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?
I think what is often unclear to many regarding the WOT/Iraq is because it is part of a greater, multi-faceted war that has to be fought in a piecemeal fashion. Saddam was the 900 pound gorilla with capabilities the other potential and actual terrorist host nations do not have.
It's also a complex, often maddening conflict. For instance, while we were paying attention to Afghanistan, Powell rushed to South Asia to prevent a near-major Indo-Pak war.
The domestic side has calmed to a percived "inconvenience" because the terror focus is on Iraq. If we hadn't, I daresay the playing field would have been elsewhere.
That's idiotic. Kristol's not running for anything.
"OMG! I have to take off my SHOES!!!! My feet might stink!" Well guess what; so might everyone elses. I'd rather be subjected to your stinky feet then to be run into a building.
Hear! Hear! Lav! Why are people so single-minded (simple-minded?) here in the US?
I have no problem with his arguments. I totally agree with him. However, he as a messenger is not a guy I really trust.
Kerry needs to made to understand this is not 1969, protesting some Cold War intervention on the other side of the world. This war was started by an attack on our soil, by happenstance two blocks from where I work.
Finally, and this is what irks me, is that if Kerry wins, this war will spread, to quote Mao, like a prarie fire. This is not only a clash of civilizations, but a civil war within Islam. Defeating Bush will encourage and embolden these fascists and possibly tip the balance the power in regimes throughout the region.
You don't? LOL
Ask yourself what would happen to you if you came across Osama bin Laden on a street in New York and decided to kill the f#%&er right there in his tracks.
And if (somehow being absolutely certain it was him) I pulled out a pistol and shot the bastard on sight, what publicly-elected DA would prosecute? What jury would convict?
Puh-leaze.
If you go to New York and stand next to me at Ground Zero, I could take you to at least two radical Islamic mosques within walking distance of that site -- mosques that were frequented by terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center in both 1993 and 2001. Those mosques are still there today, and quite frankly the only thing that has really changed is that there are different radical Muslims in their congregations.
It seems awfully odd to me that this is the case, especially when everyone seems to agree that this nation is supposed to be fighting "a war for our very survival."
I've seen the planes fly into our skyscapers. I've seen the beheadings of good Americans. I know that we're in a war.
I hope it doesn't take another 9/11 for most Americans to realize or remember that again.
Fear and denial. Which for many are utilized as psychological defense mechanisms.
There's enough thoughtful people around to do all the thinkin', worryin' and actin', however. We also have, as a friend put it in a similar discussion, the Marine Corps.
Put together a list of any number of topics that come up for discussion here on FreeRepublic, including . . .
1. the Second Amendment
2. gay marriage
3. abortion
4. stem cell research / cloning
5. illegal immigration
6. relations with China or other communist regimes
7. socialized medicine
8. supremacy of U.S. sovereignty in all matters related to foreign treaties
9. etc., etc.
Now ask yourself if you can ever recall Mr. Kristol writing an article or making a television appearance in which he came down on the right side of any of these issues.
What I fear more than another 9|11 is a Zahwari-controlled Iraq. Which is what we'll get if Kerry wins. Between that and a nuclear Iran, then maybe more people will remember.
However, it is imperative that the ones who know endevour to prevent this by voting for the President in November.
Yep, that sums up Bill now, doesn't it?
You apparently don't like the Bush Doctrine of taking on the source of the terrorists, especially if it requires military force. Have I got that right?
You would fight the war by demolishing mosques here in the US. Have I got that right?
In hindsight, had we begun that practice in, say 1996, would that have prevented 9/11?
Hell yeah. Some dude walking down the street in Manhattan IDs Osama and kills him on sight (even if with an unregistered, unlawfully-concealed pistol) is immediately going to be 'King of the World.'
BTW, I just read what Lockhart said about Allawi, and Lockhart can kiss my patriotic, red, white and blue a$$. I'd like to see that bum take up Allawi's offer to go to Iraq and actually speak to some citizens. Yeah right.
Consider this little news item that showed up here on FR today:
The leader of Ohio’s largest mosque has been stripped of his citizenship as punishment for a terrorism-related conviction but can’t be deported until a federal court hears his appeal, which could take 18 months.
It doesn't sound to me like this guy is being treated as an enemy -- especially an enemy in a war on which "the very survival of this nation" hinges. He ought to be deported tomorrow -- and dropped on his country of origin from an altitude of 35,000 feet.
You would fight the war by demolishing mosques here in the US. Have I got that right?
Isn't that where the enemy lurks here in this country?
Very well said. Thank you!
It seems to me that you have a private vendetta against BK.
Why don't you contact BK and vent it out with him...instead.
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.