The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

Ah, the good Senator took a few hours away from the nationwide Wendy's bus tour to visit with journalists at the Unity 2004 Conference for Journalists of Color, where he uttered this line...

I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more
proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and
brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.

A more sensitive war on terror? Does he plan on offering the terrorists counseling? A teddy bear? Cookies?

Look, anyone can make a simple misstatement. So maybe I should forgive that line. But here's Kerry during the Q&A, later in the session:

Specifically, what would you have done if you had been caught in a Florida
newsroom -- or, I'm sorry, a Florida classroom on September 11, 2001? Would you, given the power of hindsight, have taken the nation to war, as President Bush
has said he would, given hindsight? And lastly, what would you do to get the
nation out of Iraq, specifically?

KERRY: Great question. And I appreciate... (APPLAUSE) I'm going to
take a minute on this question, because it's one of the most important questions
facing the nation, obviously.

First of all, had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered
in my ear, "America is under attack," I would have told those kids very politely
and nicely that the president of the United States had something that he needed
to attend to... (APPLAUSE) ... and I would have attended to it. (APPLAUSE)

Thanks for the gratuitous cheapshot, Senator. Nice positive campaign, and it's good to know that you seem to think, along with Michael Moore and the rest of the idiots, that Bush needed to jump up and walk out of the classroom to prove something. Also, am I supposed to believe this? This is John Kerry, the man who voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Wouldn't he be more likely to tell the kids what he said, then re-consider it sixteen times before he left the room?

Let's get back to his answer...

Secondly -- and this is important, ladies and gentlemen, because Americans
want to know that the person they choose as president has all of the skills and
the ability, all of the mental toughness, all of the gut instinct necessary to
be a strong commander in chief. I'm asking you to trust our nation, our history,
the world, your families in my hands, and I understand that. It's a big ask, and
it's a tough judgment you have to make. But I believe, in this case, there is a
very clear choice.

I come to the job of commander in chief with the rare, gratefully, but
important experience of having fought in a war. And the war that I fought in was
a war where we saw America lose its support for the war, where the soldiers came
back having had to do what our soldiers are doing today, carry an M-16 in
another country, try to tell the difference between friend and foe.
I know what it's like to go out at night on patrol and you don't know what's around the next corner. I know what it's like to write home to your family and tell them,
"Hey, everything's OK," even though in your gut you're scared stiff and you
don't know if it is OK.

And I believe we need a commander in chief who understands the test before
you send young people to war. You got to be able to look parents in the eyes if
they lose their son or daughter and say to them, "I tried to do everything in my
power to avoid this, but we had no choice as a nation, as a people, because of
the challenge to our country, to our fundamental values from a threat that was
real and imminent."

Keep in mind, Kerry supported Bill Clinton throughout Clinton's eight years in the White House. Apparently, he never thought to raise this objection while Clinton was in office. But let's continue...

I believe in my heart of hearts and in my gut that this president fails
that test in Iraq. And I know this because I, personally, and others were deeply
involved in the effort with other countries to bring them to the table. I met
with the Security Council of the United Nations in the week preceding the vote
in the Senate.

I voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, because, had I been president,
I would have wanted that authority, because that was the way to enforce the U.N.
resolutions and be tough with the prospect of his development of weapons of mass destruction. But the president said he would go to war as a last resort.
The president said he would exhaust the remedies of the U.N. The president said
he would build a legitimate international coalition.

Aaah, so our allies are "illegitimate." Guess what, Senator? You just insulted Great Britain, Australia, Poland, Spain, and at least twenty other countries. And let's make something clear -- I'd rather have every one of these countries on my side before France. The left's obsession with lining up more allies seems to forget that we had allies. Forget the fact that even some of those who opposed the war, like Russia, have openly stated that they agreed that Iraq presented a threat to the United States. Let's ignore all that and listen to more from Ketchup Boy:

And here we are, several years later, having made an end-run around the United Nations, alienated our allies, put our soldiers at greater risk than they needed to be, asked the American people to pay almost $200 billion, because we didn't have the patience, we didn't have the maturity to exhaust the remedies available to us and truly build that coalition and understand the nature of the threat.

My friends, I believe there is a firm conviction with which I approach defending our country. And that is that the United States of America, through all of our history, has set up a standard: The United States doesn't go to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. And that's the standard that I will apply to the presidency. (APPLAUSE)

Excuse me? Has he even studied American history????? Did we have to go to war in Bosnia? The Persian Gulf? Grenada? Vietnam? Korea? World War I? The Spanish-American War? The Mexican War? If the history teachers in public schools could actually do their job, Kerry might not get away with this line. What a joke.

And as for an "end-run" around the U.N., we're back to coded language. What Kerry's saying is, if we follow all the U.N. procedures and rules, and they refuse to agree to go to war, then we can't go to war to defend ourselves. Let's see what else this scholar says...

