Fareed Zakaria is a smart guy and his observations on what the Bush administration has done wrong in Iraq are worth pondering. But this week's column goes too far in ascribing credibility to John Kerry and his baggage train of nuances.
The more intelligent question is, given what we knew at the time, was toppling Saddam's regime a worthwhile objective? Bush's answer is yes, Howard Dean's is no. Kerry's answer is that it was a worthwhile objective but was disastrously executed. For this "nuance" Kerry has been attacked from both the right and the left. But it happens to be the most defensible position on the subject.
The plain truth is that John Kerry, for all his macho posturing and (sort of) tough-guy rhetoric about the war we're in, has no intention whatsoever of taking any meaningful action against our mortal enemy -- it's all talk, all the time. Just like Clinton, Albright and Holbrooke. Just like the EU. Just like the U.N. A long, hopeless, and eventually fatal retreat. So it's a waste of time to consider how the George McClellan of our time might have delivered better "execution."
George W. Bush and his team may have made lots of mistakes in a harsh and unforgiving world. But at least he's doing something. At last. Against long odds. And we're winning. Stay the course, W.
Posted by Alan at August 18, 2004 05:29 AM