The untalented Mr. Kerry
Even on the day of Hussein’s blessed capture by American forces, the untalented Sen. Kerry still kept droning on in his superior, put-upon tone that the United Nations is the answer. For Kerry, the United States of America is a disruptive, unlawful, primitive entity for which he compulsively expresses his disdain at every opportunity. For example, because of President Bush’s refusal to continue seeking the approval of the French and Germans at the UN last year after they had stabbed him in the back, Kerry says America is no longer a part of the “world community”! But, the Kerry argument continues, if we repent, if we go hat in hand to the UN and confess our faults, if we bring the UN back into Iraq and subordinate ourselves to it, then we will once again be members in good standing in the “world community,” and all problems will be solved. And I mean all problems. There is literally no international or military issue for which Kerry doesn’t offer the UN as the self-evident solution, though he never deigns to tell us what exactly the UN would do in any given instance or how it would handle Iraq better than America. He doesn’t need to. For Kerry, the UN is a sanctified idea (contrasted with the primitive and illegitimate United States), and that is enough. And anyone who doesn’t see the simple truth that Kerry sees is a contemptible fool. During the 1988 campaign, a wag remarked that Michael Dukakis was like Neville Chamberlain: he thought he knew everything about the world, but knew nothing. Kerry is the same. I guess it’s that Massachusetts liberal superiority complex. The superior attitude is protected by a media that never asks Kerry simple, logical questions, viz: “Sen. Kerry, you say that America should have kept negotiating with France and Germany’s last year until they agreed to support the war, no matter how long it took. But what if they had demanded quid pro quos that would have undermined the whole mission?” Or: “Sen. Kerry, what if despite all our attempts to get France and Germany aboard they still refused? What would you have done then?” Or: “Sen. Kerry, since the UN pulled out of Iraq as soon as there was an attack on them, what makes you think the UN can handle this terribly difficult and dangerous situation better than the United States?”
Such questions are never posed to the untalented Sen. Kerry. He has become the white Al Sharpton. Like Sharpton, he speaks incoherent nonsense, but the media don’t want to embarrass him by asking him to make sense of what he’s saying, so they just let him keep running off at the mouth, while paying less and less attention to him. In the first instance, they don’t want to discredit a demagogic, race-baiting black. In the second instance, they don’t want to discredit a knee-jerk, anti-American, Massachusetts liberal. Comments
This is indeed great news. While we bask in it, however, we should note the various headlines and articles that point to a divided Arab and Muslim world. The reaction to Saddam’s capture is not one of universal joy. Quite a contrast from the West, which feels a sense of triumph over his capture (even the French had nice things to say). Samuel Huntington being vindicated again I think… http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3321767.stm Last Updated: Monday, 15 December, 2003, 17:17 GMT Saddam capture stuns Arab world In the Arab world, the capture of the former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been greeted with emotions ranging from jubilation to dejection.
Perhaps the coming trial and (hopefully) execution of Hussein will “encourager les autres”, and others in the Arab/Muslim world will want to visit Mussolini’s fate on the various Mubaraks, Assads, Saudi princes, etc. In this, I think that the neocon strategy may perhaps be fruitful, and that a free Iraq may promote democracy in the Middle East. I agree with Gracian (Dec 15). If evil people are dejected and demoralized by the triumph of Good, that in itself is a reason to celebrate! Posted by: Arie Raymond on December 15, 2003 3:47 PM |