Like the universe should take its spin angle from Jacques Chirac -- who is probably just about to get his precious hide nailed to the barn door for personal corruption in the hallowed U.N. Iraqi "Oil for Food Program."
I understand former AG-USA Richard Thornburg (sp???) is holding not only his, but Koffi Annan's feet to the fire on this question. Unfortunately, the presentation of findings is unlikely to take place before November 2, so not in time to do us some good.
I gathered from Kerry's performance last night, that his magical answer to getting "the Allies" on-board is to set up a spoils system in Iraq. (And screw the Iraqi people, that is. Talk about some kind of brand-new "Western imperialism"!!! Yeah, that'll work!!!)
On Kerry's take, it seems that France is ripe to be bribed as the price of helping us protect the civilized world. For this to be so, I imagine France must somehow have putatively removed itself from the civilized world. For how else could one justify such a devil's bargain?
The practical question is: Do the American people feel that their future is made more secure by paying Chirac to participate in the absolutely indispensible reconstitution and renovation of Iraq? I suspect with Kerry, money can easily substitute for principle. But I have strong doubts that that's how the real world works.
So: Is France an ally that can be valued or relied upon, if you have to pay them for their "help?" When push comes to shove, oil money or no, wouldn't she fold like a cheap suitcase? On her history, France is always AWOL when the going gets tough. And then WE have to pull her fat out of the fire. [Personally, I hope America will never, ever do that again. Let France be "hoist on her own petard" forevermore.]
Changing the subject: As I've mentioned before, John Kerry is (most unfortunately) MY senator, and has been for the past going-on 20 years. In that whole time, I understand he has sponsored exactly three pieces of legislation. The only one I can recall right now was his sponsorship of a bill to remove the ban on imported prosciutto. (it succeeded.) I gather he took this action in order to curry favor with Boston's overwhelmingly Italian North End, in an election year.
This is a guy who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee -- yet who has missed something approaching 80% of their meetings over the past two years. To me, this clearly demonstrates his detachment from foreign policy reality, in spades.
And so the Prosciutto King/truant Intelligence Committee member has the gall to claim that he is "presidential timber?" On what objective basis can such a claim rest?
I think Dick Morris is absolutely right: Bush won last night on substance (not to mention logic); but Kerry won on "style." He is a classic Sophist, whose main mantra in life is "might makes right." That, and "grease your 'friends.'"
The question is: Which is more important to the American people, in these perilous times -- substance, or "appearance?" I really wonder about that these days. If you listen to the mainstream media, you'd have to conjecture that the American public has gone raving mad. And they would have to be, if they actually believe the stuff they're being told by the self-appointed elite punditry.
Arrghhhhh!!!!!! November 2 can't come soon enough for me, just to get this agony over with. But then I imagine the real nightmare will begin: A legion of lawyers will swarm all over the land, contesting the election; and we'll be lucky if the issue is settled by Inauguration Day.
I pray God I am wrong about that!
Thank you, dear marron, for your deeply penetrating, insightful, and -- as ever -- magnificent analysis. I hate you to think I'm flattering you at all, but to me, you stand as a modern-day exemplar of Aristotle's Spoudaios, or mature, virtuous man.
By way of aside: "Virtue" in the common view these days stands for a set of namby-pamby qualities that do not connect with what our punditry considers to be relevant to the human condition. Indeed, they ever appear to such as signs of weakness.
Which is the total inversion of what Aristotle thought about the subject. "Virtue" comes from the root, vir -- MAN. To the classical Greeks, virtues were precisely the MANLY qualities. They were such that could never be expected from women or slaves. The Aristotelian virtues encompass such things as integrity, self-reliance, prudence, justice, temperance, friendship, etc. A "man's man" was a virtuous man. Lacking such qualities, a man would be regarded as "slave." And Aristotle's contempt for the slave was virtually unbounded. (A real flaw in his character I imagine, with the benefit of hindsight.)
How the times have changed!!! Now we celebrate the "namby-pamby." [We just don't call it that anymore.]
Thank you so very much for sharing your just and penetrating thoughts.
nicely put
At least we do in your home state.
The investigation of the UN Iraqi Oil-for-food Program is being handled by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volker. I gather it's not exactly a bed of roses for Volker these days, running head-on into the wall of established UN privilege and bureaucratic opacity.
I realized my error very shortly after writing my last. Let the record stand corrected.
And may Paul Volker succeed in discharging his present duties to the American people -- who mainly pay the freight over there in Turtle Bay -- just to get slapped in the face for the "privilege," when the going gets tough....
I apologize for any confusion my uncorrected remarks may have caused.