Kerry’s Talk versus Kerry’s Walk on Multilateralism
October 26, 2004
One thing John Kerry and Democrats have been consistent on since “Shock and Awe” in Iraq has been the criticism that President Bush did it alone, didn’t build a large enough coalition, employed an arrogant policy of “unilateralism,” blah blah blah. As I and many others have written, this is and has always been a specious argument that Dems pulled out of their hats when they couldn’t think of any other creative ways to criticize what then appeared to be a flawless military effort in Iraq.
The false charge of unilateralism, notwithstanding that we have 30 some odd nations in the coalition and tried earnestly to get more, has been a staple for John Kerry no matter what else he says about Iraq. It is central to his foreign policy philosophy so we must not understate its significance in his presidential spiel. That’s why Joel Mowbray’s piece for the Washington Times exposing Kerry’s lie that he met with leaders of the U.N. Security Council nations is so important. Don’t just dismiss it as another of Kerry’s lies.
This one goes to the very heart of who he claims to be on foreign policy issues and the basis upon which he has most stridently criticized President Bush. His “little fabrication” in this case was to put some teeth into his story that he could have done a better job at building a coalition before attacking Iraq. He essentially says he confirmed that in his “meetings” with these foreign leaders. Well, as Mowbray shows, based on interviews with the leaders themselves, these meetings never happened. This one is on par with “Christmas in Cambodia,” which has also been dismissed too lightly by Kerry’s enablers in the mainstream media. Kerry’s lies, as it turns out, seem worse than Al Gore’s. Gore’s usually seemed innocuous enough, but bizarre coming from a man who actually served as vice president and sought to be president. But Kerry’s are worse because they often involve centrally important issues. They matter even beyond the fact that he’s lying because the subjects of his lies turn out to be relevant to issues he’s on which he’s trying to persuade. How do such sickos rise to such heights in the party of Clinton? Hum?