The difference

John Leo:

Many of the doubts that hover over Sullivan's case for Kerry are rooted in the value system widely shared among Democrats: Most people are basically good; wars are caused not by evil motives but by misunderstandings that can be talked out; conflict can be overcome by more tolerance and examining of our own faults or by taking disputes to the United Nations. As a personal creed, these benign and humble attitudes are admirable. As the foundation of a policy to confront terrorists who wish to blow up our cities, they are alarming.

Yes, they are.

It was the our final withdrawal from Viet Nam in 1975 that led the Soviets to believe that they could invade Afghanistan without consequence, and they were right, at least with Carter. Carter's response? The American Olympic team did not attend the summer games in Moscow. The perceived weakness of America led the Iranians to conclude that they could storm our embassy and take Americans hostage as a way of pressuring us.

If Kerry is elected, and if he keeps his withdrawl timetable from Iraq and abandons the 80% of Iraqis who wish to be governed democratically, 2004-2008 will look a lot like 1976-1980.

Except the enemies are more dangerous. China is eyeing Taiwan. North Korea is threatening everyone. Iran is building the bomb and threatening Israel with destruction. Nuclear-armed Pakistan is teetering.

And the age of nuclear terror may only a few years away.

Weakness now is no response.

Kerry likes to portray his "ideas" as a new hope.

But they are old and tired:



And dangerous.

- posted by total @ 10/26/2004 04:47:00 AM .