Kerry’s kinder, gentler war on terror

By Joseph Farah

President Bush asked John Kerry a good question the other day.

He suggested the candidate should tell it straight to the American people about whether or not, knowing what he knows now – with 20-20 hindsight – he would have supported the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

It’s not only a good question, it’s a fair question.

Kerry wants to be president.

In the Senate he’s one of 100 votes. It’s perfectly OK to be wrong. The fate of the nation doesn’t rest on the shoulders of one senator. You can even change your mind in the U.S. Senate – as Kerry has proven many times. You can even not show up for work and you won’t really be missed in the U.S. Senate.

But the guy sitting in the Oval Office is paid to make tough decisions. And it doesn’t look good to our nation’s enemies if he can’t make up his mind.

That’s what John Kerry looks like to me.

During the Clinton administration, he chastised the president for not doing enough to make Saddam Hussein live up to his agreements and the terms of his surrender in the first Persian Gulf War.

During the early days of the Bush administration, Kerry was still talking tough and predicting U.N. sanctions would never be enough to bring Saddam Hussein in line.

Kerry supported the president’s call to arms in Iraq – he voted for it.

Then he voted not to support the mission with requested $87 billion necessary.

Kerry explains this seeming contradiction by saying it’s more complicated than being for the war or against it.

Again, that’s fine for the debating society of the U.S. Senate. But it doesn’t make for very good leadership of the free world.

Aware of the criticism of his nuanced position and apparent flip-flops, Kerry appears to be trying to get more specific about his plan of action should he become president.

He told a bunch of diversity-worshipping, journalistic malcontents at the UNITY 2004 Conference last week about his plan. Here it is:

I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.

That’s what Kerry said. He’s going to fight the war with sensitivity. I don’t know what that means. Perhaps he’s going to offer our troops sensitivity training.

But, in fairness, that wasn’t his whole plan. He had some other ideas. President John Kerry would also convene an international conference and appoint a high commissioner to figure out just what to do next in Iraq.

That sounds like a plan to me. He also said he would get Europe involved in this. You remember how helpful the French and Germans were before? Kerry says that’s because they don’t like Bush. But they like him. So we should be sure to elect a guy the French and Germans like.

Oh and there’s one more important component to his plan.

“Is there anybody sitting here in this room who doesn’t believe that every Arab country in fact has a real and legitimate interest in not having a failed Iraq, in not having a civil war on its borders,” he asked the malcontent, diversity-seeking journalists. “But they’re not at the table.”

It’s a good thing I wasn’t there in that room, because I guess I would have been the fly in the ointment.

No, I don’t believe the tyrannical, totalitarian Arab regimes want to see the U.S. create a free Iraq. Freedom can be quite destabilizing for dictators.

But John Kerry is going to go back to the tyrants to figure this out. He’s going to put the free Arab people back in the hands of their oppressors. He’s going to sell Iraq down the river to the oil potentates.

And that’s his plan to win the war in Iraq – let some high commissioner of some international convention shape the destiny of 25 million Iraqis with the advice and consent of the oil sheikhs.

Somehow that doesn’t sound very “sensitive” to me.