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?
The Pan Am 103 bombing on December 21, 1988, killed 270 people, including 189 Americans. But Libyan terror chief Moammar Gadhafi has not been charged.
"'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 "
Our sympathy for Alberta.
BTTT
So what you're really getting at is the fact that the Bush administration hasn't defined the enemy as worldwide Islam and those who take the Koran literally? Or that we have thousands of miles of sparsely protected borders, or both? In fact, there's more than one way to skin a cat, and if we manage pick off the axis of evil one by one, all the better.
Along the way, we're hoping to persuade those who will listen, that it's better to live in the real world, one where people are allowed to make up their minds which religion, if any, they want to practise. This may be pie in the sky, but it's worth a shot, and that's what Iraq is all about. (Don't forget NK, too, while we're discussing enemies.) And yes, we're being invaded by the millions of Mexicans/Hispanics, a good many of whom don't plan to assimilate. I agree that we have big problems, but Kerry won't solve any of them.
I offer this possible scenario:
Our allies (Great Britain, Australia, Poland, Japan,...) would realize that the new President is going to bail out of Iraq and they don't want to be the ones left to turn out the light, so they'll beat cheeks out of Iraq faster then Kerry grabbing his board after hearing "Surf Up Everybody!" Afganistan's international forces hit the road too, realizing that Kerry is going to pull out of there too, faster than he can pull on a pair of those spiffy biker's shorts...
Iraq falls into chaos, Al Queda moves in and opens up a chain of Raddison resorts and training grounds. Iran cuts a deal with Zahwahiri and props up an Al Sadir dictatorship...
...We log in the next day (because we all quit watching TV news after Rathergate), only to read that both Afganistan's Musharraf and Pakistan's Karzai have both been assasinated in coordinated attacks...
...The rest of the world realizes the Global Cop is going to be in busy eating low-fat zero-carb doughnut flakes at the local smoke-free Krispy Kreme for the next four years, so they all decide they have to take things into thier own hands...
...Tony Blair ends up covertly propping up the Kurds in order stop the flow of radicals into Turkey and eventually the rest of Europe. France catches wind of it, fears thier illegal oil might be disrupted, and covertly supports both both the Zahwahiri regime and Syria in order to keep the go-juice pumping...
...The outgunned Kurds are mostly desecrated in another series of gas attacks. Over 50,000 die...
...Pakistan's new Taliban government finds the keys to the nukes. New Delhi is leveled, leaving over 200,000 dead. India unloads everything in it's silos on not only Islamabad, but Kabul as well (They decide to cover the flank)...
...North Korea realizes that this is thier chance to both really bond with China and pick up a little real estate, so they drop a couple of thier own on Tokyo. In a moment of delicious irony, they drop one on Hiroshima as well. South Korea surrenders within 3 months without a shot being fired....
...China, realizes that the US is too busy at this point wringing thier collective hands over the world crisis, but unable to stop themselves from being distracted about global warming. We open our browsers the next day to read that Taiwan's entire government has either quit or has been "retired"...
...Both the Phillipine and Indonesian governments fall in a matter of weeks. New, well-armed Islamic regimes step in to "quell the violence". Global shipping stops...
...Understandibly by this point, Israel has an itchy trigger finger. Tanks and bulldozers systemically reduce Gaza to nothing but red-stained rubble. The West Bank is shelled from the sea and air. Lebonon is bombed into the stone-age. If anyone moves, it's game over...
...Meanwhile, it's the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.
Ooops! And Hill's calling the shots in Kerry headquarters, too. Poor Kerry. What a dunce.
I'm not a big Bill Kristol fan, but this column is right on the money.
Hello! DU troll anybody?!?!
one of the absolute best articles I've read! he's pegged this loser for what he is and made several incredibly good points.
An excellent article from Bill Kristol, and 100% true. No amount of disgust that Americans can show to John Kerry and the Democrats is enough to equal what they deserve for this pathetic display.
Any press jackal who repeats this trash and helps the Dems trash America (David Gregory, John King, Norah O'Donnell, etc.) should be ostracised forever by thinking people everywhere. I for one will never watch David Gregory on television again. The instant he comes on, I will turn the channel.
Your scenario sounds frighteningly reasonable, with one caveat: Israel would probably have nuked Iran earlier on than you mentioned.
Could you be clearer about what your specific point is? And why it takes you 6 spam posts to state it?
Do you think that Americans won't remember that Libya is a terrorist state?
Beautiful!
I don't think they'll remember it much.
You need to get out more. Most people here support Bush and taking it to the Islamofascists.
I figured that with a complete withdrawl of US support, as well as Kerry's reluctance to take a stand in supporting Israel, that they'd hold back as long as they possibly could. They'd only pull the trigger if they thought it was thier last option.
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.