SwiftVets.com

[knightowl77]

Posted on MSNBC by Glenn Reynolds of instapundit

• October 7, 2004 | 11:47 AM ET


KERRY'S CASE COLLAPSES
Although everybody's talking about weapons of mass destruction, the story that's not being reported --you'd almost think the press "wants Kerry to win"-- is the complete collapse of John Kerry's foreign policy case, and the reason for that collapse.

The weapons of mass destruction case is a bit more, um, nuanced than a lot of the press treatment makes it sound, of course. No weapons have been found, but the Iraq Survey Group's report makes clear that Saddam wanted to outwait sanctions and then start making the weapons again:

The ISG, who confirmed last autumn that they had found no WMD, last night presented detailed findings from interviews with Iraqi officials and documents laying out his plans to bribe foreign businessmen and politicians.

Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible."

But hey, Kerry voted for the war, so his arguments on that topic boil down to either (1) Bush lied, and I'm gullible: or (2) Bush and I both got fooled, but I'll do better next time. Neither is very compelling.

The real centerpiece of Kerry's foreign policy stance, though, has been that he would be better than Bush at getting allies together, and at passing the "Global Test" before taking military action. And that case is in total collapse this week.

Forget missteps like his dissing of our allies in Iraq, Australia, and Poland -- which drew a stinging response from the Polish President ("It's sad that a Senator with twenty years of experience does not appreciate Polish sacrifice.") Now even Kerry is admitting that he's not going to be able to deliver on his promises:

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president.

The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops.

"Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that," he said.

Body bags. This sounds like the John Kerry of 1971. I can't help but think that, for Kerry, every war is Vietnam. And if he's President, I'm afraid that might turn out to be the case.

The "Global Test" bit looks kind of bad, in this light. But it looks even worse when you consider the other revelations of the Iraq Survey Group -- namely, that most of the opposition to the war came from people who were being bribed by Saddam:

Saddam Hussein believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war.
...
To keep America at bay, he focusing [sic] on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council m bers with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counsellors" [sic] and spokesman for his re-election campaign.

It's hard to pass the "Global Test" when the people grading it are being bribed to administer a failing grade. Perhaps Kerry should change his stance, and promise that a Kerry Administration would "outbid the bad guys." That approach is more likely to succeed than the one he's been touting, which even he has admitted is doomed.

Admin note: Please include a link to a legitimate source when reproducing content in this forum. Link added. Also edited title to match title of article.
_________________
I hope you don't mind an Army vet on your website. Former NCO in 82nd Airborne Div.
C 2nd/325th Inf

[Tacan70UDN]

Kerry doesn't have any policy, let alone a foreign policy. Oh, excuse me, he does have one policy - Kerry first!

[kimberly]

Kerry's new 'talking point':
I think we are going to start hearing Kerry say that he doesn't really need a plan for Iraq, since he doesn't know what the situation will be like when he takes office. I watched his news conference today, he mentioned something about inheriting a Lebanon.

Any time Bush brings up anything about Kerry's position on Iraq, flip flops won't matter, I believe he's going to say this.

Kerry has a new 'out' now for how many troops he will need, how much money it will cost, etc., etc.

Just my 2 cents,
Kimberly

[Jerald L. Parsoneault]

Someone said it well the other day in response to all of Kerry's bellyaching about Iraq. . . . .

The point being made was: if Kerry believes that this is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, if Kerry believes the premise for going to war was based solely on misleading information about weapons of mass destruction, if Kerry believes President Bush lied to the American public about the reasons for the war, if Kerry believes the UN, the French, the Germans and the Russians were right to oppose the war, if Kerry believes that Halliburton is somehow involved illegally, and if Kerry's idea is to kowtow to the countries that oppose the war, then wouldn't the logical first step in Kerry's foreign policy be, if elected, to restore Sadam Hussain to power so we can all get along?

I wouldn't put it past Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Leahey and the rest of the liberal crowd to go along with the idea. They could probably convince Jimmy Carter to travel to Iraq as their emmisary.

I support President Bush's current approach and would cheer him on if he got a little tougher with the insurgents.

Nalt

[margie]

[Anker-Klanker]

[margie]