Can antiwar Dems do a better job of fighting it?

The other day Kerry admitted that he opposed the war in Iraq now. Fox News reported that over 90 percent of the delegates to the Democrat convention opposed the war. Yet Kerry is trying to say he could do a better job of fighting it. He is putting himself in the same position that Lyndon Johnson did in 1964.

Johnson had been told by the Joint Chiefs that the way he wanted to proceed in Vietnam would not lead to victory. Given the choice of doing it right or walking away he chose neither. He knew that if he did what he and his party wanted, i.e. walk away it would lead not only to defeat in Southeast Asia but defeat for the Democrats at home. Kerry also knows that if he did what he and his party want to do in Iraq, cut and run, he cannot get elected. So, he offers instead a neutered war stragy involving "allies" who also do not want to fight it. Putting Democrats who do not want to fight and Euro weenies who do not want to fight, in charge of war strategy is a recipe for disaster.

He and his "allies" also labor under the mistaken belief that there is someway to talk the ayatollahs in Iran and the nut jobs in Korea out of their plans to nuke us and anyone else they disagree with. It will take the use of force to stop the ayatollahs. Once they are out of the picture the Norks will have trouble finding anyone with substantial resources to buy their nasty hardware. The Norks will be ripe for implosion. This is why there are at least two countries with leaders who desperately want Kerry to win. Perhaps there are some Euro weenies with similar feelings on the election. But, it not because it would be best for the US.


Popular posts from this blog

US, Britain and Israel help Iranian nuclear scientist escape

Iran loses another of its allies in Iraq

The Democrat screw up on the 80% rule for insurers