Additional thoughts on Bush-Kerry II
Le Senateur Kerry says, on one hand, that he would never give a foreign government veto power over the commitment of American troops. On the other hand, he seems to have based his entire case against the Iraq war on the argument that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq until the UN and our so-called "allies' had been convinced. Doesn't he see the contradiction?
No. Of course not. The charitable assumption that Kerry's position is based on mere illogic won't hold. Although I wish President Bush had pointed this out last night, Kerry's actual argument is based on a wholly counterfactual assertion: that we rushed into Iraq without really giving the international process a fair shot. In fact, the UN Security Council passed a total of seventeen resolutions requiring Saddam to disarm under UN supervision- a requirement he never met- over the course of seventeen years. Anyone paying attention is aware of the drawn-out and intensive diplomatic struggles of the Bush Administration to bring France, Germany, and the UN on board to finally carry out the threat the Security Council had made seventeen times over the course of twelve years Colin Powell was actually told by French Foreign Minister Dominique DeVillepin that France would support the resolution calling for Security Council-endorsed military action- only to have France break its word at the last moment.
Nor is it remotely credible that John Kerry or anyone else will bring France or Germany or our other pseudo-allies on board in Iraq under any circumstances. When Kerry holds out that prospect, he is simply being disingenuous.
Again, I wish that the President had rammed all this down Kerry's throat last night. But George Bush is a consensus builder, not a debater. He's mildly dyslexic, and does not express himself well verbally- a fact which the politically incorrect, socially insensitive, and rather hypocritical Democrats have chosen to widely and loudly interpret as stupidity, much to their repeated cost. In 2008, debating skills and an ability to express onesself clearly and forcefully will have to be one of the things Republicans look for in a candidate. But for now, we'll have to be content with substance, with perhaps an absence of the finer debating skills and of the killer instinct in our candidate.
All in all, Kerry's case last night, whether on Iraq or on the tax cuts or the deficit (could Kerry name a wartime President in our history who has not run a deficit? How I wish that Mr. Bush had asked that question last night!), Kerry's case was amont the most disingenous I have ever heard a Presidential candidate make- and however forcefully expressed, among the weakest.
One can only hope that the American people are perceptive enough to see through him. As of now, I'm cautiously optimistic.
No. Of course not. The charitable assumption that Kerry's position is based on mere illogic won't hold. Although I wish President Bush had pointed this out last night, Kerry's actual argument is based on a wholly counterfactual assertion: that we rushed into Iraq without really giving the international process a fair shot. In fact, the UN Security Council passed a total of seventeen resolutions requiring Saddam to disarm under UN supervision- a requirement he never met- over the course of seventeen years. Anyone paying attention is aware of the drawn-out and intensive diplomatic struggles of the Bush Administration to bring France, Germany, and the UN on board to finally carry out the threat the Security Council had made seventeen times over the course of twelve years Colin Powell was actually told by French Foreign Minister Dominique DeVillepin that France would support the resolution calling for Security Council-endorsed military action- only to have France break its word at the last moment.
Nor is it remotely credible that John Kerry or anyone else will bring France or Germany or our other pseudo-allies on board in Iraq under any circumstances. When Kerry holds out that prospect, he is simply being disingenuous.
Again, I wish that the President had rammed all this down Kerry's throat last night. But George Bush is a consensus builder, not a debater. He's mildly dyslexic, and does not express himself well verbally- a fact which the politically incorrect, socially insensitive, and rather hypocritical Democrats have chosen to widely and loudly interpret as stupidity, much to their repeated cost. In 2008, debating skills and an ability to express onesself clearly and forcefully will have to be one of the things Republicans look for in a candidate. But for now, we'll have to be content with substance, with perhaps an absence of the finer debating skills and of the killer instinct in our candidate.
All in all, Kerry's case last night, whether on Iraq or on the tax cuts or the deficit (could Kerry name a wartime President in our history who has not run a deficit? How I wish that Mr. Bush had asked that question last night!), Kerry's case was amont the most disingenous I have ever heard a Presidential candidate make- and however forcefully expressed, among the weakest.
One can only hope that the American people are perceptive enough to see through him. As of now, I'm cautiously optimistic.
Comments