Soup of the Day!

by Robert J. Romano

March 21st, 2004

The only thing consistent about Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) is that he is inconsistent.  Backing off statements he made on March 16th, where he said,  "I have heard from people, foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States..." which landed him key endorsements from Spain's newly elected Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and Malaysia's former Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, now Senator Kerry's campaign is singing a different tune.  In a statement released this past Thursday, March 18th, campaign advisor Rand Beers insisted that  "[i]t is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America's presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements." So, while it is apparently appropriate to tout foreign leaders whom do not approve of U.S. policy, so long as their names are kept private, it is inappropriate for foreign leaders to publicly endorse Senator Kerry.  No wonder he wouldn't name names: that would have been inappropriate.  Based on the Senator's prior statements, one would have thought he would be happy about landing such endorsements! But, nope, apparently other foreign leaders have gone too far by publicly stating their support.  In other words, it's okay for foreign leaders to play a role in a presidential election campaign, so long as they talk behind our backs.
       If all this nuance was not enough, Democrats consistently bash President Bush for not bringing enough allies forward for the war on terror, and the battle of Iraq.  But this makes  "sense", too, when one considers the Democrats' logic when it comes to terrorism.  The terrorists attacked America on 9/11/01, and the Democrats blamed the government for not doing enough.  The terrorists attacked Madrid, Spain on 3/11/04, and Governor Howard Dean blamed the United States' policy in Iraq.  Apparently, taking the fight to state sponsors of terrorism, like Iraq, is not a good idea, because then they might attack us.  Of course, states that have been subjected to decades of terrorism, like Israel, could probably inform us on just how this sort of spinning rhetoric works.  If you're a target for the terrorists, you should just give into their demands, apparently, because otherwise, you'll get blamed whenever they do something.
       Of course, this is utter nonsense.  A forward strategy of taking the fight to the enemy is necessary, and free peoples throughout the world must realize that fighting back is not only their best option, it is also their only option.  The terrorists are relentless, and the best strategy is to hunt them down, capture and kill them, and remove state sponsors of terrorism, countries like Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea, and yes, Iraq, among others.  Not only does the argument that Hussein's Iraq did not support international terrorism hold no water, neither does the argument that certain countries which opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom did so for any legitimate reason.  The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, has called for an independent investigation into alleged corruption of the UN's oil-for-food program to Iraq, which would explain why certain states indeed opposed the war: they did not want to be implicated in any wrongdoing.  It is becoming increasingly clear that countries that provided support to Hussein's Iraq need to be called to account.  In addition to being a state sponsor of terrorism, Iraq violated numerous Security Council resolutions by its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and was a threat to international peace and security.  Pursuing regime change, with a coalition of the willing, was the only option worth pursuing at the time.
       Democrats, and all Americans, do have a legitimate concern about states who support these state sponsors of terrorism, but to blame President Bush and his administration for the corruption of other governments is outrageous.  Of course, their criticisms do serve a useful end: they demonstrate that not enough is being done by the international community to battle terrorism, and state sponsors of terrorism.  These criticisms are best directed at those countries which oppose taking action against terrorists, and state sponsors of terrorism, but at the same time, we must give praise where praise is due to those countries which are taking action.  This coalition has been doing good work, and our administration here at home deserves praise for leading them in the war on terror. 
       Of course, this author does not expect any apologies from the Democrats here in America, for making fallacious criticisms, for opposing the war on state sponsors of terrorism like Iraq, and for insisting that we need to get more governments on board when in fact they need to get on board at their own choosing.  We're not going to hold anybody's hand in this case, and America will never hand over the matter of our national security to the objections of a few.  The Democrats probably just need to do some soul-searching, go snowboarding, and think things over.  After all, the Democrats' foreign policy is about as consistent as the soup of the day.