Just Which Allies Are Due An Apology, Senator?

A while back, I related my belief that John Kerry, while playing to his base and listening to his own East-coast elite sensibilities, has dug himself into a considerable hole regarding foreign policy. Previously, I talked about how Kerry

Advertisements

26 Responses to “Just Which Allies Are Due An Apology, Senator?”

  1. Robert Says:

    It was interesting to hear on NPR this morning, when they interviewed a German & a French editor as to whether a President Kerry would be able to bring French & German troops to Iraq. The answer, in both cases, “no.” So how would JFK (very) jr. bring our allies closer to us?

  2. Eric Akawie Says:

    Well, if we pull out of Iraq, then our position will be closer to the French and Germans (prone.)

  3. Fredrik Nyman Says:

    Prone? More like supine.

  4. jeff Says:

    Kerry walked off the same cliff Dole did in 96, a lesson in why it’s hard to capsize an incumbent. You have to play to the bleachers to get past your rivals, which leaves you … outta the park.

    This guy really is a Dead Man Walking. Why did we ever salivate for Dean??

  5. Pejmanesque Says:

    DEBATE COACH

    Will Collier has quite the effective line for George W. Bush to use against John Kerry: “Senator, you say we need to repair relations with our allies, but you’ve spent your own campaign insulting America

  6. Lizzie Says:

    Thank you for posting that. It’s been a theme that’s been at the back of my mind for a while: how can Kerry promote himself as a healer between nation when he has criticized more nations than he has praised?

    Excellent. Glad I came here tonight! 🙂

  7. Bernie Says:

    Come on now, France had the same goal we did, to keep American soldiers from being killed by French weapons sold to Iraq paid for with the Oil for Food program. Can you really blame France for not supporting us? I know there are no less than 5 investigations in progress on that program but I haven’t seen or heard any results or conclusions, does anyone know what has been determined so far?

  8. Tim Worstall Says:

    Sorry for the long quotation but here is this Brits take on the thing from a TCS column:

    “It was American SecDef Caspar Weinberger who came up with the solution, that the US would open its armory to us. President Reagan needed persuading, and there is no shame in that, a man thinking through the options as to what exactly is the right thing before doing it. So it was that an assortment of Majors and Commanders (the sort of ranks that do these things) were instructed to simply phone the US storehouses for whatever they wanted and the store men were to provide them. Paperwork could wait and invoices would be sent later. The base on Ascension Island was made available (while the island was another Brit colony, the base was US) and the invasion fleet was able to sail and the battle won.
    Of course there was more to the situation than the above sketch yet without that logistical support to an ally the Falklands would now be Las Malvinas, in itself not a too appalling thought, yet that change would have happened via an armed occupation, something tried and repelled a few years later in Kuwait. It was the principle that needed upholding, as it was and as it needs to be repeatedly.
    It’s said that we Brits have long memories, the very existence of things like a GCB showing it, along with such exotica as colonies, monarchs and how to make a proper cup of tea. We’ve been allies with Portugal for just over 700 years now which would also support the idea that we know who our friends are.
    This may be reading a little too much into the geopolitics of the situation, yet I regard the Falklands War as being the start of the fightback by the free against armed aggression by the totalitarian states, whether fascist or communist, in a direct line to what happened in Nicaragua, Grenada, Kuwait and now Iraq. While we couldn’t have done it those years ago without the help that President Reagan authorized, I’m aware that the US military could have handled Gulf I and II without us, so I’d just like to point out that for this Navy brat, as for so many others of my generation, it was important that we were there in 1991 and it’s important that we are there now.
    You stand by your friends don’t you?”

  9. Birkel Says:

    You mention Scheer’s cheerleading for Kim Jung Il, but did you see the NYT article? It had a picture of a market with all sorts of veggies. It talked about how Europe and Asia was opening up and blah, blah, blah. It was a truly wretched effort to make North Korean leadership sympathetic (although the people of the country deserve it). I don’t have a link but its easy to find the NYT.

  10. Todd Waller Says:

    [golf clap]

    Bravo Will! Wonderful quote for the President to utilize!

    In addition to the healer/insulter dichotomy, Kerry needs to explain why both France and Germany would not send troops if he were to become president. (tip: pejmanesque.com)
    Article

  11. MartiniPundit Says:

    One can only hope that Karl Rove reads Vodkapundit! Shame still works, and Kerry’s covered with it.

  12. Gary B Says:

    Another question for John Kerry. You’ve repeatedly stressed the importance of French and German participation in your “dream team coalition.” How their presence will make any difference and why they would want to enter a situation our much stronger military force is abandoning is certainly below my pay grade.

    These folks aren’t deaf or are not paying attention. Even if they can be bought, and make no mistake, that is the calculus of this situation, the price will be high. Poker player, negotiator or strategist, this man is an utter failure.

  13. Sister Toldjah Says:

    Excellent work, Mr. Collier!

  14. Mike M Says:

    Kerry’s king straw man is quite disturbing, and has got to fold big time when actually challenged (debates) since the media won’t dare.

