Symposium Roundup, part 2
One of the most remarkable things I’ve found as I’ve gone through these symposium responses on John Kerry’s press conferencita is the breadth of the criticism that is possible. Hugh chose this symposium question wisely, because the number of angles that it can be attacked from is staggering. I’ve been surprised at how rarely points are repeated in the Kerry-takedowns, and how many new points have come up. But don’t take my word for it: read on.
I am beginning to think that he realizes the flip flopping charges are true. Judging by the first two sentences of his response he is now getting so defensive about it he is unable to form a coherent sentence.
Of the 60 countries with al-Qaeda members in them the U.S., the U.K., Pakistan, Indonesia and others who are allies in the Global War on Terror are included. No, my son, we do not have to invade each of the nations who have Islamo-fascist terrorist in them. We have to ensure that those sick worshippers of death are prevented from receiving the tools they use to attack innocent people and we have to pursue them through police and investigative means until they are captured or killed, but no, we do not have to invade.
Gnosticism is the doctrine of salvation by knowledge. Gnostics are the “people who know” and their knowledge is mystically secret from the rest of us—just as Kerry’s plan and position on Iraq is mystically secret. It is a pessimistic worldview which holds that the world is a corruption and calamity and which longs for “magic words” to save it. The new Gnosticism is modern Liberalism, the camp to which Kerry belongs.
The part that is unnerving to me is this entire suggestion that he will be a tactical activist. We already know, and he has admitted it recently, that much of his strategic view, getting others (read: Germany and France) to help/replace us in Iraq, is a non-starter. This leaves us with the uncomfortable notion of the micro-managing CEO, Hitler in Poland trying to direct the German army around Stalingrad, LBJ pouring over the aerial maps of Hanoi, John Kerry with his pointer going over the house to house satellite pictures of Fallujah…
What I find amusing is the fact that all three questions, that he so generously answered yesterday, were very pointed and direct. This from a media that treats all Liberal candidates (and this one specifically) with kid gloves, tossing whiffle ball questions so as not to offend or appear over eager. He was confronted by his worst nightmare, being asked a directly, pointed questions and he fell apart !! Lacking the Clinton-esque ease at deflection, he over answered when he should have kept silent.
Kerry reminds us that he does not deal in hypotheticals. I wonder if this means that all his military planners will wait until the battlefield is shaped by the enemy before they decide on how to fight. It simply reinforces the REACTIONARY nature of John Kerry and his complete inability to be PROACTIVE.
Conservative Poker Fan in “The Biz”
I don’t know if anyone will remember this, but in a long ago “Peanuts” comic strip, Charlie Brown walks up to a child and screams at them “BELIEVE IN ME!” He then walks up to another child and screams “BELIEVE IN ME!” He walks up to a third child and screams “BELIEVE IN ME!” In the final panel of the strip, he’s talking with Snoopy (if my memory is correct) and asks, “Why won’t anyone believe in me?” You can almost hear Kerry demanding that people understand just how much smarter he is than the rest of us and that, doggone it, he has a plan for Iraq that we should let him implement; don’t you understand?!!? He has a plan! BELIEVE IN HIM!
Kerry’s handlers know that words like “Lebanon” and a sense of hopeless doubt will keep the crowd in line. The answers don’t need to make sense or help us form an opinion of policy. All they need to do is provoke an emotional response.
Kerry implies that the Global War on Terror ends when Osama bin Laden is confirmed dead or captured, and that this is the only victory condition he thinks important…Kerry’s rhetoric artificially separates Iraq from the GWOT. Iraq is not separate from the GWOT; to the contrary, Iraq is a critical theater in the GWOT…
Kerry believes that UN sanctions was the only appropriate course of action, despite Saddam’s bribery of 3 of the 5 members of the UN Security Council.
“Nothing I say prior to January 20th is binding on me subsequent to my inauguration, or binding on the brass that swore to obey me as Commander-in-Chief. And because the Super-Senator can’t let foriegn policy eclipse domestic concerns, I will get in my Hindsight Express and visit pregnant teenagers to talk about abstinence, visit an AA meeting to talk about moderation, and visit a state prison to talk about integrity.”
Kerry or his staff must realize that the damage he has caused in the course of this campaign to the war effort, our allies, and now his senior brass at the Pentagon is immeasurable and perhaps intractable. But for Kerry, the means justify the end.
He is incredibly naive. I find it hard to believe that going through Viet Nam, serving as a prosecutor, and serving 20 years in the United States Senate could leave you anything but cynical. Yet, repeatedly the junior Senator from Massachusets has displayed an uninformed, if not down right Pollyanna-ish grasp of the world we live in. Does all his money so insulate him from the world the rest of us live in that he simply can’t fathom it (a la Paris Hilton)?
He cannot possibly know what he’ll face when he takes office in January - it might be “Lebanon” - but he nevertheless has a plan?!? The man can’t get through a paragraph without contradicting himself!
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. To comment, please register. No profanity, please. Non-family-friendly words will be changed to amusing euphemisms as suits the author.
October 9th, 2004 at 1:31 pm
Kerry’s worldview is not pre 9/11, it’s pre 1980. His indecisiveness and vaccilation is eerily reminiscient of Jimmy Carter. I would love to see a reporter ask Kerry what he thought of the French Foriegn Minister’s suggestion that, if such a summit on Iraq were to take place, ALL parties-including the “insurgents” in Iraq-should be represented. Perhaps such a meeting could be arranged and that we could seat President Flip Flop next to Mr. Zarqawi during dinner.
Only trouble is…I don’t think the secret service would allow Mr. Zarqawi to have access to any cutting instruments for his food. At which point, Flip Flop could fight a more sensitive war on terror by cutting Mr. Zarqawi’s chateaubriand for him. Would this be anything like “getting to the root causes of terrorism?”