Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Kerry: "If I were president, this wouldn’t have happened."
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, July 26, 2006

The increasingly irritating and irrational Senator from MA had this to say the other day about the war between Israel and Hezbollah:
"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened,'' said the Massachusetts senator, during a lunchtime visit to "Honest John's Bar and No Grill Inc." in Detroit while campaigning for Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. "The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East. ... We're going to have a lot of ground to make up (in 2008) because of it.'' Because of Bush's focus on Iraq, [John] Kerry said, the president failed to address threats posed by other terrorist organizations.
Now obviously the latter part of the statement is certainly debatable. Reasonable arguments for or against the administrations efforts at diplomacy in the ME can be made.

But "this wouldn't have happened" if he was president? That's in the league of the "if we do the work ... that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again" statement John Edwards made in the '04 campaign. It's ludicrous. It is nonsense on a stick.

I'm not sure what the junior Senator from MA thinks he could have done to prevent Hezbollah from attacking Israel, but he certainly thinks that had he been in office nothing would have kept him from successfully bringing peace to the ME.
"He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq,'' said Kerry. And then, "We have to destroy Hezbollah.''
We? Ah, I see. Instead of fighting terrorists in the war he voted for, we ought to be fighting terrorists in another war he would have picked in south Lebanon? Apparently Osama bin Laden, the guy Kerry previously thought was the most important terrorist (a terrorist he claimed he would "stop at nothing" to hunt down) is no longer the real problem. It's always been Hezbollah. Why didn't Bush, et. al, know that?

Kathleen Parker gives flight to Kerry's fancy and applies reality to his proclamation.
We'll give him that tea leaf. Having managed postwar Iraq better than the Bush administration — and arguably my neighbor's cat could have — what about Iran? Without Iran's support and provision of munitions, Hezbollah wouldn't be kidnapping Israeli soldiers and launching rockets into Israel right now. Might we also assume that under the aura of a President Kerry, the Iranians would have passed on electing the Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

If only John Kerry had been president, might Iran's powerful clerics have decided instead to back a more pragmatic Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani? Might we never have heard clerics urging voters to the polls with words like this: "Every vote you cast is a bullet in the heart of America''?

Perhaps, perhaps, but we'll never know. Given that Iran's elections were arranged in advance by the country's clerics, it seems likely we'd be right where we are: Trying to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons and from keeping its promise to erase Israel from the map through its terrorist arm, Hezbollah.

Finally, we come to Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians. With his broader focus, could Kerry have dissuaded Palestinians from electing Hamas to govern them? Or Syria to stop funding Hamas? Or prevented southern Lebanese from electing 14 members of Hezbollah to represent them in that country's Parliament?
Of course her point is, "talk is cheap" and there's none any cheaper than John Kerry's. It is one thing to be reasonably confident. It is another thing entirely to be ignorantly arrogant. And as far as the ME goes, Kerry's claim makes it clear he hasn't a clue and falls in the latter category.

I noticed in a recent straw poll he was running in the single digits among the crop of possible '08 Democratic candidates for president. That's where he belongs and deserves to be. It actually made me feel somewhat good about the intelligence of the left. However, I'm sure it won't take long for that transient feeling to be cruelly disabused.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

It’s somewhat of a good sign for the Dems that they appear to shed losers, rather than carry their banners forevermore.

Gore also polls low. Many of the Democrats I know think he’s gone insane. Even after 9/11, before Bush had proved his ineptitude, those Dems thought Gore would not have handled 9/11 well.

Now Kerry. A preening, pompous blowhard in an empty suit. And oh, so prideful.
Until his dying day, that awful nagging doubt will be with him - as bad as Bush is - how could voters think he was worse? Am I? Am I?
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
Now Kerry. A preening, pompous blowhard in an empty suit. And oh, so prideful.
Until his dying day, that awful nagging doubt will be with him - as bad as Bush is - how could voters think he was worse? Am I? Am I?
Perfectly said.
Written By: David Shaughnessy
It actually made me feel somewhat good about the intelligence of the left.
except that they, and their equally myopic and self-serving right brethren, keep on re-electing these bozos...
Written By: bains
URL: http://
I’m not defending Kerry in any way, but I do seem to remember the Republicans/Conservatives immediately begin attacking Al Gore after 9-11 with statements and e-mail chain letters on how horrible a job he would have done if he had been president. This is also an idiotic thing to say and does no one any good by making statements about "alternate realities" where people can say whatever they want about them as though it were fact. So I think that this isn’t a Democratic nonsensical attack, it is a politician nonsensical attack.
Written By: Barry
URL: http://

True. Most people believe blinkered things (I think all of us, but McQ might take it personally;) our leaders aways have. That is why you often end up voting for the one whose beliefs are idiotic or at least based upon questionable rationales but nevertheless lead in the direction you want to go. Most of us try and forget the screwy things our favorites believe or think and obsess on those with whom we disagree. Churchill was full of holes, but he had the views and strengths for greatness when matched with the right set of circumstances.

This reminds me of that Scowcroft quote Mona dragged out a while ago. I have a lot of respect for his intellect and experience, but that "fifty years of peace" (or whatever) quote prompted me to wonder what planet he has been on all these years. It was worth a giggle, but does it mean he shouldn’t be listened to just because he believes (and I think he has convinced himself it is in some sense true) something so divorced from reality? In his case no, in Kerry’s case yes, but I am struggling to come up with exactly how we make that judgment.
Written By: Lance
Most people believe blinkered things (I think all of us, but McQ might take it personally;) our leaders aways have.
That’s the fight, isn’t it ... getting those blinkers off and trying your hardest to face the reality of situations with as much intellectual honesty as you can muster. And it’s a fight everyone goes through daily.

We make the judgment you’re attempting to make (betwixt Scowcroft and Kerry) by weighing their pronouncements as a whole against those we find to be dubious or absurd. In Scowcroft’s case you’d find the ratio to be much more in favor of good, intelligent commentary. In Kerry’s case the reverse would be true.
Written By: McQ

Needless to say, though I still am, I agree.
Written By: Lance
If all these democraps with there "if i had been in power" statments actually said something besides the statement itself then I might be proned to vote democrap. But they usually come up with something like more diplomatic talks and such. Who would you talk to? Al-queda? Hezbollah? Hamas? They are not elected/appointed/dictators of a nation who has the ability to reign in there armies. Even if you spoke to there so called leaders and their leaders said "ya’ll quit shoot your rockets at those nice Israeli folks" is anybody going to really listen? You might get a few but then somebody would stand up and say "Osama is just a puppet of the zionist imperialist Americans. Ya’ll keep shootin."

Written By: Mac
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks