Here's another Sullie howler (sorry, no permalink, ya gotta "go down:")
DREZNER LEANS TOWARD KERRY: One of my favorite bloggers, Dan Drezner, is leaning toward Kerry. He's a hawk like me, and a conservative on many issues. He makes a good case. But don't miss the counter-argument from a retired diplomat at the end. (Emphasis added)
"Hawk like me," is it? From the Drezner link:
Now, I'm very sympathetic to the argument that Kerry's diplomatic style would play much better on the global stage than Bush's (click here for some evidence of this) -- and that this improved style would go some way towards advancing America's national interest via greater multilateral cooperation.
But I'm not sure it will go nearly as far as Kerry thinks it will. If the Senator from Massachusetts thinks that improved style, greater diplomatic efforts, concerted multilateral coordination, and even copious amounts of American aid can get India and Pakistan to sign on to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or create a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace, then, well, he's drunk too much of the multilateral Kool-Aid. Bill Clinton -- who epitomizes the kind of diplomatic style Kerry could only hope to achieve -- invested a fair amount of diplomatic capital on both of these flash points, during a time when America's global prestige was greater than today -- and in the end achieved very little of consequence. There are international problems where the conflict of interests are so sharp and the stakes are so high for the affected parties that all the outside diplomacy in the world won't achieve anything. And I can't help but wonder if Kerry believes he can somehow talk radical Islamists into submission.
So I'm troubled by this -- but at this point I'm more troubled by the Bush administration. Robert A. George has a New Republic column that encapsulates a lot of my difficulties voting for the GOP ticket this year. Here's the part that hit home for me:
President Bush has failed to live up to the second key tenet of conservative government: accountability.
Take, for example, the Pentagon's disastrous planning for postwar Iraq. The lack of troops for the post-invasion period enabled the insurgency to bloom and put American soldiers at risk. Worse, while memos from Ashcroft's Justice Department seemingly provided legal cover for the abuse at Abu Ghraib, the material causes could be found, again, in the underdeployment of troops: "What went wrong at Abu Ghraib prison?" asked The New York Post's Ralph Peters, one of the more earnest supporters of invading Iraq. Pointing to the two independent reports examining the scandal, he concludes: "Woefully deficient planning for post-war Iraq, too few troops and inadequate leadership at the top." Peters is among the conservatives who believe the Abu Ghraib fiasco should have been the final straw for Rumsfeld.(Emphasis added)
Look, I am a hawk, always have been always will be, most likely. As a hawk I also appreciate that this President responded to terrorism in a dramatic and blunt way. Kerry, Sullivan and other assorted Demos & Libs do not seem to understand that the Islamofacists really DO NOT want to "talk" about anything, they want to kill us. The UN, France, Germany, Russia and China are filthy with Oil-for-Food scandal money, and we need to find multilateralism with these assholes why, exactly? So we can "feel better" about our "international prestige?" Jesus Christ.
To support his loathing of Bush he puts on his patented "20/20 Hindsight" glasses and laments our "post-war" strategy? Does he read anything other than the NY Times? Look around, buddy, there is tremendous good going on in Iraq--So much so that I have often said that the best thing a Kerry victory would bring would be the shift the Iraq coverage would get. We would finally see the MSM playing up the positives rather then the nonstop death/chaos/mayhem we get now. But the real stupifying thing to me is that anyone would try to pass themselves off as a "hawk" and then dredge up ABU GHRAIB! Are you kidding me with this shit? WHO CARES? This is a classic demo/lib red herring, utterly meaningless in the conduct of a war. Do we hold this up as our proudest moment? Of Course Not, ya jackasses! But to even attempt to encapsulate our amazing Iraq/Terrorism effort by vomiting up this menaingless but emotionally evocative (because LOOK LOOK, PICTURES!) situation is nothing any intellectually honest person could do, let alone a "hawk."
No, this is more rubbish. What is interesting to me about this "We're hawks, but..." nonsense is the same thing I see with nearly all the Demos and Libs I know--Denial of one's true leanings. I am an out-of-the-closet PROUD Conservative Republican, PRO-war, PRO-Bush, open and honest and LOUD about it all. What are all these dove Demo/Libs so ashamed of that they cannot embrace their true selves? It always intrigues me that I get assailed by Libs all the time who consistently purport themselves to be "Independent," yet cannot think of ONE Republican pol they like, let alone voted for, nor ONE Democrat pol they think is a liar or scumbag. It goes to honesty, integrity and introspection...Intellectual honesty people, it'll set ya free! (And it may just fix yer party...)