Why would they listen to the dreary, wobbly John Kerry?

We just got around to checking out Paul Berman's much-recommended op ed in last Thursday's New York Times, "Will the Opposition Lead?" Andrew Sullivan called it a "must read," saying "Now is the Democrats' opportunity to re-establish their foreign policy credentials, go to Europe to explain why [the war on terror] is too important a matter to be reduced to Bush hatred." It's easy to see why Armed Liberal at Winds of Change is glowing that this op ed "summarizes my position on the election and the current situation in Iraq brilliantly." Berman concedes progress in the war on terror, but diminishes GW's accomplishment by calling it "almost comically successful":

Baathism's super-weapons may have been a figment of the universal imagination; but as soon as the United States elevated this figment into a world crisis, astonishing progress was made in tracking down weapons programs and trafficking in Libya, Iran, Dubai and Pakistan . . .

But the bigger problem has to do with public understandings of the war. People around the world may not want to lift a finger in aid so long as the anti-totalitarian logic of the war remains invisible to them. President Bush ought to have cleared up this matter. He has, in fact, spoken about conspiracy theories and hatred (including at Tuesday's press conference). He has spoken about a new totalitarianism, and has even raised the notion of a war of ideas.

But Mr. Bush muddied these issues long ago by putting too much emphasis on weapons in Iraq (and his gleeful opponents have muddied things even further by pretending that weapons were the only reason for war). He muddied the issues again by doing relatively little to promote a war of ideas — quite as if his loftier comments were merely blather. His national security statement of 2002 flatly declared that totalitarianism no longer existed — a strange thing to say. War requires clarity. Here is incoherence.

So far, so good, although it seems to us it wasn't the President himself so much as the media that promulgated the notion that WMDs were the main reason we went after Saddam. For some reason -- perhaps because we get most of our news and commentary from the blogosphere -- we were aware early on that there were larger, strategic reasons for invading Iraq, having to do with rearranging the region's geopolitical landscape. Berman continues:

Somebody else will have to straighten out these confusions, then. I think it will have to be the Democrats — at least those Democrats who accept the anti-totalitarian logic. And why shouldn't they show a bit of leadership?

The Democrats? How about Tony Blair. He's a liberal. Has there been anyone since Winston Churchill more eloquent in making the case for confronting tyranny? If they won't listen to the vibrant, steadfast Blair, why would they listen to the dreary, wobbly John Waffles Kerry?

Comments

[goomp]

The USA will be beyond G-d's help if Waffles Kerry is our next President.