Allies That Aren’t
By Steve Farrell (10/07/04)
An op-ed in the New York Times today, by Paul Krugman, asserts that where John Kerry really won the first debate was not in form, but more so in “substance.”
Conservative pundits tend to agree. Noted by many on this side of the debate, was the failure of President Bush to roll up his sleeves and engage in some genuine right wing, right to the left nostril pugilism.
President Bush was consistent and civil, while Kerry was neither; and it just didn’t seem like the President was engaged in the same debate we were watching.
But it was the fact that Kerry did have more to say that lost him the debate ‘in substance,’ under a more critical analysis of just what it was that he said.
I pointed out in my last editorial that Kerry seemed to do a good job of disassociating himself from the voter perception that ‘he’ll abandon our troops in Iraq,’ that is, until he kept talking and talking, labeling these noble liberators—our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, our neighbors and friends—as invaders, six times, occupiers twice, and oil robber barons thrice.
It didn’t matter that he failed to address those comments directly at the troops, but rather at the Commander-in-Chief;—the effect is the same—a devastating, left hook to the jaw of every soldier in Iraq and their families.
Are they safer now? Is their moral higher?
Kerry also lost another huge point, if only the “mainstream” media would have pointed it out, with his global test, let’s build alliances emphasis.
Repeatedly, Senator Kerry asserted that President Bush pushed our allies away, that he ignored and overruled their reticence about Iraq, that the alliance he built was too small, that the slice of the cake those few Allies have in Iraq, militarily and economically is too slight, that there is something wrong with the fact that the United States shoulders 90 percent of the burden of death;—you know, the Allies apparently need to taste more of death themselves;—maybe they’d back out then.
On and on Senator Kerry went, he wouldn’t let go of the theme. He supposedly hit a home run.
President Bush took him down a notch when he reminded the Senator that although we would hope our friends will stand by us, nevertheless America’s interests come first. That passing a “global test” is not the business of the President of the United States.
He was right.
But there was something else Senator Kerry said that really cost him the argument, for those paying close attention.
Twice Senator Kerry blamed President Bush for letting Osama bin Laden away. And how did the President do that?
Said Kerry:
“When we had Osama bin Laden corned in the mountains of Tora Bora, … With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn’t use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the number one criminal and terrorist.
“[We] outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other.”
In other words, Mr. Kerry, we relied upon “allies,” as you insist that we do, instead of taking care of our own war with our own men.
Again, John Kerry wants it both ways; and who can get away with such frequent contradictions unless the left wing media looks the other way, which they did.
I wish Senator Kerry would tell America just what is the difference between what he cynically describe as “outsourcing” in Afghanistan, and lets say, bringing in France, or Russia (who still has missiles pointed at us), or whoever, who just X amount of days ago also opposed our war in Iraq, to help us win.
Wouldn’t “outsourcing” our war to such as them, create similar risks? And isn’t that the point?
Just this week our European ‘allies’ at the EU, led by France and Germany continued their aggressive push to reverse the European Union’s 15-year embargo on weapons sales to Red China, who still calls the U.S. its arch enemy. Taiwan, perhaps the better definition of a real ally, with real freedoms, is nervous. Maybe we ought to be as well.
And why are these, our European “allies,” the nations Senator John Kerry wants us to turn to as part of a global test, doing this?
Reports the Washington Times, “The French hope the arms sales to China can help create a ‘multipolar’ world with several strong nations or blocs that can check American power.”
You see, in Senator Kerry’s world, we have to get the approval of, and fight side by side with those who wish to check America—that is, of course, except when HE says we shouldn’t, when HE calls it “outsourcing.”
The truth is, if ever there were an ally that should have had a vested interest, and of course, a better knowledge of the local geography, it was the oppressed people of Afghanistan. They owned the problem. The Bush Administration only hoped to have them own the solution.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Steve Farrell
