Friday, October 29, 2004

Kerry's clear stand on removing Sadaam

From Tom Brokaw's interview with the Senator:
Brokaw: The flip side of that is that if you had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Because you...

Kerry: Not necessarily at all.

Brokaw: But you have said you wouldn't go to war against him...

Kerry: That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons.

Brokaw: But he wasn't destroying them...

Kerry: But that's what you have inspectors for. And that's why I voted for the threat of force. Because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's absolutely impossible and irresponsible to suggest that if I were president, he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone. Because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war. And we might have gone to war. But if we did, I'll tell you this, Tom. We'd have gone to war with allies in a way that the American people weren't carrying the burden. And the entire world would have understood why we were doing it.

How can anyone who hasn't beenliving under a rock on the far side of Mars for the past three years believe that this man has even the faintest hint of a clear stand on this, or any other issue? The mind boggles at the utter futility of Kerry's attempts to appear decisive on Iraq. Does he realize how he sounds? He can't even come out and flatly deny that Saddam would be in power if he were president. The best he can manage is "Not necessarily at all." What kind of an answer is that? It's like saying "Absolutely probably not", the sentence is meaningless.

Boy, and doesn't Kerry get definitive in that last paragraph? "He wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone....we might have had to go to war. And we might have gone to war." Elitist snobs mock Bush's mangling of the English language, but Kerry, in his own way, mangles it just as badly. I suppose they didn't use William Strunk, Jr.'s The Elements of Style in his Swiss boarding school. John Kerry really needs to memorize and apply Rule 12:
12. Put statements in positive form. Make definite assertions. Avoid tame, colorless, hesitating, non-committal language. Use the word not as a means of denial or in antithesis, never as a means of evasion.
Whether consciously or subconsciously, I believe people pick up on the inherent weakness in Kerry's language. John Kerry simply can't hide his weakness of character. Sure, he can speak with large, impressive words in a deep, sonorous voice. But his very language betrays a man who, at his core, is deeply unsure of himself, his beliefs, and his place in the world. It takes more to lead and inspire than a cheaply won medal and a European education. Leadership demands the kind of confidence that is so deeply rooted in one's character that it expresses itself not only in the words one uses, but how they are used.

John Kerry is not a leader.