Right way, wrong way, Kerry way
John Kerry has claimed, on numerous occasions, that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and that there was a "right way" and a "wrong way" to depose him. The "right way" was to go in with international support. The "wrong way", which was the path taken by President Bush, was to invade without sufficient international consent, taking along a rag-tag "coalition of the coerced and the bribed."
It seems, in reality, that there was a right way, several wrong ways, and a "Kerry fantasy way". The right way was to take our case to the U.N, gather as much support as possible, and go ahead with the invasion. The wrong way would be to a) Go in without asking for support, or b) after deciding the invasion was essential to our national security, and taking the case to the U.N, scrubbing the entire mission because of a U.N. veto.
The Kerry fantasy way seems to be that after taking the case to the U.N, holdouts France, Russia, and China would have supported our invasion. Bush's cowboy diplomacy ostensibly turned off these "allies" and we are led to believe that if it were John Kerry in the White House, they would have all come round.
The London Times reports a leaked story today that should burst the Kerry fantasy bubble. An investigation by the Iraqi government has indicated that France and Russia were bought off by Saddam as part of the Oil-for-Food scandal. The scheme did not simply enrich everyone involved. It may well have bought Saddam time and a U.N. Security Council veto of war (Hat tip: The Hopeful Cynic, via Powerline). These are must-reads.
This story as well as the NY Times "tubes" story I referenced in my previous post would first see an evening newscast tonight. It will be interesting to see which of the two make the cut, and when in the newscast each airs. My prediction: "Tubes" is the top of all three networks, "Oil-for-Food" gets silence."
Let's wait and see.
It seems, in reality, that there was a right way, several wrong ways, and a "Kerry fantasy way". The right way was to take our case to the U.N, gather as much support as possible, and go ahead with the invasion. The wrong way would be to a) Go in without asking for support, or b) after deciding the invasion was essential to our national security, and taking the case to the U.N, scrubbing the entire mission because of a U.N. veto.
The Kerry fantasy way seems to be that after taking the case to the U.N, holdouts France, Russia, and China would have supported our invasion. Bush's cowboy diplomacy ostensibly turned off these "allies" and we are led to believe that if it were John Kerry in the White House, they would have all come round.
The London Times reports a leaked story today that should burst the Kerry fantasy bubble. An investigation by the Iraqi government has indicated that France and Russia were bought off by Saddam as part of the Oil-for-Food scandal. The scheme did not simply enrich everyone involved. It may well have bought Saddam time and a U.N. Security Council veto of war (Hat tip: The Hopeful Cynic, via Powerline). These are must-reads.
This story as well as the NY Times "tubes" story I referenced in my previous post would first see an evening newscast tonight. It will be interesting to see which of the two make the cut, and when in the newscast each airs. My prediction: "Tubes" is the top of all three networks, "Oil-for-Food" gets silence."
Let's wait and see.
Comments