Kerry is a weak and uncharismatic leader with a very long history of questionable judgement. He was absolutely wrong about Communism in the 70s. He was absolutely wrong about Communism in the 80s. He was absolutely wrong about the first Gulf War in 1991 and he's absolutely wrong now about this current war on terrorism.
Like Clinton, our military will quickly figure out that they really don't want to go to any war with Kerry as their commander-in-chief because of his questionable judgement and his history of selling his fellow soldiers short. The fact that he cynically voted for the 2002 war resolution but then voted against $87B war appropriations
only reinforces the view that after all these years, Kerry still hasn't quite learned what it is like to win a war the American way.
For all his bluster, the undeniable fact is that Kerry is a religious illiterate who is beholden to an incoherent domestic coalition of radical feminists, homosexuals, radical environmentalists, new agers, tired liberals, one-world'ers and fence-sitters. That surely does not instill any confidence among the warrior class. A President Kerry will most likely get nothing but the most risk-averse options (read: air-only options) from our military -- just like Clinton.
Already, you have North Korea delaying the multi-lateral talks because they think they can get a better deal from a flip-flopping Kerry than from a resolute Bush. Now on the run for their lives, Al Qaeda surely knows that Kerry's extravagant multilateralist instincts will somehow give them enough time to regroup especially since they now know that they can always intimidate Europe. Iran will most likely become a nuclear power under Kerry. And Latin America will probably tilt further to the left with the help of Castro.
I'm quite sure though that Kerry will be more popular than Bush in France, Germany and Russia, but do you really think that popularity contest is worth it? |
