Tuesday, December 16, 2003
Kerry cannot be serious
I think John Kerry served in Vietnam. I'm not sure, but I'll check on it. Anyway, this is that nicely-coifed dude at the Council on Foreign relations about 2 weeks ago:
"Simply put, the Bush administration has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."
And, l'homme qui semble francais said, on Fox News Sunday, after Saddam was captured:
"This is a great opportunity for this president to get it right for the long term. And I hope he will be magnanimous, reach out to the U.N., to allies who've stood away from us."
And yesterday, the guy who married an insanely rich widow said:
"And at other times, Governor Dean said that we should not go into Iraq unless the UN Security council gave us authorization. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a President protects the United States. I have said many times I believe that America should have worked to get international backing before going to war. Our diplomacy should have been as good as our soldiers. A true international coalition would have been better for our troops, better for our security, better for Iraq's future. Perhaps it reflects inexperience, but for Howard Dean to permit a veto over when America can or cannot act not only becomes little more than a pretext for doing nothing, it cedes our security and presidential responsibility to defend America to someone else -- a profound danger for both our national security and global stability... To follow the path that Howard Dean seems to prefer is to embrace a 'Simon Says' foreign policy where America only moves if others move first."
Perhaps I am tired from staying all up with my stunningly beautiful newborn daughter Emily, but I seem to remember Bush doing exactly what Kerry proposes that he would have done if President!! Bush went to the United Nations and warned them that they would be irrelevant if they did not enforce their resolutions. And, he went back AGAIN to ask for their assistance in the rebuilding of Iraq, and explained in detail how they can stay relevant. They did nothing!! Kerry said Bush "should" have worked to get international backing. If going to the United Nations twice to speak forcefully and honestly is not "work[ing] to get international backing,' then I do not know what is.
Then Kerry rips Howard Dean for suggesting we allow others to veto our actions. Once again, did Bush allow France or Germany's opposition to get in the way? HELL NO!!!
So, which is it, Monsieur Kerry? Do we go with the U.N., or do we ignore them? Or, do we try our best to get them to go along, and if they refuse to assist in defending our security, go along without their so-called "legitimacy?" So, depending on what time of the day it is, you advocate a position that only plays to the far-left of your party. Then, at other times, you advocate exactly what Bush has done and is doing!!! Either way, you lose mon ami.
I feel sorry for Kerry. It is plainly obvious he is aware of the reticence of France and the worthlessness of the U.N. He needs to stop saying we need to bring them in. Bush tried, and they ran off after the first car bomb, and they are ready to abandon Afghanistan as well. What Kerry needs to do now is stay his new course, and re-affirm his support for his vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Let Dean take the nomination and have the Democratic Party implode. He can at least be one of the guys who tried to save the party. Instead, he is one of the main people bringing it down. But, since I am a huge Bush supporter, I hope he doesn't take my advice.
P.S. Jean, Bill O'Reilly made you look like a rambling dope on his show.
"Simply put, the Bush administration has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."
And, l'homme qui semble francais said, on Fox News Sunday, after Saddam was captured:
"This is a great opportunity for this president to get it right for the long term. And I hope he will be magnanimous, reach out to the U.N., to allies who've stood away from us."
And yesterday, the guy who married an insanely rich widow said:
"And at other times, Governor Dean said that we should not go into Iraq unless the UN Security council gave us authorization. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a President protects the United States. I have said many times I believe that America should have worked to get international backing before going to war. Our diplomacy should have been as good as our soldiers. A true international coalition would have been better for our troops, better for our security, better for Iraq's future. Perhaps it reflects inexperience, but for Howard Dean to permit a veto over when America can or cannot act not only becomes little more than a pretext for doing nothing, it cedes our security and presidential responsibility to defend America to someone else -- a profound danger for both our national security and global stability... To follow the path that Howard Dean seems to prefer is to embrace a 'Simon Says' foreign policy where America only moves if others move first."
Perhaps I am tired from staying all up with my stunningly beautiful newborn daughter Emily, but I seem to remember Bush doing exactly what Kerry proposes that he would have done if President!! Bush went to the United Nations and warned them that they would be irrelevant if they did not enforce their resolutions. And, he went back AGAIN to ask for their assistance in the rebuilding of Iraq, and explained in detail how they can stay relevant. They did nothing!! Kerry said Bush "should" have worked to get international backing. If going to the United Nations twice to speak forcefully and honestly is not "work[ing] to get international backing,' then I do not know what is.
Then Kerry rips Howard Dean for suggesting we allow others to veto our actions. Once again, did Bush allow France or Germany's opposition to get in the way? HELL NO!!!
So, which is it, Monsieur Kerry? Do we go with the U.N., or do we ignore them? Or, do we try our best to get them to go along, and if they refuse to assist in defending our security, go along without their so-called "legitimacy?" So, depending on what time of the day it is, you advocate a position that only plays to the far-left of your party. Then, at other times, you advocate exactly what Bush has done and is doing!!! Either way, you lose mon ami.
I feel sorry for Kerry. It is plainly obvious he is aware of the reticence of France and the worthlessness of the U.N. He needs to stop saying we need to bring them in. Bush tried, and they ran off after the first car bomb, and they are ready to abandon Afghanistan as well. What Kerry needs to do now is stay his new course, and re-affirm his support for his vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Let Dean take the nomination and have the Democratic Party implode. He can at least be one of the guys who tried to save the party. Instead, he is one of the main people bringing it down. But, since I am a huge Bush supporter, I hope he doesn't take my advice.
P.S. Jean, Bill O'Reilly made you look like a rambling dope on his show.
