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?
What you said, at the end there.
It's a waste of time to talk about what Kristol would do or who he would vote for. It's what Kerry would do and why should anybody vote for that scumbag
Yeah. Like the parents of Breslan. Ask them if there's a war on terror, and if it's "nonsense."
Your usual cynicism is clouding your judgment.
I don't like Kristol because he supports rooting out ANY governments -- with no clear rationale or principles as far as terrorism is concerned. If you need any evidence of that, just ask yourself why he was such a strong supporter of the Clinton administration in the Kosovo/Serbia campaign in 1999.
You remember that, don't you? That was when the U.S. sided with radical Islamic elements in Kosovo in a half-@ssed war against a third-rate dictator in Serbia.
Just curious, are you an American or a Canadian?
Hillary Clinton could have made these comments and I would have agreed with them.
That's the benefit of critical thinking skills.
Also, it's important to realize that most of the people on this forum are news junkies, and enjoy political discourse. Most of the voters that will vote on Nov. 2 aren't.
Clinton got elected because no matter how people in the know felt about him and all of his drawbacks, he knew how to communicate with people in a way that made them feel like they now had a grip on the issue. Problem was that it was HIS grip on the issue.
Most of the people who vote are not going to care about this . . . seditionary criticism of Allawi. It won't effect their vote, though it should.
I hope Kristol gets it, and a whole lot of other questionably conservative, and objectively liberal people get this too, and communicate it regardless of their supposed qualification to do so.
I've been following this election more than any other in my life because I actually, palpably believe that our very lives are at stake.
If Jesse Jackson stands up tomorrow and gives the same analysis, you'll find me singing Kumbaya with him.
"Why don't you tell us all about your vision for Iraq over the next 18 months?"
Aren't you kind of missing the point, dude? Kristol is not running for the office, Kerry is. And he is running around telling us how he will build a coalition (yak yak yak) and hand over Iraq to the UN (yeah, right) while at the same time insulting and smearing the very people that he will have to deal with if he is elected. France, Germany, and Canada aren't going to help no matter who is elected and they can go pound salt in the river.
Kristol is right to call Kerry's fitness into question and ever-increasing millions of us Americans are also questioning his fitness. He is a liar who will say anything to get elected. That is the point.
When JFK tried to start his bizarre "Bush will bring back the draft" he was challenged by someone (a reporter?) to substantiate his claim.
Because there was no factual support available to JFK, he came up with the lame reason that Bush has messed up so bad in Iraq there was no choice but to institute a draft.
Yet when asked his position on a draft, JFK said he was adamently opposed.
So in other words, JFK said he opposes a draft which he says has been made necessary by Bush.
You know, if JFK were not a liberal (who by definition, we are told, are complex, brilliant and highly intellectual creatures), a person might think he was a flaming idiot.
The Clinton people running the Kerry campaign are not this stupid and careless. This is plain sabotage. Kerry's a smart enough guy to know that these Clinton lieutenants have no vested interest in him winning the presidency, and yet he allows them in. Go figure.
Yeah there's no war on terror. Why don't you go over to Afghanistan and offer to buy Bin Laden dinner. See what his reaction is. Better yet, go over and offer your peacekeeping skills to Zarqawi. Maybe you could clean his house, errr cave.
There are plenty of Americans who believe that we are in a real war on terror. There are plenty of courageous young men who are putting their lives on the line so that you can have the freedom to call their sacrifice 'nonsense'. Echoes of the cowardly punks from the 1960s.
William Kristol also happens to be a member of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, which recently criticized the Putin government for its heavy-handed methods of dealing with Islamic terrorists in Chechnya.
It never ceases to amaze me how someone can be so full of sh!t and yet can maintain any credibility when making public comments about issues like this.
Kristol is not the issue. In case you hadn't read all the posts, YOU are now the issue.
I saw that...the guy was a cleric in Sadr City, inciting murder against us & other Iraqis with the words of Kerry/Lockhart.
"I am an American. But even if I were a Canadian, I wouldn't be a Canadian -- I'd be an Albertan." -- Alberta's Child
What, no mirrors at home?
This is the dumbest effing post I've read here, since your last post on this thread.
Kristol has never understood, until now apparently, that anti-American sentiment is in these people's marrow. I don't know whether it was good old-fasioned hope or plain blindness that hasn't allowed him to grasp this until now.
I mean really, the guy has a first-rate education, but it wasn't able to help him get to the nub of this matter until much too late. Even an inner-city school kid with the disgraceful education meted out there would have been able to deduce it, given the track record that has and currently exists.
Sheesh! Talk about a day late and a dollar short!
He should quit now and get someone else to write his articles for him. Maybe rational people like me will take him seriously then.
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.