Tuesday, March 02, 2004

Kerry—Another Liberal Better Suited For Kofi’s Job Rather Than President

John Kerry’s handlers have enjoyed several months of the new JFK being able to make false, outlandish and sometimes wildly adolescent statements in their attempt to define him to the American voters. One of these is trying to mask the fact that behind his heroics in Vietnam, John Kerry is another wimp along the lines of Jimmy Carter who would have America behave as weak and passive and get Kofi’s blessing before taking military action against enemies.

Well John, you’ve tried to be tough and run your mouth with the, “Bring it on,” parody every chance you get. By Thursday, when the big guns begin to volley you are going to get your wish—and your whining quotient is going to increase dramatically.

You and your staff will be chattering like a group of chimpanzees chased by a Lion through the jungle. Squealing and bawling and unable to explain your 20-something year history of over-reliance on treaties and international agreements rather than intervention, voting against every new major weapons systems for our troops, and your desire for acquiescence rather than confronting the truly evil people who threaten our national interests.

John, you’re just another elite Liberal Internationalist who would have America subjugate our power to Kofi, Jacques, Gerhard and others.

Here’s the way one the big boys, Charles Krauthammer, described your worldview during his recent AEI lecture: “Liberal internationalism is the foreign policy of the Democratic Party and the religion of the foreign policy elite. It has a peculiar history. It traces its pedigree to Woodrow Wilson’s utopianism, Harry Truman’s anticommunism, and John Kennedy’s militant universalism. But after the Vietnam War, it was transmuted into an ideology of passivity, acquiescence and almost reflexive anti-interventionism.”

John, as your senate record starts hitting the airwaves this week let me teach three new words: passivity, acquiescence, and anti-interventionism. We’ll have to dumb it down for a sound bite but you get the idea.

I heard your chattering on TV last night that President Bush’s actions had increased terrorism in the world. Besides being an un-provable lie, and the politicization of a threat that most American’s still haven’t come to grips with yet, it shows the lack of backbone you’ve acquired since getting back from Vietnam. What were we supposed to do? Let bin-Laden and his group of statesmen continue to build a terror group larger than some third-world armies? Do you understand what a nuke in Manhattan, DC, or LA would mean? Do you think any of the relatives of the half-a-million or so that were killed by ghoulish Hussein family are glad we intervened?

In a world where bin Laden probably has a nuke, there is a choice to make. You can choose the realism, however un-idealistic of President Bush. Or you can choose passivity, acquiescence, and anti-interventionism.

John and the chimpanzees need to get ready. The lion is coming.

|
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?