Sunday, October 03, 2004


So, what about the first Presidential Debate?

One man looked confident making contradictory arguments, the other appeared flustered attempting to rebut masterful illogic in a 90-second response format.

The choice between them could not be starker.

Bush: I will stop Iran from getting the bomb by any means necessary, including using, by implication, nuclear bunker busters.

Kerry: I will give Iran nuclear fuel. Nobody, including us, should ever have nuclear bunker busters and we will unilaterally disarm. And I'm against missile defense too. Leave it to the Security Council to stop Iran.

Bush: I will pre-empt gathering threats with military force.

Kerry: I will hold summits. Our actions must pass a Global Test.

That's enough for me. More than enough.

But's lets dissect it further.

Kerry contradicted himself many times, and his foreign policy plans are already themselves "in shatters".

Iran has already rejected cooperating with his fuel-monitoring plan.

And France and Germany have absolutely ruled out sending troops to Iraq, no matter who is President. In fact, they're now worried Kerry might win, as it will expose their intransigence!

Isn't that just delicious?

A European think-tank put it thusly:

"Bush demonstrated the same unlistening approach (in the debate) as we have seen from him. But cynically speaking, it might be more comfortable for European governments if he were reelected".
So there go his big plans for Iran and Iraq.

He also was full of contradictions.

So we relied too much on allies at Tora Bora, but not enough in Iraq?

So Bush is being too multilateral in dealing with North Korea, but too unilateral in Iraq -- even though we have important allies?

This is not nuance, it's Kerry Kerry Quite Contrary!

Kerry also made clear he thinks the Global War on Terror revolves around OBL, harping on how Bush took the focus off of him, which shows a deep misunderstanding of the confluence of terror organizations and rogue states. He thinks it's a law-enforcement problem.

It's not. It's a war that Islamic Fascists have been waging against us since 1979, in which states hide behind their "non state actor" terrorist proxies. We can't win that war unless we cease playing that game and hold the states responsible.

The Bush doctrine is clear: no distinction between the terrorists and the states that harbor them!

Kerry would throw that out the window, along with the Bush pre-emption doctrine.

In fact, according to Kerry's closest advisors as reported in the Washington Times,
Asked what the Kerry Doctrine actually is, Holbrooke, in a conference call with reporters, replied: “There is no Kerry Doctrine.”
You got that right!

Kerry's big selling point is his supposed ability to put together a coalition. This thesis has many problems.

First, it assumes a problem exists that having allies can solve. What are these allies supposed to do? Iraq is not, in spite of media claims, by any historical measure a "Quagmire". And France and Germany DO NOT HAVE any large amounts of offensive combat troops that can be projected into Iraq anyway! Almost all of Europe's expeditionary capability is ALREADY THERE, courtesy of the UK. Europe just doesn't have any significant military capability. We spend TEN TIMES as much on defense as France; and 3x as much as France, Germany, and the UK combined! They don't help us because they can't.

Second, it assumes Kerry is sincere. Yet, he VOTED AGAINST the FIRST Gulf War, even though Bush the Elder DID put together the biggest coalition in history, and we DID have explicit UN "approval". And he was still against it because he's an irredeemable pacifist as his long Senate voting record clearly shows.

Third, we have zero evidence Kerry can put together a coalition; he merely asserts it. Yet, he has no executive experience.

Fourth, it ignores the fact we DO have a coalition!

Fifth, it assumes the countries that aren't helping us really want to, but just can't because Bush somehow mysteriously pushes them away. This is an absurd high-school version of how foreign policy works. What, governments act according to petty popularity, and not through professional diplomats pursuing national interests? Or could the real reason be that France, over 10 years ago when the likeable Clinton was President, made a conscious decision of national strategy to oppose the U.S. in all matters, using the UN and the EU, to counter our lone superpower status? That they even coined a word for what they were fighting, our "hyperpuissance", or "hyperpower"?

France has actively opposed us, by supplying Hussein with arms and advanced equipment right up to the start of the war, and by lobbying hard with Turkey to keep our 4th Infantry Division from launching a Northern front from their territory, which has helped land us in the current unrest? And supplied passports to top-level members of the regime to help them flee through Syria?

You don't have allies just for the sake of having allies to justify your cause, but to fill a need. And there's nothing they bring to the table. Allies that cut and run and pay millions in ransom to the terrorists, are more trouble than they're worth!

The barbarians are at the gates and nothing but violence will repel them.

But if you're curious about what living in a Hobbesian State of Nature would be like, as opposed to modern civilization's fragile, artificial cocoons of godlike luxury we currently enjoy, go ahead, vote for Kerry.

Iran's only 4-12 months away from atomic weapons, you won't have long to wait.


Post a Comment

<< Home