Kerry’s nattering on the campaign trail is getting increasingly incoherent. Just this week the Massachusetts senator was expounding “victory in Iraq” in his most pompous baritone.
There’s no question about who he’s courting in these speeches. Only the elusive “undecided voter” is showered with such lavish attention at this late date. On the other hand, Kerry’s “hard core” anti war constituents get the back of his hand at every turn in the road.
Kerry is promising that he can entice reluctant allies to the rubble-strewn streets of Baghdad with nothing more than his patrician charm. This creates a dilemma for his anti war supporters. These are the die-hard leftists who believe that Kerry will miraculously morph into Mahatma Gandhi once he gets the leather seat in the Oval Office.
It won’t happen, and there’s a real danger in that theory, too.
There’s a chance that Kerry could be right about his ability to cajole more allies into the fray.
Is that a good thing?
Are we looking for a more skillful diplomat to prolong the killing, to subjugate the Iraqi people and to enshrine “unprovoked aggression” as the cornerstone of American foreign policy? Are we willing to trade a bungler and a braggart for a stentorian, flannel-mouth who can disguise criminality as “humanitarian intervention”?
In fact, the problem is that Kerry MIGHT succeed. And, while it is impossible to imagine a more inept cheerleader than our bilious man from Crawford; a Kerry success would be SO MUCH WORSE for the people of Iraq and the planet at large.
There are no “victories” to be won in Iraq. The only worthy goal is withdrawal and justice for the perpetrators.
The very thought of “victory” should send shivers down the spines of Kerry supporters. It only proves that Kerry still doesn’t understand the tacit immorality of the war. Like most of his pedigree, Kerry’s moral compass has gone through the spin cycle one too many times.
Have we heard him condemn the atrocities at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo or any of the other (25) concentration camps in the Rummy solar system?
Of course, not. Kerry would rather just buff up his application and put them under new management. Apparently, Warden Kerry recognizes the regrettable exigencies of global rule and is willing to live with its “unfortunate” victims.
“C’est la vie”: the ethics for the new century, compliments of John Kerry.
A man shouldn’t have to be a pillar of rectitude to run for President, (especially now that the job has become little more than a “figurehead” for America’s “extractive” industries) but he should know the difference between justifiable self defense and cold blooded murder. (i.e., Shock and Awe) Voters should be able to expect that a candidate for the highest office in the land will at least speak out forcefully against the heinous crime of torture. It doesn’t get more basic than that. If Kerry cannot meet this lenient benchmark, he doesn’t disserve your vote.
Kerry’s sense of morality has been asphyxiated by an all-consuming ambition to be President. It’s blinded him to his responsibilities as a candidate and his obligations as a human being. The country doesn’t need another mad-hatter to pilot the Lusitania (even if he does have better diplomatic skills) We’re looking for a man who’ll get us out of Iraq and who knows why we shouldn’t have gone in the first place.
MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: email@example.com