Carter + Clinton = Kerry
Jeb Babin just beats the living crap out of John Kerry's latest foreign policy incarnation:
"In John Kerry's mind, there is a moral responsibility for America to put American lives at risk whenever there may be genocide, but we can only preempt terrorist attacks on America when we're sure that the world will agree with us after we've done it. There is an enormous imbalance in Kerry's thinking. In Kerry's mind, America apparently has more of a moral obligation to save others than we do to save our own people. Is he serious? Of course he is.
"Mr. Kerry's 'moral responsibility' filters national security through the clouded lens of Carterism. Carterism's first and only solid principle bases all else on consideration of human rights. If we think first of human rights, we will distance ourselves from Pakistan, Turkey, and a whole list of allies with whom we must be joined to defeat the terrorist nations. We won't use dirty, nasty people for the dirty, nasty work of intelligence and covert operations. We won't shoot first and ask questions later. We will get shot first, and then Kerry and however many of his staff survive will sit around debating just who shot us. Kerry will demand certainty in the intelligence describing terrorist threats and attacks, and when he's told that intelligence is not certain, and never was, he'll refuse to preempt or even respond."
A synthesis of the worst instincts of Mr. Peanut and Mr. Bill. Scares the piss out of you, doesn't it?
Tony Blankley was even more devastatingly blunt: "In France, in 1940, the men and women who dreamed of liberation and eventually formed la resistance were not being realistic. The realist was the austere, aristocrat Marshall Petain, who negotiated a collaborator's peace with Hitler and called it Vichy. Five years later, his followers were shot in the village squares by patriotic Frenchmen.
"There is a lot of Petain in Mr. Kerry."
Damn, I wish Bush had said something like this last Thursday.
"In John Kerry's mind, there is a moral responsibility for America to put American lives at risk whenever there may be genocide, but we can only preempt terrorist attacks on America when we're sure that the world will agree with us after we've done it. There is an enormous imbalance in Kerry's thinking. In Kerry's mind, America apparently has more of a moral obligation to save others than we do to save our own people. Is he serious? Of course he is.
"Mr. Kerry's 'moral responsibility' filters national security through the clouded lens of Carterism. Carterism's first and only solid principle bases all else on consideration of human rights. If we think first of human rights, we will distance ourselves from Pakistan, Turkey, and a whole list of allies with whom we must be joined to defeat the terrorist nations. We won't use dirty, nasty people for the dirty, nasty work of intelligence and covert operations. We won't shoot first and ask questions later. We will get shot first, and then Kerry and however many of his staff survive will sit around debating just who shot us. Kerry will demand certainty in the intelligence describing terrorist threats and attacks, and when he's told that intelligence is not certain, and never was, he'll refuse to preempt or even respond."
A synthesis of the worst instincts of Mr. Peanut and Mr. Bill. Scares the piss out of you, doesn't it?
Tony Blankley was even more devastatingly blunt: "In France, in 1940, the men and women who dreamed of liberation and eventually formed la resistance were not being realistic. The realist was the austere, aristocrat Marshall Petain, who negotiated a collaborator's peace with Hitler and called it Vichy. Five years later, his followers were shot in the village squares by patriotic Frenchmen.
"There is a lot of Petain in Mr. Kerry."
Damn, I wish Bush had said something like this last Thursday.
posted by JASmius at 7:46 PM
<<< Home