The Dissing of Allawi
The contrast between an incumbent and a challenger could not possibly have been clearer than they were on Thursday, when Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi came to Washington to address a joint session of congress and participate in a press conference with President George Bush. President Bush and PM Allawi, a survivor of a vicious assassination attempt from Saddam Hussein's thugs, exuded confidence and determination and were forthright with their assessments of the current situation in Iraq (15 of the 18 provinces ready for elections presently, pockets of fiercely determined resistance, progress on all fronts slow but generally forward, etc.). For his part, the Iraqi PM was openly grateful to the American people for our past and continuing sacrifices, and presented a realistic, if somewhat optimistic, picture of Iraq for the near and longer terms.
In contrast, Democrat Presidential nominee Sen. John Forbes Kerry, who apparently couldn't take time out from campaigning to meet with the Iraqi leader he is likely to have to work with should he be elected in November, managed instead to make time to stand alongside a fire truck in Columbus, Ohio and claim that both President Bush and PM Allawi were living in a fantasy world. Mr. Kerry went so far as to claim that Mr. Allawi clearly had no idea what was going on inside his own country - a contry that Mr. Kerry has yet to see firsthand - and that Mr. Allawi, according to Mr. Kerry's mouthpiece, was little more than a puppet for the Bush Administration. I suppose the Kerry campaign's official position is that their talking-points are a better indicator of the on-the-ground situation in Iraq than the eyewintess accounts of the leader of that very country. This must be an example of what the Zionist neocons in the Bush Administration refer to as "chutzpah".
Ignoring for the moment that it appears Mr. Kerry and spokesman Joe Lockhart (the above mentioned mouthpiece) are taking their rhetorical cues from the terrorist insurgency, and that doing so represents a spectacular level of irresponsibility from someone who aspires to be the leader of the free world, I find it nonetheless interesting that Mr. Kerry, supposedly the darling of the international community, continues to practice his unique from of diplomacy. After all, it is somewhat intriguing that Mr. Kerry chooses to deride our allies (Britain, Australia, Italy, Poland, Mr. Allawi's interim Iraqi government, and about 30 others) as the "Coalition of the bribed and the bought" while simultaneously displaying extreme deference to those who have done little, if anything at all, to stop the spread of Islamofascism across the globe (such as the UN, French, Chinese and Russians - though they now appear, after the Beslan Massacre, to be prepared to sign-on to The Bush Doctrine of pre-emption; better late than never, I suppose).
Mr. Kerry would, more likely than not, still have us arguing over whether or not the Taliban in Afghanistan could truly be held responsible for the actions of Usama bin Laden - the head of what is essentially a non-governmental organization, kind of like Greenpeace.
But such is the deference the junior Senator from Massachusetts gives to international powerhouses such as Jacques Chirac and Kofi Annan. Yet, while Iraqis are dying every day for the grave sin of attempting to sign up for their National Guard and police force (bodies that Kerry faults the President for not getting up and running fast enough), Mr. Kerry chooses not to meet with the leader of a future democratic Iraq, but instead insults him with smarmy campaign rhetoric while sending his hatchet-man out to give al-Jazzera a soundbite for the jihadists.
One is compelled to conclude that Mr. Kerry has no strategy for the war on terror, only a contillion of defeatist rhetoric, pithy soundbites, and a string of sometimes contradictory policy proposals centering on appeasing our opponents and discouraging our friends. Those few policy
items he has chosen to share with the great unwashed aside from his wholesale rip-off of the President's post-war Iraq policy (but he can do it better!) that could possibly strengthen our defense and intelligence operations stand in stark contrast with his far-left Senate record and his own stated positions on these very matters only one election cycle ago. His linking, delinking, re-linking and finally re-delinking of Iraq from the larger War on Terror do not demonstrate nuance, but rather a dithering indecision that is worth only of a high-level U.N. bureaucrat.
Thus, after twisting in the breeze for 18-months attempting to concoct a coherent strategy, Mr. Kerry's ninth (and one would have to assume, for the time being at least, final) position on Iraq is one of claiming defeat and urging retreat. His "we must win" rhetoric to the contrary, there is little mention of "victory" from the Kerry campaign regarding Iraq, only "withdrawl". Mr. Kerry, his standing in public opinion polls slipping into Dukakis territory, evidently thinks his best hope for his own political victory is to sell out our allies by insisting that things in Iraq are hopeless - beyond repair - thus providing encouragement, aid and comfort to our enemies, endangering the lives of our troops and our allies.
However, this seems to be one of the few instances where Mr. Kerry has been consistent throughout his entire adult life. His history seems to indicate that he is more than happy to throw our troops and allies under the proverbail bus - be it in Iraq today or South Vietnam 3-decades ago - in order to curry favor with the pacifist, left-wing fringe both here and in Europe and advance his personal political prospects. Maybe this is just "Kerry being Kerry" - certainly that assessment would not surprise the members of John O'Neil's "SwiftVets" group, who have been saying essentially the same thing since May. Perhaps this further explains the Senator's attempts to base his entire campaign not on his 20-year record of slashing defense and intelligence budgets, supporting leftist jurists and utopian international treaties, and a limitless expansion of the welfare state (his official Senate record), and instead base his entire rationale for why he should be elected President on his 18-week tour in Vietnam some 35-years ago.
Still, it is somewhat sad that one of our two major political parties has chosen to nominate someone for the highest office in the land who is so clearly unable to support our friends, allies, or even or own best interests as to be grossly disqualified for the office he seeks.
