Kerry said these leaders believed that Bush wanted to do an "end-run around the U.N." Would that be the same U.N., Mr. Kerry, whose secretary-general continues to sympathize with Iraq? The same U.N. whose arms inspectors are still not convinced that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, though they knew he had used them before and that he didn't meet his burden of proving he'd disposed of them?
Kerry continued, "I don't think they're going to trust this president, no matter what. I believe it deeply, that it will take a new president of the United States, declaring a new day for our relationship with the world, to clear the air and turn a new page on American history." How convenient for you, Mr. Kerry.
Do you see why some of us complain that Democrats are way too casual about American sovereignty? Kerry is saying, in effect, that we ought to let world opinion dictate our foreign policy – we must do whatever it takes to humor foreign nations and the U.N. with little regard for our national interests. This is frightening stuff, folks.
Don't assume Kerry is by himself on this. As I was writing this column, I heard a Fox News contributor, the very left-wing Eleanor Clift (who says Fox is not fair and balanced?), articulate a similar and equally foolhardy theme. We will win, she admitted, "but at what cost? This is a political contest for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and the Arabs in the Middle East, and the danger is that we can win the military victory and lose the peace. ... I think this looks more like a war of conquest than a war of liberation."
As Bill Kristol, who was debating (and eviscerating) Mrs. Clift on this issue, said of her comments, "this is pathetic." Precisely.
Wheel In The Cots: Clinton Agrees To Testify On Benghazi, Will ‘Stay As Long As Necessary’ | Matt Vespa