120 of the families, said many would like to see the sanctions lifted if Libya took further steps to address US concerns
I am dumbfounded. Who got away with what?
You are an apologist for a terrorist - how much are you paid?
Ah, so you think terrorists should have nuclear weapons. I understand.
Kerry....blowing with the wind.
Nah. Kerry just blows, period.
http://www.factbook2004.com/print/ly.html
Exports - partners: Italy 42.6%, Germany 14.1%, Spain 13.6%, Turkey 6.9%, Switzerland 4.4% (2002)
But either way... the US $2.8bill in POTENTIAL oil imports will only constitute 18% of Libya's GDP, not the 43% of Italy, nor the roughly 75% otf the rest of Europe.
And that's assuming that Libya can actually pump that much, even with the US's investment, which by the way has nothing to do with this thread.
Your new buddy Mohmmar Qadaffi got away with mass murder - how dense are you?
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.