March 9, 2004
THE DEMOCRACY FETISH:
Introducing the Kerry Doctrine (James Lileks, March 8, 2004, Jewish World Review)
"President Kerry would never have allowed that to get where it is," Kerry said, speaking in that odd third-person style used by popes, kings and rap stars. A Kerry administration would have presented the rebels with a 48-hour ultimatum: Make nice, "otherwise, we're coming in," he said.There you have the Kerry Doctrine. Wherever people struggle against a corrupt and unjust kleptocracy, President Kerry will give them two days to knock it off, or he's sending in American soldiers to shoot them. [...]
Keep in mind that Kerry voted against the use of force to dislodge Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. When a dictator invades a neighbor, seizes strategic oil fields and consolidates his position as the region's No. 1 flaming carbuncle, Kerry rejects a multilateral response. Ragtag rebels in a perpetually dysfunctional state threaten a U.S.-installed incompetent, and Kerry sends in the Marines.
Perhaps there's a reason not many senators make the leap to the presidency. As we're constantly reminded, that august body is collegial, respectful, suffused with history and utterly besotted with self-importance. That leads to Senatitis, a disease in which otherwise rational men believe that the rest of the country doesn't see through equivocating bloviation in a second. There is no cure.
Just how crooked does an "election" have to be before the Senator will acknowledge its illegitimacy? Was WWII unjustified because the Nazis elected? Posted by Orrin Judd at March 9, 2004 8:37 AM
The thought just occurred to me that Kerry is actually frightfully consistent:
--he opposed military action to remove Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, from power;
--he would have sent troops to Hati to maintain the dictator Jean Aristide in power;
--he wants to send economic aid to North Korea in support of the dictator Kim Jong Il;
--he opposed the Cold War and would have accomodated the Communist dictatorship of the USSR;
--he opposed the war in Vietnam, when we fought against the North Vietnamese dictatorship;
In other words, Kerry sides with the totalitarian dictator every time.
Don't forget the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the hard-line coup in Grenada, etc.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2004 11:11 AM. . . and Castro, and Arafat, and so on.
Is there a dictator Kerry doesn't like?
Posted by: Mike Morley at March 9, 2004 12:09 PM"Just how crooked does an election have to be before the Senator will acknowledge its illegitimacy?"
The moment he loses to Bush...
(And by the way, did you know JFKerry served in Vietnam?)
Posted by: Ken at March 9, 2004 12:11 PMYesterday on Hannity he was riffing on this point, and said somebody should start a "Dictators for Kerry" campaign group. I laughed out loud, but obviously there is a serious pattern here, and it isn't all that funny, really ...
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at March 9, 2004 1:05 PMHere's a question for JF***Kerry -- "Besides Agosto Pinoche, please name three dictators whose removal from power you supported."
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at March 9, 2004 1:38 PMHas Kerry ever gone on record about Mugabe? If he wants to be the 2nd black president, one wonders if it is for the thugs or the real victims.
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 9, 2004 10:41 PMThe Nazis were never "elected"; indeed, even their best electoral performance had them under a majority of the vote and having to depend on conservative religious parties to create a majority in the parliament.
Mike,
As I recall, Kerry voted for the use of force resolution of Oct. 2003.
Bush is also more than willing to send aid to North Korea under certain circumstances; and those circumstances do not require the dictator to leave power (qualified support for a dictator?).
Ronald Reagan also opposed the Cold War (indeed, he was deeply fearful that he would bring on "biblical armageddon"); indeed, his talks with Gorbachev from 1985 onward were greeted with howls from many American conservatives; George Will called him a "dupe" and some others called him a "traitor."
North Viet Nam - well his other choice would have been to support the dictatorship of President Thieu in South Viet Nam. Anyway, not supporting the war is hardly support for North Viet Nam. Hell, I don't support Bush, but that doesn't mean I support Kerry either (indeed, I'll vote for neither). Unless of course you believe that bit of irrational dogmatism known as - "if you are not with us, you are agin' us."
Posted by: Gary Gunnels at March 10, 2004 9:11 AMReagan may not have liked the Cold War, but that's not the same as opposing the Cold War...
Indeed, Reagan ramped up the Cold War, then provided a face-saving exit for the USSR, by negotiating nuclear-warhead reductions.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 10, 2004 7:10 PMThe Cold War, like WWI and WWII, was a mistake. Reagan recognizing that ended it. Of course we had to end it on our terms, but that was secondary.
Posted by: oj at March 10, 2004 11:00 PM