    Even if we could convince France and Germany to put troops on the ground, why would we want them there? France had quite a stake in having Saddam in power, and has as a primary policy goal to challenge the United States for power and influence. Germany hasn’t deployed combat forces overseas since WWII, and this probably isn’t the best place for them to start.

    What would we possibly gain by having them there? And how can Kerry possibly expect to have any credibility when he thinks so and makes it a point to piss all over our real allies at every opportunity?

  15. David Blue Says:

    Tim Worstall, I would agree with the general sentiments and the specific point that the Falklands war was a critical decision point.

    Had Ronald Reagan not backed the British, they would have had to rethink the reliability of their key alliance. In return,. The Americans would have obtained nothing of value, first because there is no diplomatic prize of value comparable to the Anglo-American alliance (the US and the UK are like two “eyes” in Go), and second because the Galtieri regime, which might still be in power had it prevailed, was the very type of those regimes that never turn out to be grateful, no matter what you do for them. (Some nations remember their friends, others do not. It’s vital to know which are which and act accordingly.)

    The British would also be much worse off. They would likely have been forces into an alliance with the Frankreich, in which they would always have been highly expendable outsiders. (Which is definitely not how the Americans see them now.) They would have suffered a great national humiliation, with all sorts of consequences, very possibly including a reduction in the political will to keep up their military budgets. I doubt people in that timeline would have been talking about the British consistently punching above their weight in international affairs.

    Even if the occasion for a decision is trivial (how important are the Falklands, really?) a decision that comes down to whether to be loyal and if so to who is likely to send ripples a long way. If you stand by your mates, you get one future. If you don’t, whether you admit it a lot, you get an entirely different future.

    And if you’re the kind of guy that wants to have it both ways on decisions like this, and thinks you can, you are a disaster waiting to happen.

  16. grayson Says:

    I’m curious why anyone thinks the French and Germans CAN help in any measure in Iraq. If they are unable or unwilling to stop the problems just on the other side of Europe (Kosovo), where the U.S. had to intervene, what makes anybody think they have the will or the ability to project power all the way to Iraq?

    That’s one reason why the declaration to pull the troops out of Europe was so great – and so long in coming. It’s like “check”. Either they need our troops, in which case they can’t help militarily or they don’t, in which case we don’t need their help militarily. We could use help on intelligence, but they need ours more. And as the Germans have shown, they’re not exactly helpful in the courtroom.

  17. Eric Pobirs Says:

    It should be remembered that Scheer started his career with a book that made out Castro to be a swell guy doing great things. He owes his current sinecure with theLos Angeles Times to the fact his wife was once a mover and shaker on the editorial board.

  18. Kurt Vonnegut, Famous Author Says:

    In case you haven

  19. ed Says:

    Hmmm.

    1. Germany still relies on a conscripted army that has been declining in ability, and funding, for decades now. Frankly most European militaries are little more than social programs with uniforms.

    In terms of capabilities they have little to none. Even Britain is currently chopping it’s army in halfand reducing it’s RAF and navy by 1/3rd each.

    2. Actually Germany has supplied ground forces for Kosovo and Afghanistan. But both have been remarkable failures. German soldiers still have the ability, but they simply don’t get the training or the equipment. The American military is alone in deploying UAV recon assets at the platoon level. Nobody else has even considered this.

    3. “shamelessly rigged election in Florida, in which thousands of African Americans were arbitrarily disenfranchised”

    Sorry but this is a myth. Nothing of the sort actually happened. What did happen was that the DNC attempt to rig the election by trying to disenfranchise absentee ballots, which were mostly soldiers deployed overseas.

    In those few instances where there was documented early closing of polling places, they were entirely in Democrat controlled counties. So you should contact the DNC for those.

    4. “In case you haven

  20. Now That Everyone Else Has One Says:

    Bush vs. Kerry: Who’s The Better Diplomat?

    Hint: Counterintuitively, it’s actually Bush, and it’s not even close. Here’s why….

  21. Gary B Says:

    Thank you Ed.

  22. Dummocrats.com Says:

    VodkaPundit imagines a particularly good debate scenario

    VodkaPundit imagines a particularly good debate scenario

  23. Autonomous Source Says:

    Just Imagine

    Bush in the debates, as envisioned by Will Collier:”Senator, you say we need to repair relations with our allies, but you’ve spent your own campaign insulting America

  24. eLarson Says:

    (Birkel wrote): You mention Scheer’s cheerleading for Kim Jung Il, but did you see the NYT article? It had a picture of a market with all sorts of veggies.

    If the picture was snapped in North Korea, I’d like to see someone pictured actually taking a bite and swallowing.

  25. Ghost of a flea Says:

    Winston Review, No. 8

    “Fidelis Ad Mortem” The Winston Review is a Flea-feature intended to offer spirited, uplifting alternatives to the defeatists and apologists of the mainstream media. This week’s Review offers a prayer for the safety – and peace of mind -…

  26. Bill, Jr Says:

    Well said Ed.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: