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?
Well, I certainly do! I've been thinking distinctly non-Christian thoughts lately about what should be done to the NON-humans who held children hostage then shot them in the back, and other NON-humans who hack people's heads off with large dull knives. I won't even call these vermin animals anymore because animals don't kill for sport or 'beliefs'. These scum are killing for the sheer pleasure of the feeling of power it gives them and that sickens me!
I'm not one who calls for turning Iraq into glass or any of that crap; there are too many people there who are not involved in this and who are only trying to make a better life for themselves and their kids. For the ones involved, though, I can only wish a very slow, painful death as they've inflicted on so many of late, so that they can contemplate their journey to Allah.
Do I 'believe' enough for you?
Yes, I do. I've seen countless reports of terrorists being arrested in places where no military action is occurring. The war doesn't have to be waged with tanks and bulldozers. It's being waged in Dallas and Portland and Munich and Rome. It's being waged in Manilla, Jakarta, and in London. And we're doing it in the terrorist magnet of Iraq, only with louder noises.
Whoever that Ohio guy you referred to is out of action for the other side. It's too bad our laws and court system can't give us a quicker and more emotionally satisfying result, but we do have to respect our own laws, even in wartime.
And that means we can't bulldoze mosques here in this country.
I was pleasantly surprised to hear a muslim call one of our local talk radio programs yesterday. She was very angry at the folks in Iraq conducting the kidnappings and beheadings. It's not enough, but it certainly was a refreshing call.
I believe in it with all of my heart, and I am thankful to GOD that we have grown-ups in the WH who understand this is war, as well.
Go ahead and whine about it, those of us who care, will do the work of fighting for American resolve to fight against terrorists, wherever they are, with all we are.
There is more at stake than a deficit and living is some sort of fake 'peace'.
"Dear Mr. Kristol:
Why don't you tell us all about your vision for Iraq over the next 18 months? Then tell us how the U.S. is supposed to go about seeing that vision through."
I would think his vision is along the same lines as Bush and Kerry is no help with his traitous bs criticism when our guys are fighting a War and trying to bring peace and freedom to a region of the world that has never experienced it. This is nothing new for Kerry, he did it to the Vietnam Veterans and he continues to be a self serving traitorous jerk.
Your brains are fried...
ROFL....thanks for the laugh!
Are you on crack or what?
Did you try to join the military? Volunteer for one of the private-sector jobs in Iraq? Donate money to help veterans' families? Doesn't sound like it. It sounds like you're in a tizzy because you weren't able to "burn a couple of mosques to the ground."
What's with the hard-on for Kristol? Seriously.
<< .... he's got about as much credibility to discuss this subject as a 300-pound jack@ss who never played sports but writes articles criticizing a shortstop for making too many errors. >>
Or a Judge who's never committed a crime sentencing a child-molestor to prison or a mass-murderer to death?
Or a fireman who's never committed arson running about the place willy-nilly putting out fires?
Or a man who's never seen and Iraqi dancing in the streets, heaping scorn upon those who see them dancing every day?
Or the progeny of a canadian province who's never met a deadline, edited a national news-magazine or published a column, criticizing the -- in this instance -- excellent judgement of one who does it every day.
Try a little logic.
I will be SOOOO happy when this election is over. At least, until the "candidates" start announcing for the 2008 election; hopefully that will wait until after President Bush's Inaugural Address on January 20.
Well, I'm no lawyer, but here's how I'd have answered: "Sir, there is no international law, therefore none to break. A valid law requires two things: (1) that it be enacted by a legitimately constituted, democratic legislative body and (2) that it be enforced by a political authority. There is no supranational legislature, let alone a legitimate one, to enact such laws, and there is no international enforcement authority, as should be obvious from the U.N.'s inability to enforce its resolutions against Iraq. To accede to 'international law' is to voluntarily yield U.S. sovereignty, which I will never do. When it is in America's interests to enter into treaties, we will do so, and I will abide by the requirements of such treaties until such time as they are abolished. But no web of treaties can possibly rise to the status of 'international law.'"
But is was well "nuanced"
The Chechens' American Friends
Mr. Kristol and his cronies seem to think the global "war on terror" is such an urgent matter, and yet they don't want the Russians to do what they need to do in Chechnya.
Talking about major scandals, has anybody noticed that the U.S. Government is investigating Fannie Mae? The New York Times, that paradigm of fair and balanced coverage, has reported, yesterday and today, about a major scandal breweing in Fannie Mae. It appears that this agency is under investigation for "accounting irregularities". But guess what? The accounting irregularities were concocted to allow a bunch of executives to collect bonuses based on 'performance'! So profits were boosted to allow the executives to skim their huge salaries and bonuses without the public being aware. And guess who some of the executives involved are? You guessed it! Most are Democratic party operatives such as James A. Johnson, who was Chairman and chief executive and who received, in 1998 only, $ 966.000 in salary and $ 1,932,000 IN BONUSES.
Franklin Raines, who was also Chairman and Chief Executive designate received a salary of $ 526,154 and a bonus of $ 1,109,589. But the most conspicuous member of this gang is none other than the 'belle' of the 9/11 Commission, the ONE AND ONLY Jamie Gorelick!, a Janet Reno assistant who got to participate in this scam as Vice Chairman, and was able to draw $ 567,000 in salary and $ 779,625 in bonuses! There are other individuals such as Lawrence M. Small, who received almost $ 2,000,000, J. Timothy Howard, $ 800,000m and Robert J. Levin, who as executive vice president of this racket got almost $ 890,000!!! Unbelievably, I have read this in the BUSINESS DAY section of The New York Times, but my feeling is that this was reported in this sparsely read section Friday and Saturday, so that the average schmo (like me, for example) doesn't get a chance to see what's going on!
MY TRUE BELIEF IS THAT WE ARE BEING SKINNED ALIVE! THIS HAPPENED DURING THE CLINTON YEARS AND HIS CRONIES ARE STILL 'IN THE POMADE', AS SOME OF US IN THE PROLETARIAT ARE WONT TO SAY TODAY!
Can anyone investigate this further?
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.