Writes Stephen Morris on the meaning of John Kerry’s election:

Kerry’s 34-year record in public life indicates that he never understood what the Cold War was about and that he does not understand the nature of the US’s rogue-state or Islamist terrorist enemies now….Kerry thinks that the war on terror is like “the war against organised crime”. Both, he insists, are examples of forces of chaos. Really? Since when did organised crime want to create chaos? Have you noticed the Mafia engaged in suicide bombing? Flying planes into buildings? When did any mob consider poisoning the nation’s water supply? Have you heard that they are trying to acquire nuclear weapons? And is organised crime anywhere trying to convert Christian infidels to the Muslim religion? [“Stephen Morris, “Danger man John Kerry“, October 25, 2004]

On Kerry holding the U.N. above the U.S.:

…As The Washington Post recalled last week, discussing the possibility of US troops being killed in Bosnia in 1994, he said: “If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.”

On Kerry the “moral relativist”:

…Unlike many American liberals, Kerry has often expressed his discomfort with the US criticising other nations for their repressive domestic policies. Thus a Kerry administration will be one that not only does not promote democracy, it will be one in which gross human rights abroad are given little attention.

On Kerry’s “soft spot” for dictators:

In 1990, in a rare act of post-Cold War political unity, the UN Security Council approved a plan to end the war in Cambodia with a UN temporary administration to organise elections in the country…Kerry opposed it. Instead, he wanted the Vietnamese-installed Hun Sen, formerly of the Khmer Rouge, to organise elections. It seems that Kerry’s preference for a UN role in conflict resolution is mainly to shackle American power, but not the power of his favourite little dictatorships.

…Kerry’s soft spot for the dictators of Third World countries was not confined to Vietnam and Cambodia. During the Cold War Kerry was opposed to using force against all adversaries. This was especially so in the case of Nicaragua, where Kerry began his diplomatic showboating with the Sandinistas in 1985, but also in Grenada and the 1991 Gulf War to evict Saddam from Kuwait. Kerry’s benign attitude towards dictators will affect one of the US’s two greatest contemporary security threats: the nuclear arming of North Korea and Iran.

Read Dr. Harry Binswanger’s article for more analysis on the 2004 elections.

Voice of Capitalism

Capitalism news delivered every Monday to your email inbox.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest