Kerry has WEAK KNEES IN TERROR WAR
WEAK KNEES IN TERROR WAR
NY POST EDITORIAL
February 23, 2004 -- Is Sen. John Kerry a credible commander-in- chief
in the age of global terror?
Is Sen. John Edwards?
Fair questions.
Next week, Democrats in New York and nine other state presidential
primaries effectively will choose between Kerry, the front-runner, and
Edwards, the long shot, in a year when no issue matters more than
national security.
What lessons have the Democrats learned since 9/11?
Do they have the necessary staying power to protect America?
Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich, the clown candidates, will also be on
ballots next week.
But only Kerry and Edwards matter.
And neither man inspires confidence - particularly in foreign policy.
Kerry wears his honorable Vietnam service like a bloody shirt -
notwithstanding his dishonorable behavior following his separation from
the Navy in 1971.
The dichotomy perfectly encapsulates Kerry's approach to foreign
affairs. The senator:
* Fought in the Vietnam War;
* Protested the Vietnam War;
* Voted against the '91 Gulf War;
* Voted for the 2003 Iraq War;
* Voted against postwar funding for troop support and Iraq
reconstruction.
And so on.
He's a whirling dervish of indecision.
Or is it expedience?
No matter.
A December speech to the Council on Foreign Relations revealed an
apologist for impotent internationalism: "I will go to the United
Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United
States has rejoined the community of nations."
The Democrats aside, is that what America wants: A penitential
president in Paris?
Edwards is no better - and in some ways could even be worse.
The trial lawyer is obviously a better campaigner than John Kerry and
has loads more charisma.
And, at 50, he is ten years younger than Kerry, did not serve in the
Vietnam War and is completing his first - and only - term in the U.S.
Senate.
Thus his legislative record is substantially shorter than Kerry's - but
he did the same dance on the Iraq war.
That is, he voted for it, but then opposed the subsequent $87 billion
funding.
So where would he would take the country as president?
He doesn't have much to say on foreign policy; his campaign Web site
focuses mainly on homeland security, notably the need to create a new
"homeland security intelligence department."
Edwards proposes a "prevention" policy on terrorism, rather than
"preemption."
Like Kerry, he puts great stock in expanding and strengthening existing
United Nations structures and various "international" treaties.
Pretty thin gruel.
Still, for all their shortcomings, both Kerry and Edwards would be
better on foreign policy than the radical rambler, Howard Dean.
At least they seem to have foreign policy views - which is more than
could ever be said about the departed Dr. Demento.
Whether those views measure up to what America expects in a post-9/11
president remains very much to be determined.
.
|
