Friday, October 17, 2003

He wants to be our commander-in-chief

But first, a slightly altered quote from “Broadcast News”:

Blair Litton: "Oh, you think anyone who's proud of the work we do is an ass-kisser. "
Aaron Altman: "No, I think [a Presidential candidate] who puckers up their lips and presses it against [the United Nations] buttocks and then *smooches* is an ass-kisser".

That’s right, Senator, get right up there and lick that U.N. boot so you can peel off those anti-war Howard Dean supporters. Don’t be shy! You want the job, right? Pay no attention to those nay-sayers like Mort Kondracke:

By every standard except the short-term political, Democratic presidential candidates Howard Dean and Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) have made a catastrophic decision in saying they oppose President Bush's $87 billion aid package for Iraq.

Another candidate, Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) - who claims to be a national security expert - has said he's leaning toward the same politically suicidal and unconscionable position taken by Dean and Edwards.

Face it: Voting against the $87 billion means voting not to support U.S. troops now fighting for their lives and voting against the reconstruction of Iraq, where people's desperation will make life more dangerous for U.S. troops

Ah, but if you vote for the aid package, you’ll never get the Dem nomination, right? Howard Dean is pulling in the cash and people so the first rule is to emulate him: be the Dean.

Perhaps I’m being unfair. Let’s look at the FAQ that Senator Splunge has included on the web page explaining his vote against the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental bill. For brevity’s sake, I’m just going to include the questions and the first sentence of Kerry’s “answers”:

"I disagree with the Bush approach because it simply doesn’t share the burden with other countries- it doesn’t show the humility necessary to build our friendships and bring people to us."
"I think we win the peace in Iraq by internationalizing this effort."
"I know there’s a better plan for how we deal with Iraq, and here it is, very simply: Number 1: You've got to go the UN completely, not in this phony way that the President’s getting them to sign off just because of the games they play, but in a real transfers [sic] of authority to the UN for the civil development, for the governance, and for the humanitarian programs".

I sense a theme. Aptly, there is no “Number 2” in this last answer. The great panacea to the Iraq situation is to let the United Nations take charge. This would be the same U.N. that refused to enforce their own resolution against Iraq, but no matter – somehow Kerry would convince them where President Bush failed. But then, what would Kerry do if the United States viewed another country as a significant and growing threat to the safety of Americans and the U.N. flatly refused to help? By Kerry’s own admission, he would do nothing.

And that is why John Kerry must be kept away from the White House: he is an unserious person in a serious time.

No comments: