« Funniest line I've read tonight: New name for CBS fraudulent documents scandal | Main | CBS begins stealth backpedal on Rathergate »

Friday, September 10, 2004

John Kerry insults our allies while the smoke still rises from the terrorist bombing of the Australian Embassy in Indonesia

Prepare for a bit of a rant, because I feel one coming on.

Australian blogger Tim Blair has a good collections of links with reactions to, and commentary about, the terrorist bombing of the Australian Embassy in Indonesia that killed at least eleven (including children) and wounded hundreds.

The Aussies have their own internal schism over how to deal with the Global War on Terror, as do many other countries.  So far, a majority of the Australian public is hanging tough — those who "get it" still outnumber those who'd practice appeasement and "sensitive diplomacy."  The Australians have been incredibly stalwart allies of the United States for decades and decades, in times thick and thin.  What incredible friends they are — and what an incredible, brave, robust people they are!  Americans are privileged to stand by them, and lucky to have them stand by us, yet again.

But this event should remind us — as it does, so very painfully, them — that this is not about a terrorist war on America.  This is indeed a terrorist war on civilization — global terrorists, fighting a global war, against civilization everywhere on the globe.  The targets are, quite literally, everyone who is, or wants to be, civilized — including the nacent indigenous forces for democracy in Iraq and countless other countries that may still be struggling on the cusp between civilization and barbarism.

John Kerry went out of his way to insult and disparage our allies again this week.  As I've written before (for instance, here and here and here), I think that drives me up the wall more than anything else he's said or done throughout his campaign, but damned if he doesn't keep doing it!  Damned if he's not beyond even the power of blunt-speaking Gen. Tommy Franks to shame!  Speaking mockingly this week of Iraq:

"When they talk about a coalition — that's the phoniest thing I ever heard," Mr. Kerry said of the current array of foreign soldiers deployed in Iraq. "You've got 500 troops here, 500 troops there, and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties, and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war.

It makes me want to grab him by the collar and say, "Look, Bozo, this isn't all about Iraq and Afghanistan.  Look Down Under, where a country with a fraction of our wealth and resources is holding down the fort — taking a very active role, in terms military, diplomatic, and economic — in building and maintaining and defending civilization for a huge quandrant of the globe!  They're not our tools, they're not bought or coerced or bribed.  They see the same dangers we do; they know they're targets just like we are; and they're acting on a mature and independent self-interest in self-preservation that they've also taken the trouble to coordinate with our own."

Part of what bothers me is that these insults are just so gratuitous.  Kerry could attack Bush for failing to secure greater support — diplomatic, manpower, financial — without slurring those countries who are providing support or belittling their current efforts.  He could stick to his routine about how under a Kerry administration, everyone will like the U.S. better and thus will try harder and cooperate more.  Personally, I don't buy any of that, but that's what his main sales pitch is — and he could make it without slurring anyone but Bush.  But he doesn't.  "Phoniest thing I've ever heard" — that's not accusing Bush merely of ineffective diplomacy, it's accusing Bush of fraud, in which the allies who are helping America must be complicit.

I am just overwhelmed by the incredible irony of John Forbes Kerry lecturing Dubya on being the stereotypical "Ugly American" when Kerry himself is so arrogant and so blind and — well, I won't say "un-American," but I will say, so ugly.  He at least mouths the words to honor our own troops' sacrifices, but then that same mouth utters these slurs against the troops who fight with ours, and who also fight — bravely and on their own — for the same causes for which our troops are fighting. 

It makes me very angry.  Can you tell?

Posted by Beldar at 03:10 AM in Global War on Terror, Politics (2006 & earlier) | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to John Kerry insults our allies while the smoke still rises from the terrorist bombing of the Australian Embassy in Indonesia and sent a trackback ping are listed here:

» Beldar is Angry from The Commons at Paulie World

Tracked on Sep 10, 2004 9:12:42 AM

» For Kerry, It Will Always Be September 10th from I love Jet Noise

Tracked on Sep 10, 2004 10:14:35 AM


(1) Phelps made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:27:11 AM | Permalink

For some reason, my mind keeps drawing paralells between how Kerry takes our real allies for granted, and how the DNC takes the black vote for granted. I'll have to think about that one before I decide if there really is a paralell.

(2) davod made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:36:26 AM | Permalink

The media is giving Kerry a pass on this issue.

I agree with you. The sugestion that it's all about money is so despicable. Governments are going to bat against these isalmic fascists despite the pacifist feelings of a large number of their own populations.

Why? Because sensible people understand that these terrorists will not be stopped by plattitudes and a few acres of land as one country after another is ceded by apeasers to the new Islamic Empire.

(3) Steel Turman made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 4:13:12 AM | Permalink

I could not agree more. The sad thing is that
it will take another assault within our borders
to mobilize REAL anger.

The sadder thing is that those that sit on
the bleachers will continue to do so.

I keep asking myself, where do these people
come from? And the only answer I get is they
must live under rocks or in the fog.

I used to think they were 'altruistic' or
'idealistic.' WRONG.

They are chicken s**ts or cowards. No other
explanation suffices.

In times of war they need to be ignored and
even ridiculed.

Only in a free land would they even have a voice.

H.G. Wells had a term for them ... eloi.

I hate to say that. But it is true. Herd
animals fit only for consumption in the food chain.


(4) YouGottaBeKidding made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 9:01:08 AM | Permalink

Heaven forbid that Kerry be elected. Not only will the countries that he thinks he can get to support us (France, German, and Russian) not be any more willing to join the coalition than they are now, he'll have alienated all those who are now part of the coalition and we WILL be going it alone.

(5) Todd made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 9:18:37 AM | Permalink

Tony Blair took a lot of heat for sticking by America after 9/11 and backing the war. As President Bush said after 9/11, "America has no greater friend than Great Britain" (and the same could be said of Australia). It's painful to me to see Kerry continue to piss all over them and other countries that have stood by America's side in spite of withering criticism from Germance and others. I think the lesson to be learned here is that Mr. Kerry will do or say anything to get elected, no matter what the consequences.

(6) Chris made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 9:43:16 AM | Permalink

If this is not just a war on America, but on civilization, then why isn't more of civilization participating in our war on terror? Many believe it is because this war has not been effectively handled, that our allies were not rallied upon the stirring claims you mention, but instead misleading and false claims, such as those Bush presented to the world in 2002.

Your anger towards Kerry as he practices politics while the "smoke is still rising" in Jakarta should give you an idea of the anger many felt when Bush practiced politics with the wound of 9/11 still open. Unfortunately, most of our military force is concentrated in what was not--but now is--a hotbed for terrorism. Would other terrorist bombings have been prevented, or would they have failed to materialize when their instigators were unprovoked by American aggression? That should not be something we should have to specualte. Unfortunately, it now is.

Beldar, Kerry is calling Bush's characterization of the coalition as "pathetic," not the coalition itself. As a group united against a threat that threatens the whole world, you must admit it is not that impressive. Yet Bush has characterized it as such, implying that it is larger than the one from the furst Gulf War. Bush played politics here first, remember.

(7) Beldar made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 10:01:17 AM | Permalink

Actually, I do disagree over whether the coalition is "impressive," Chris. And although you've done it in a less offensive way, your argument is yet another insult to the allies who are helping now. Yes, Desert Storm had Germany and France, that's true, and also the overt participation of Arab countries that we cannot yet realistically hope will put boots on the ground again in Iraq (but that we can hope will act, and that we can try to influence to act, in supportive but less visible ways). Otherwise, Dubya's right — this coalition is a broader and better one. Blue helmets do not a real coalition make.

And other than being "not-Dubya," Kerry's given no explanation for how he expects to build a larger one that actually does anything besides dither and debate.

Your recharacterization of Kerry's words to limit them to Bush does a far better job than does the candidate himself — hence my point about the gratuitous nature of his insults. It would cost him nothing to say something like,

Before I begin talking about that cowboy cretin George W-for-Wrong Bush, I want to sincerely acknowledge and thank our allies like Britain, Australia, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Japan, and the many other countries who are supporting the civilized world's fight against terrorism. Now, for the detailed reasons I'm about to lay out, I believe I can attract even more countries to join in that fight, and indeed perhaps attract even greater contributions and efforts from those who are already honorably engaged with us in it.

Thirty seconds and he'd have praised instead of insulting our allies, and then he could get on to bashing Bush. But Kerry never does this. Instead it's "fraudulent," "phony," "so-called coalition," "bought, bribed, coerced," etc. — painted with a broad and ugly brush, again and again.

The very sad fact, Chris, is that either you or I could apparently do a better job of diplomacy than John Forbes Kerry, the multilingual supposedly world-wise son of a career diplomat.

(8) Marc made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 10:07:06 AM | Permalink

Chris I suppose when Kerry used the terms "bribed and coerced" to descibe members of the coalition he was also using the same characterization. i.e. the coalition aand not its members.

Bribe: "money paid to a person to get him/her to do something dishonest."

Nicely written comment, but out to lunch in reality.

(9) Dusty made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 10:21:20 AM | Permalink

While searching for some info regarding Kerry's $200B could have been spent better here at home claim, I ran across this table of coalition forces makeup (with breakdown) from a Jan 2004 Report for Congress: Total pledged non-US, non-UK, - 19,279. Of course it is pre-Spain/Nicaragua pullout.

Pdf pg. 40; rept pg. CRS-36

It's nice that the MSM has continually touted this! (sarcasm)

(10) Lynxx Pherrett made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 10:25:01 AM | Permalink

From Hawspipe:

Kerry #1: "If America is at war, I won't speak a word without measuring how it'll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they're listening to their radios in the desert." (cite)

Kerry #2: "It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." (cite)

Kerry apparently worries about how our allies take a remark the same way he "measur[es] how it'll sound to the guys doing the fighting."

(11) Chris made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 10:36:59 AM | Permalink


I'm not sure what world you think we live in. Perhaps in this world, Bush attends soldier's funerals and says he truly appreciates the fact that over 1,000 American soldiers have given their lives in the Iraq war. Or maybe, in this world of yours, Bush admits that he made a mistake, once, ever, as President.

Unfortunately, politics has its own special set of rules, and sometimes our politicians listen to focus groups before deciding how to proceed. I wish it weren't, but here's some advice. Try not to get worked about it, because it's a hypocritical exercise.

If you think Kerry is in danger of alienating countries in our coalition, then I would disagree with you. Politics is a game every country plays, and if you think Kerry could not get the support of these countries, I would question your judgment.

Perhaps, instead of analyzing the words of Kerry for inconsistencies and outrageousness (while ignoring the words of Bush for the same), you could stick to a true discussion of issues that affect our future. Instead, it seems you have the same infection that plagues our media.

(12) GT made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 10:56:07 AM | Permalink

Yes, Kerry is so dismisive of other nations and insulting of our alies.

That's why the rest of the world wants Bush to be reelected.

Oh, wait...

(13) Dusty made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 11:07:13 AM | Permalink


(Can't get hotmail to "send" so here is reply.

Sorry about that. The report rl3205 (at the end of url) was referenced in the report cited. I was also looking for that the time, and cut and pasted the wrong url.

Here is the correct one:

The report text referring to the table is on pdf pg 38, 2nd pp.

Thanks for making any correction and for putting out such a great blog!


[ed — I've put both links into hyperlink form, Dusty, thank you for the info and the kind words. — Beldar]

(14) YouGottaBeKidding made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 11:09:12 AM | Permalink

Yeah, and we all know that kids in school want the substitute teacher rather than the mean old hag who actually tries to educate them and that criminals want to be tried in the court of the "easy" judges....

So, GT, your point is????

(15) Al made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 11:14:02 AM | Permalink

"If this is not just a war on America, but on civilization, then why isn't more of civilization participating in our war on terror?"

1) http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=68735
2) Because anyone who _does_ stand up is moving themselves up the target priority list.
3) "The World", meaning France and Germany, were caught red handed helping the other side.
4) Not everyone needs to participate _with_troops_. Intelligence helps - and it doesn't make the news for some reason.

I personally would rather have the full support of Pakistan than any assistance whatsoever from France.

(16) Chris made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 11:26:03 AM | Permalink


1) You cannot be serious.
2) This is not the reason why other nations are not participating.
3) Red-handed doing what?
4) The media doesn't cover it because it can compromise the integrity of ongoing operations. However, that didn't prevent the Bush administration from blowing the cover of an undercover agent who had penetrated al-Qaeda--effectively ending the operation before its payoff.

And I would rather have both Pakistan and France's support, Al.

(17) Todd made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 11:44:48 AM | Permalink

Yes, it's true. According to GT and Chris, U.S. foreign policy should now be conducted by first polling other nations, friend and foe alike, and making sure they approve of our actions in advance. Thus, for example, we should have contacted the Taliban and asked them if they minded if we bombed then back to the Stone Age in retaliation for supporting terrorist attacks upon our country. I'm old enough to remember when the Left actually made some sense, but those days are long gone.

(18) Ron made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 12:22:36 PM | Permalink

President Bush has admitted he was wrong in his calculation of the aftermath of the war. He stated that the swift overtaking of Iraqi forces resulted in miscalculations for the results now shown. Senator Kerry has shown a repeated distaste for war, justified or not. His incursion into Nicaragua with fellow war protester, Tom Hayden, is a prime example. He and Hayden returned to Congress with a negotiated “truce” over the head of the U.S. Congress, The Department of State, and the Reagan Administration. This is Senator Kerry’s mission, negotiation. Regardless of the consequences; regardless of how many die as he walks away.

What Beldar has tried to suggest is that Senator Kerry is demeaning the very souls who are supporting us. Three allies, France, Germany and Russia, refused to supply troops to support our efforts in Iraq. All three had multi-billion dollar contracts with Saddam Hussein’s regime. None were likely to be repaid as a result of this war. As for Senator Kerry’s uncoerced, unbribed tribunal… France has already stated publicly that it doesn’t matter who wins the election; they will not support the war in Iraq. France and Germany are Socialist regimes with a constituency of pacifists.

Senator Kerry isn’t Senator Kerry. He’s a talking head for Terry McCauliffe, the MSM and pundits of the liberal flavor. Any criticism you have of President Bush will be thrown back in your face because…because all rules of fairness only apply to Conservatives. Spokesmen for the left have given fair notice of lying, forging documents and slinging all the mud they can until November 2nd. (Oops a superscript).

Why can’t you just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Beldar has his opinion, I have mine, you have yours. Neither side will change the other’s mind. You might want to hear a story about something you made a passing remark about President Bush. This wasn’t on the news, good news rarely is, and wasn’t on the front page of newspapers. It is told by the man who it happened to.

In a Veteran’s Hospital a wounded soldier laid in bed, a stump was where his right hand used to be, and bandages covered his war torn body. A Sgt Major in full dress uniform stood near the man, not sure whether to grasp his arm or shake his left hand. He shook the man’s left hand as he thanked him for his service to his country. A man and woman nearby came next to his bed. The man reached for his right arm, where the hand used to be and knelt down and began to pray for the man as he openly cried. He stood and continued to hold the man’s arm as he thanked him for all Americans. That man was President Bush.

Do you want to tell him and the other men who have died or been wounded that they are not patriots. That the countries that stand with us are phonies? You won’t have to…Senator John Kerry already has.

(19) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 12:32:31 PM | Permalink

"3) Red-handed doing what?"

Would you like to discuss the "Oil-for-Food" program, Chris? How about illegal/dual use arms sales, such as the ones that are discussed HERE?

Yup. I'd say red-handed, but Kofi has his hands full returning the Silverware to UN building...

It's called STEALING, Chris.

The italicized portion Posted by: Chris on September 10, 2004 11:26 AM

(20) Lynxx Pherrett made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 12:34:56 PM | Permalink

This is what you get if you live in the world of the Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde, and their US counterparts: "However, that didn't prevent the Bush administration from blowing the cover of an undercover agent who had penetrated al-Qaeda--effectively ending the operation before its payoff."

Let's see what Chris got wrong there:

1. Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan was not "an undercover agent who had penetrated al-Qaeda." He essentially ran al-Qaeda's computer communications in Pakistan and was captured by the ISI. The ISI then used him (by whatever means of suasion) to send some emails to his contacts to attempt to track them. Some replied and some didn't.

2. The Bush administration did NOT blow his non-cover. He was identified by name by the New York Times, which sourced it to "a Pakistani intelligence official."

(21) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 12:36:47 PM | Permalink

Sorry about that - we'll try this again...

"3)Red-handed doing what?"

Would you like to discuss the "Oil-for-Food" program, Chris? How about illegal/dual use arms sales, such as the ones that are discussed HERE?

Yup. I'd say red-handed, but Kofi has his hands full returning the Silverware to UN building...

It's called STEALING, Chris.

The italicized portion Posted by: Chris on September 10, 2004 11:26 AM

(22) John made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 12:55:06 PM | Permalink

John Kerry's beloved UN has been overseeing the situation in S. Korea for over 50 years. Now who does he think has been shouldering the casualties (I was there in the late sixties and yes we were incurring casualties not reported in the media) and the costs for those fifty years? Kerry believes the US should sign up for more of this UN business? If we incur all the costs, why should we pay extra for the UN's corruption and entertainment? I'll take actual trustworthy allies anyday. It costs us a lot less and we determine what we do.

Possibly Kerry just wants someone else making the decisions since he appears not to be able to make up his mind and stick with it through thick and thin and the polls. I will have to admit he did help N. Vietnam quite a bit. So maybe he is useful and meaningful to some who like that sort of approach. That is if one chooses to reference his actual world leadership experience. I guess we should also add his self appointed negotiations with Ortega and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua as additional experience.

Hopefully our allies have experienced that words out of John Kerry's mouth have a very limit time value and will probably change tomorow. Gosh, what a great President and leader he would make! He sold out his "band of brothers" in Vietnam and lied to his fellow Senators. Wouldn't you want to be in an alliance and have to depend upon him and his word?

Yes, I can only imagine we would line up many more allies Kerry's way.

(23) MaDr made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 2:50:35 PM | Permalink

In addition to France and Germany, maybe Kerry could get allies like Spain onboard. As PM Zapatero recently said on Iraq(via barcepundit):

"Regarding all countries which have troops there, if there were more decisions like the Spanish government's (withdrawal of troops), more favorable prospects would be open"

History is replete with examples of the power of appeasement.

(24) Dan S made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 5:40:35 PM | Permalink

It sad, and amusing, but Kerry's speeches now on Iraq sound a lot like what he said during his Vietnam service. And after too, of course.

Nobody can really explain in terms that make sense why it is [that] the United States has to be the one to lose its men and spend its money for a supposed threat, which few people can define. Besides, I don't see how what we're doing is helping the Vietnamese anyway."

Torture of Duty VII: Deja Vu All Over Again

(25) Stan made the following comment | Sep 11, 2004 1:09:10 AM | Permalink

Thank you Beldar for your kind words about Australians. I'm sorry I'm so late to read this post but we've got our own Chris' and GTs here in Australia too and some words needed saying to them as well.

Australians and Americans find ourselves on the same side all the time because we share the same values. Sadly, it's a war against those values that we are facing today. Long may we share those values.

(26) Todd made the following comment | Sep 11, 2004 6:40:54 PM | Permalink

Stan, I think it's safe to say that a majority of Americans appreciate Australians and all our other allies. Do not let the Kerrys of this country convince you otherwise.

(27) Stan made the following comment | Sep 11, 2004 10:46:30 PM | Permalink

I'm never doubted it Todd.

The comments to this entry are closed.