Conservative Poker Fan in "The Biz"

Friday, October 08, 2004

Symposium the 2nd

In what I think can turn into an invaluable source of opinion on the major issues of the day, Hugh Hewitt has sent out another question in what appears will be a weekly symposium on his blog. This question again involves John Kerry's answers to questions, but the question Mr. Hewitt is asking is much less political and much more philosophical, but philosophical in a way that will shed light on the politics of John Kerry.

"What do Kerry's answers to today's press inquiries tell us about Kerry's worldview and character?"

For a list of the questions Mr. Hewitt is referring to, go here (it's a long post, so keep scrolling).

Where to begin, really. The first answer Kerry gives has three distinct points; 1)That President Bush fired a General of the Army for having a dissenting view, 2) that Iraq might someday become analogous to Lebanon of the early-mid '80s, and 3) that Kerry has a better plan for dealing with Iraq.

The first point, if you read the Hugh Hewitt link above, is obviously a falsehood so easily checked that it amazes me Kerry would try and sneak it in to an answer that had very little to do with the lie he's trying to pass off. What we can take from this, in regards to Kerry's worldview and character, is that he has no problem in peddling falsehoods and/or conspiracy theories (remember his oil comment in the first debate?) in order to win. Not a good start.

His second point, in which Iraq could become another Lebanon, is a crucial view into John Kerry's world. Retreating from Lebanon is widely considered one of the few foreign affairs mistakes that President Reagan made. In essence, the U.S. gave in to terrorists, which helped embolden them much as President Clinton's later retreat from Somalia brought forth the now infamous "paper tiger" analogy for the U.S. from bin Laden. What Kerry has now done is set up a situation in which he can simply proclaim that we are in the same situation in Iraq as we were in Lebanon, use Reagan's name to try and deflect any criticism, and proceed to withdraw the troops despite his recent proclamations that he will hunt down and kill terrorists. This comment, compounded with his nuclear bunker-busting comment in the first debate, shows that Kerry is not just living in a 9/10/2001 world but is actually closer to living in the 9/10/1971 world. Kerry did not trust American might back in 1971 (witness his Senate hearings testimony), he did not trust American might during the Cold War (he voted against virtually every weapon system that was brought up), he did not trust American might during the first Persian Gulf war (he voted against it), and he still doesn't trust American might.

The third thrust of Kerry's answer gives us a very disturbing look at his character. I don't know if anyone will remember this, but in a long ago "Peanuts" comic strip, Charlie Brown walks up to a child and screams at them "BELIEVE IN ME!" He then walks up to another child and screams "BELIEVE IN ME!" He walks up to a third child and screams "BELIEVE IN ME!" In the final panel of the strip, he's talking with Snoopy (if my memory is correct) and asks, "Why won't anyone believe in me?" You can almost hear Kerry demanding that people understand just how much smarter he is than the rest of us and that, doggone it, he has a plan for Iraq that we should let him implement; don't you understand?!!? He has a plan! BELIEVE IN HIM!

The other answers he gives continue the theme of Kerry as 1971 Man. His almost childish response, "Al Qaeda is in 60 countries. Are we invading all 60 countries?" simply teems with condescension and shows an utter lack of understanding as to exactly what type of war we're currently engaged in. I think Hugh Hewitt put it best; "The Bush Doctrine is simple: If you are a nation with WMD or an ambition to have WMD, and you have a relationship with terrorists, you have the Saddam option or the Qaddafi option. Pick one." If more countries pick the Qaddafi option, then no, Mr. Kerry, we won't have to invade all 60 countries; but the question is, will you wage war against even one of these countries, or will you instead try to turn them all into Lebanon and simply turn tail and run?