Kerry's pedestrian pomposity

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened."

There's a word for this kind of stuffy arrogance. Haughtiness? Somnolent pretention? Self-assured pomposity? Yes, that's it. Pompous. That is, in a word, the reason why Kerry lost the election in 2004.

After reading the news story about this I realized that what Kerry said is completely incoherent.

The article quotes Kerry as saying:

Bush has been so concentrated on the war in Iraq that other Middle East tension arose as a result, he said.

"The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East," Kerry said. "We're going to have a lot of ground to make up (in 2008) because of it." ~Detnews.com

Later in the article:

Hezbollah guerillas should have been targeted with other terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida and the Taliban, which operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Kerry said. However, Bush, has focused military strength on Iraq.

"This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq.…We have to destroy Hezbollah," he said. ~Detnews.com

Besides the obvious fallacy of blaming Bush for what he terms, "other Mideast tension," by which I can only assume he means the terror organization (created and funded by Iran) called Hezballah. Or perhaps he means the tension that Israel has created? I don't know.

The key here though is the part where he says Bush is at fault by being, "absent on diplomacy." The keystone statement that none of this would have happened if he (Kerry) had been elected President rests upon this premise, that he (Mr. Almost-Danger), in contrast to Bush would not have been "absent on diplomacy," and thus would have prevented Israel from engaging in their disproportionate response or whatever he sees as the crisis... or that Hezballah would not have attacked, kidnapped, or otherwise been at war with Israel if he had been elected President.

Of course on the face of it Kerry's statement is demonstrably false and pretentious. And it becomes even more so when you examine what his solution is supposed to be.

What kind of diplomacy would Kerry have used to diffuse this crisis before it even began? Well, he seems to say that instead of invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein we should have invaded Lebanon and destroyed Hezballah directly with U.S. forces.

Here, read it again:

Hezbollah guerillas should have been targeted with other terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida and the Taliban, which operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Kerry said. However, Bush, has focused military strength on Iraq.

"This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq.…We have to destroy Hezbollah," he said. ~Detnews.com

It appears that what Kerry is saying is that we should have invaded Lebanon instead of Iraq. In which case wouldn't everything Kerry has ever said about Iraq also apply to invading Lebanon?

[H]egemonic Word count: 493

Powered By: BackLinkr

 

---