That said, it would be an interesting experiment to see if this odd brand of diplomacy - essentially punishing our friends while rewarding our enemies - would actually work in practice. Thankfully, with each passing day, it appears less and less likely that Mr. Kerry will have the opportunity to actually conduct such an experiment.
In contrast, Democrat Presidential nominee Sen. John Forbes Kerry, who apparently couldn't take time out from campaigning to meet with the Iraqi leader he is likely to have to work with should he be elected in November, managed instead to make time to stand alongside a fire truck in Columbus, Ohio and claim that both President Bush and PM Allawi were living in a fantasy world. Mr. Kerry went so far as to claim that Mr. Allawi clearly had no idea what was going on inside his own country - a contry that Mr. Kerry has yet to see firsthand - and that Mr. Allawi, according to Mr. Kerry's mouthpiece, was little more than a puppet for the Bush Administration. I suppose the Kerry campaign's official position is that their talking-points are a better indicator of the on-the-ground situation in Iraq than the eyewintess accounts of the leader of that very country. This must be an example of what the Zionist neocons in the Bush Administration refer to as "chutzpah".
Ignoring for the moment that it appears Mr. Kerry and spokesman Joe Lockhart (the above mentioned mouthpiece) are taking their rhetorical cues from the terrorist insurgency, and that doing so represents a spectacular level of irresponsibility from someone who aspires to be the leader of the free world, I find it nonetheless interesting that Mr. Kerry, supposedly the darling of the international community, continues to practice his unique from of diplomacy. After all, it is somewhat intriguing that Mr. Kerry chooses to deride our allies (Britain, Australia, Italy, Poland, Mr. Allawi's interim Iraqi government, and about 30 others) as the "Coalition of the bribed and the bought" while simultaneously displaying extreme deference to those who have done little, if anything at all, to stop the spread of Islamofascism across the globe (such as the UN, French, Chinese and Russians - though they now appear, after the Beslan Massacre, to be prepared to sign-on to The Bush Doctrine of pre-emption; better late than never, I suppose).
Mr. Kerry would, more likely than not, still have us arguing over whether or not the Taliban in Afghanistan could truly be held responsible for the actions of Usama bin Laden - the head of what is essentially a non-governmental organization, kind of like Greenpeace.
But such is the deference the junior Senator from Massachusetts gives to international powerhouses such as Jacques Chirac and Kofi Annan. Yet, while Iraqis are dying every day for the grave sin of attempting to sign up for their National Guard and police force (bodies that Kerry faults the President for not getting up and running fast enough), Mr. Kerry chooses not to meet with the leader of a future democratic Iraq, but instead insults him with smarmy campaign rhetoric while sending his hatchet-man out to give al-Jazzera a soundbite for the jihadists.
One is compelled to conclude that Mr. Kerry has no strategy for the war on terror, only a contillion of defeatist rhetoric, pithy soundbites, and a string of sometimes contradictory policy proposals centering on appeasing our opponents and discouraging our friends. Those few policy
items he has chosen to share with the great unwashed aside from his wholesale rip-off of the President's post-war Iraq policy (but he can do it better!) that could possibly strengthen our defense and intelligence operations stand in stark contrast with his far-left Senate record and his own stated positions on these very matters only one election cycle ago. His linking, delinking, re-linking and finally re-delinking of Iraq from the larger War on Terror do not demonstrate nuance, but rather a dithering indecision that is worth only of a high-level U.N. bureaucrat.
Thus, after twisting in the breeze for 18-months attempting to concoct a coherent strategy, Mr. Kerry's ninth (and one would have to assume, for the time being at least, final) position on Iraq is one of claiming defeat and urging retreat. His "we must win" rhetoric to the contrary, there is little mention of "victory" from the Kerry campaign regarding Iraq, only "withdrawl". Mr. Kerry, his standing in public opinion polls slipping into Dukakis territory, evidently thinks his best hope for his own political victory is to sell out our allies by insisting that things in Iraq are hopeless - beyond repair - thus providing encouragement, aid and comfort to our enemies, endangering the lives of our troops and our allies.
However, this seems to be one of the few instances where Mr. Kerry has been consistent throughout his entire adult life. His history seems to indicate that he is more than happy to throw our troops and allies under the proverbail bus - be it in Iraq today or South Vietnam 3-decades ago - in order to curry favor with the pacifist, left-wing fringe both here and in Europe and advance his personal political prospects. Maybe this is just "Kerry being Kerry" - certainly that assessment would not surprise the members of John O'Neil's "SwiftVets" group, who have been saying essentially the same thing since May. Perhaps this further explains the Senator's attempts to base his entire campaign not on his 20-year record of slashing defense and intelligence budgets, supporting leftist jurists and utopian international treaties, and a limitless expansion of the welfare state (his official Senate record), and instead base his entire rationale for why he should be elected President on his 18-week tour in Vietnam some 35-years ago.
Still, it is somewhat sad that one of our two major political parties has chosen to nominate someone for the highest office in the land who is so clearly unable to support our friends, allies, or even or own best interests as to be grossly disqualified for the office he seeks.
That said, it would be an interesting experiment to see if this odd brand of diplomacy - essentially punishing our friends while rewarding our enemies - would actually work in practice. Thankfully, with each passing day, it appears less and less likely that Mr. Kerry will have the opportunity to actually conduct such an experiment.
posted by Doc J | 10:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home