Saying because a mistake was made in the past it is right to repeat that mistake seems illogical.In the case of De Gaulle it lead to decades of emnity,now you can get this in the middle east without even trying,why take a gamble that Allawi will fail.

Further, it is of great interest to your enemies to see how you treat your friends,and in the middle east friendships can change overnight,you can quickly become the common enemy.

Why does Zarqawi slaughter and maim as he does,because he thinks he is on the winning side and Kerry’s words are only giving him aid and comfort.If Kerry is against Allawi,then perhaps Zarqawi thinks he only needs to push a little harder and the US is out of there.

There was a catch phrase in WWII “Loose lips sink ships”, anyone who thinks themselves worthy of the presidency would put the lives of others above his narrow personal interest.

I reject your premises. Specifically, placing Mr. Allawi in such company. Why do you assume that he is of the same caliber as the parasites you mentioned?”

What part of “(I am not pressing a particularly direct comparison to Allawi, whose future behavior remains to be seen, but so far has seemed unobjectionable)” was unclear?

Everyone assumes that Kerry is simply clueless and partisan and, therefore, openes his mouth only to issue excrement. I don’t think so. I think he knows what he is doing, and is doing so to cause greater blood-shed — the better to beat up Bush over Iraq.

Kerry is a Transnational Progressive, just like the EU cabal. He is so intelligent, so above the small stuff, a Machiavellian Post-Modernist — so elite — he only deals with the biggest of big pictures. When one is so wrapped up in the intellectual pursuit of the big goal, one cannot be bothered by ethical questions concerning the means of reaching that goal. The end justifies the means, even if that means more deaths at the moment. It is the same principle guiding the jihadists.

And what about the Iraqis? Well, like the Vietnamese, they don’t care how their government is constituted, as long as their “needs” are met. This is true of all the simple masses, you know.

Gary:

I reject your premises. Specifically, placing Mr. Allawi in such company. Why do you assume that he is of the same caliber as the parasites you mentioned?

The fact that we have based our past foreign policy on “pragmatism” and expediency — to the absolute detriment of the country’s security — ought to be a sobering lesson. From what I’ve seen, it’s one we haven’t learned. We always arm, and train, our future enimies.

I don’t agree that it was appalling and disgraceful to criticize Diem, to go back to an historical parallel of sorts (I am not pressing a particularly direct comparison to Allawi, whose future behavior remains to be seen, but so far has seemed unobjectionable). Diem and Madame Nhu, however, were corrupt, undemocratic, and perfectly happy to shoot enemies, encourage Buddhist priests to set themselves on fire, and were, moreover greatly unwilling to press the war, being far more interested in spending US aid to solidify their rule over their rivals.

It was for these reasons that the Kennedy administration concluded that the war could not be won with Diem in power, and wisely or not — they certainly didn’t foresee the spiral downwards that followed, overall, over the longterm after that — they authorized instigating a coup that, while all evidence suggests they were genuinely (naively) shocked to have it result in Diem’s assassination, certainly was intended to, as it successfully did, remove Diem from power.

That’s a lot more serious, as an example, than saying “Diem/Allawi’s statements here weren’t accurate, and seem suspiciously partisan.”

I think criticizing Allawi is no more out of bounds than criticizing Kerry or Bush, but I do take the points made. Thanks again.

John Kerry’s Hail Mary

John Kerry’s speech today was the first in recent memory to have a clear message. I didn’t agree with the message, but it was on message for a change. For the last few weeks he’s been poking around with the ridiculous slogan-a-day gimmick, paying homage to the latest focus group. He’s also stopped the “W is for Wrong” nonsense and the tiresome efforts to work the cost of Iraq into some sort of domestic budget calculus.

What was interesting about the speech wasn’t the content, as usual, but what it told us about Kerry’s current state of mind. The speech signaled two things: 1. Kerry understands his only chance to be elected is if Iraq disintegrates to the point voters turn on President Bush (and he’s not shy about helping it along), and 2. Kerry will say anything to be elected.

Many will quickly, cynically, note the conventional wisdom that politicians will say anything to be elected, but I disagree. It’s hard to imagine Joe Liberman, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden or Bill Clinton, to name just a few, making such reckless statements with troops at war. I think these men would be equally disinclined to launch such an assault on the president on the eve of Prime Minister Allawi’s visit.

So in the absence of any original ideas or positions, John Kerry’s plan is to simply bet against the U.S. in order to be president. In the Marine Corps we learned fourteen traits of leadership — integrity, knowledge, courage, decisiveness, dependability, initiative, tact, justice, enthusiasm, bearing, endurance, unselfishness, loyalty and judgment. When you compare the two candidates on this basis, there’s no comparison.

So far Kerry’s sister who is acting as his campaign representative in Australia has told the Australian people that the Aussies made a mistake supporting America. They have an election on October 9. If John Howard’s challenger wins he will pull the troops from Iraq. So we have Kerry complaining about a lack of support for our troops in Iraq while a rep of his campaign is trying to damage an ally and get more troops pulled from a coalition that Kerry called the bribed and coerced, fruadulent, and in general treats like crap. What is next? Is he going to make Polish jokes? Call Tony Blair a poodle?

Kerry’s remarks about Allawi will be played all over Iraq, Zarqawi will love it. Allawi’s critics will eat it up. It could help make a bad situation worse than it already is and that in turn means more dead people. And what if Kerry wins? He has managed to alienate and insult America’s best hope in Iraq.

DeGualle hated Americans and made no secret of it, but this is not about the usual French perfidy or Viet Nam. This is about putting partisan politics ahead of everything, including your country and the men and women who serve it.

It just shows that Kerry has bad judgment. The Kerry campaign can say Allawi is too close to Bush, but whose fault is that?

Gary, the essential distinction between this and, say, criticizing Manuel Noriega is this: we are currently engaged in active hostilities with Allawi’s government as allies, and against the forces of fascist reaction that are currently using terrorism to kill and intimidate the citizens of Iraq, and to kill US soldiers and marines.

By doing so, Kerry supports the enemy’s morale by suggesting they can win if they just hold on until the election, and likely indirectly supports the enemy’s logistics by making it more likely that other states will think they can win, and that logistic support won’t be wasted.

Because this is the likely outcome, Kerry’s actions are supporting fascism and terrorism against a friendly government attempting to become a fully democratic modern state and also supporting the enemy forces that are, today, killing and injuring American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

This is distinguished from most of the others you mention in that while they were allies, we were not engaged in active hostilities in alliance with them. (DeGaulle, in particular, was an annoyance, not a significant military commander or effective head of state during WWII.) Criticism then, such as calling them American “puppets”, might well have been ill-advised, but they would not have put US personnel at risk.

This is why his speeches are despicable.

You might then wonder why similar actions and speeches against Nguyen weren’t equally despicable?

And the answer, of course, is that they were.

Trying to explain would be one worthwhile definition of futility.Either you know why his actions are beneath contempt or you do not.Either you understand why what he is doing is not in the interests of our civilization or you do not.Clearly you do not.I have passed beyond the phase when I believed that from reasoned discourse,truth will out.Much more likely is just a never ending, increasingly strident,ever more ‘picky’,journey into sophistry.

I decline,sir.You waste my time.