Thursday, October 21, 2004


Kerry's Sinews of Peace

Granted I am a busy man, (but only an important man to my family and, maybe, my students), but shouldn't the yahoos in the press (and for that matter, the Bush Administration) do a better job of dealing with the United Nations and with this issue in this election other than me?

Over the next few days, I had planned on applying the CORE ideas of Winston Churchill's Sinews of Peace speech to our modern world in my posts. It is the ONLY reason why a social liberal like Prime Minister Tony Blair is with us as far as I can tell.

But the folks at the Weekly Standard have already commented:

Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

Back to Churchill: In his historic speech in the great state of Missouri, Winston Churchill laid out the moral core of the new U.N.: a Judeo-Christian organization led by the United States and Great Britain.

That is the U.N. to which we and Great Britain belong. Even Tony Blair understands this.

Meanwhile, back on the U.S. front, it is now important that we analyze Sen. Kerry's view: if the U.S. were to go in alone, it would be based on a false presumption; however, if we went in under the U.N. flag, the presumption to go in would be TRUE (or justified).

What a bunch of nonsense! The real translation is that for Kerry: a "TRUE" presumption meets the "global test." Any battle that the United States has to fight in its defense or interest that does not receive the approval of the U.N. would be difficult, if not impossible, to justify according to the Kerry Global Test.

This is nonsense because Sen. Kerry relies on the 'good' judgement of the Security Council that includes countries on the take (in the case of Iraq), and the U.N. General Assembly that includes the likes of Syria.

Listen to Churchill yourself and decide. He understood the global war of his time since he understood evil. President Bush understands evil; the Senator who lacks a moral core does not.

Origianlly posted at 9:25 p.m. on October 20.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Visitors to this page!


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?