John Kerry Says There Would Be Peace, Love, And Warm Cookies In The Middle-East If He Were The President
Once again, Senator Flip-Flop has decided to remind Americans of why they couldn’t trust him to handle foreign policy in 2004:
“U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., who was in town Sunday to help Gov. Jennifer Granholm campaign for her re-election bid, took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.
“If I was president, this wouldn’t have happened,” said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John’s bar and grill in Detroit’s Cass Corridor.
…Hezbollah guerillas should have been targeted with other terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida and the Taliban, which operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Kerry said. However, Bush, has focused military strength on Iraq.
“This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq.…We have to destroy Hezbollah,” he said.
So, the Israeli attack on Hezbollah wouldn’t have happened if Kerry were President? Does that mean he would have stopped Hezbollah from kidnapping those Israeli soldiers and firing those rockets or that he would have prevented Israel from responding?
Maybe he means that the United States should have destroyed Hezbollah instead of the Israelis? So, is he saying that he thinks we should have declared war on Lebanon and sent in American troops? From our point of view, isn’t it better to have the Israelis fighting Hezbollah than us?
Whatever the case may be, I certainly don’t remember Kerry promising to go to war against Hezbollah or their backers in Iran and Syria when he was running for office in 2004. Do you? So, perhaps he was thinking of something else. Maybe he would have made Hezbollah face a fearsome “global test” and they would have crumbled after getting a harshly worded letter signed both by Kofi Annan AND the French! That could be the solution he was considering.
On the other hand, maybe “President Kerry” could have gotten some advice from diplomatic genius Bill Clinton, who convinced the Israelis to allow Yassir Arafat to return to the Palestinian territories and then stood by, watching helplessly, as the old terrorist he had helped put back into power got the Second Palestinian Intifada started.
The bottom line is that if Kerry really wants to see Hezbollah destroyed, then what’s happening in the Middle-East right now is a good thing. On the other hand, if Kerry believes keeping the peace is more important than crippling Hezbollah, then he should be opposed to the Israeli attacks. However, just as he did all during the 2004 elections on Iraq, Kerry wants to be on both sides of the argument. He wants to argue that Hezbollah should be destroyed, while simultaneously opposing attacks on Hezbollah. That’s why John Kerry is the wrong man, at the wrong time, in the wrong party to lead this country in the war on terrorism.