Today's Reading List:
The Fall: A bankrupt generation is fading away -- V.D. Hanson, NRO
The Whining Windsurfer -- John Podhorestz, The NY Post
Who Knew? -- The American Thinker
The 'Lion of Baghdad' - Washington Times
A Turning Point for Kerry? - Scot Lehigh, The Boston Globe
Allawi speaks truth to America -- The NY Daily News
Kerry finds his voice
Overall, it's an amusing view from this chair. Presidential future loser John Kerry (D-MA) has finally found his voice and it's what's most of us suspected it was all along. The years of posturing for political expediancy appear to have come to an end and -- lo and behold -- he's a squishy anti-war guy.
Hold on, lemme stop and give Jane Fonda a call.
Given the man's horredous betrayal of American soldiers during and after the Vietnam war, I (and others) more or less knew that leopards can't change really change their spots. Kerry was and is a UN-style whimp, where multilateral dialogue and discussions are always preferred to any action, especially if it involves American military muscle.
Perhaps the most illustrative example of this for me came in an exchange between former House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich and Senator Kerry's foriegn policy maven Richard Holbrooke on one of the network morning shows. Holbrooke stated to Gingrich (and I'm paraphrasing here) that unlike President Bush, Kerry would "get tough with North Korea". Gingrich took the offense and asked Holbrooke point-blank if that meant that Sen. Kerry was prepared to invade North Korea. "No," Holbrooke responded after some initial envasions; Sen. Kerry would sit down with them and do some "tough negotiating."
Translation: more talk. But what do you expect from lawyers?
The other big canard of the Kerry Foriegn Policy is that of multi-lateralism; that is, he wants the UN on board for anything we do, as well as our "allies" the French and the Germans. The big question is why? Is it because he's concerned about our standing in the world? Maybe. Is it because the French and Germans are military powerhouses that can help shoulder the expense of an invasion? Of course not; both have militaries that are little more than make-work bureaucracies equipped with sidearms.
But I want to posit a different motivation: risk management. If all our "allies" are on board, then everybody thinks success is assured (meaning "risk exposure is minimized"). More importantly, it spreads risk so that it's not just the United States that takes the brunt on any downside activity. Indeed, limiting exposure is what I pay my lawyer to do everytime he draws up a contract for my software company. That's why any risk in Iraq is too much. This is also why former President Bill Clinton favored cruise missile strikes to boots on the ground anywhere but Somalia (that was a humanitarian mission, right?) Risk managment seems to be the central credo of the lawyerly class. And it's also the reason lawyers typically make lousy presidents.
The American people are starting to realize this as well. Poll after poll in "battleground states" are trending toward President Bush. They seem to realize that the road to any "War on Terror" ran right through Baghdad. We couldn't avoid the risk of Saddam. It was a matter of choosing which risk to take: risk of leaving him in place to sponsor terrosim and create WMDs, or the risk of casualities by taking him out. In a post 9-11 world, President Bush it was better risk that Saddam be captured or toe-tagged.
No, the world is way too dangerous for spaghetti-spined lawyers like John Kerry to be elected president of these United States, who somehow think legal documents and "tough negoiations" can keep Americans safe.
dpny