Now, might we have wound up going to war with Saddam Hussein? You bet we
might have -- after we exhausted those remedies and found that he wasn't
complying and so on and so forth. But not in a way that provides -- you know, 90
percent of the casualties are American, and almost all of the cost.

And the American taxpayer, just think of that $200 billion for the schools,
for health care, for the things that we could be doing in America. The choice,
it seems to me, is clear.

Now, what do we do to get out of there? What do we do to achieve our goals
legitimately? Well, let me tell you.

Is there anybody sitting here in this room who doesn't believe that every
Arab country in fact has a real and legitimate interest in not having a failed
Iraq, in not having a civil war on its borders? But they're not at the table.

Um, nice work using the word "Arab" since that leaves out Iran, which has every interest in having an unstable Iraq. Oh, and I guess we now have a "failed Iraq." The former dictator's being put on trial. An interim government is in place. Elections are scheduled. Sorry we're going so slow, Senator -- this isn't a four month process, like your service in Vietnam. As for the Arab nations in question, does anyone doubt that they are terrified at the prospect of a free and democratic Iraq? Dictators don't enjoy the idea of freedom next door.

And on the rest of this drivel, can someone explain how much time Kerry would have given Saddam before going to war? We exhausted all our remedies and found out he wasn't complying with the U.N. resolutions. We believed he was a threat. Kerry believed he was a threat -- that's why he voted for the war. His idiotic formulation that he voted to give the President the power to do something basically says he granted the President a blank check -- which indicates a serious lack of judgment from a guy who protested the Vietnam War.

More from Teresa's husband...

Is there anybody here who believes that Europe, with its own Muslim
populations and its own geopolitical issues, as well as its global responsibilities, doesn't have an interest in not having a failed Iraq and a civil war? But they're not really at the table. And the fact that they're not, I believe, underscores dramatically the failure of diplomacy and statesmanship by this administration.

So here's what I will do; it's what I've always wanted to do, it's what
I've proposed for months: We need to have an international conference in which
we put these global issues on the table. We need to be prepared to have a
high commissioner who is responsible for the management, decision-making and
helps in the transformation so it's not an American transformation.

So that's the grand vision. An international conference -- because we all know how much those vehicles accomplish. Can we send John Edwards, with all of his vast international expertise, to represent us? Or maybe Jimmy Carter?

The failure of diplomacy bit is the most disingenuous part of this speech. Those European nations who refused to support us made their risk calculations. They didn't want to stand up to their Muslim populations, and they enjoyed the profits they were making from illicit deals with Saddam. They believed that the U.S. would be the target of aggression by radical Islamists in the future, while their appeasement would keep them safe from reprisal. So they chose not to support the war. Diplomacy doesn't change that risk calculation. Once the war was over, their decisions again factor into play their own domestic concerns and the opportunity to play power broker. Apparently, we need to give away power to people who wouldn't support the war, so they can impose their will on Iraq. Makes sense, since France and Germany have had so much success implementing new governments. But let's let Kerry finish...

We need to have a sharing of the decision-making and the responsibility,
and we need to have a sharing of the reconstruction so that other people
actually have an interest in coming to the table. And I believe that what
America needs now more than anything is a new president with new credibility,
with a fresh start for America, to bring people to the table and to leverage
appropriately our global interests in standing up for success in Iraq and for
having a shared responsibility about how we respond to terror.

The United States of America should never have allowed itself to be
isolated by Islamic extremists. We should be isolating extreme Islam. And that
means reaching out to moderate clerics and mullahs and imams and conducting a
foreign policy not just dependent on our military might, but a foreign policy
that's dependent on the power of American ideas and ideals and principles and
values. Working with other countries, my friends, in my administration
will not be the sign of weakness it is for these people. It will be a sign of
strength. And I will make America stronger.

Please excuse me while I vomit.

We're isolated because we're willing to take a stand. Liberals take pains to point out that our country had a ton of goodwill after September 11th and have seemingly squandered it. Let's start with the opening point -- we had to have 3,000 Americans killed and billions in damages done to earn that goodwill! If the tradeoff next time is a nuke in Chicago, I'd rather be hated than pitied.

Next, we're not just isolating extremist Islam -- we're tracking it down and killing it. Moderate Muslims have their chance to talk with us and work with us -- look in Afghanistan and Iraq, where Sistani and others are busy condeming the bombing of Christian churches.

Finally, Kerry thinks he will have increased credibility... to do what, exactly? He doesn't say, since he's already said his war plan is secret. But beyond that, he thinks he will be accorded more respect than the current President. Does anyone believe that a man who can't explain whether he voted for the war, whose constituency is rabidly against the war and the use of U.S. military power, and who has implicitly stated that the U.N. should have a veto on the use of U.S. military power will garner respect from the rest of the world?

We know the answer to that question. He served in Vietnam!

Jokes aside, Kerry's statements on Iraq are devoid of substance. What's worse is that the lack of substance may be all that he has.