Sunday, October 10, 2004

Ahab's Resume...

Hewitt Symposium
Subject: "What do Kerry's answers to today's (last week's predebate) press inquiries tell us about Kerry's worldview and character?" Additionally, what about his statements regarding General Shinseki's retirement.

* Read the introduction to the symposium, transcripts of Kerry's press conference, and other submissions at


I find it difficult anymore to analyze what Kerry is saying. His positions are so inconsistent, hyperbolic, and factually distorted, that to analyze his statements in any serious manner is a sysiphian effort at logical futility. His delusions concerning General Shinseki should be enough to convince anyone that is willing to review the facts of that particular figment, that Mr. Kerry's window on reality is a video screen with his face broadcast in vain confirmations to his queries of "mirror, mirror..." Is it any wonder that projection defines the entirety of his outlook with his perception of self-loathing being the yardstick by which all else is measured? So, analyze him we must if we are to challenge his consecration by Liberal America and the Mainstream Media intent on anointing Caligula's horse before accepting the political irrelevance of their own vacuous outlook. This statement in particular is the one that I find most revealing:

"But I will make certain that our troops are protected. I will hunt down and
kill the terrorists, and I will make sure that we are successful, and I know
exactly what I am going to do and how to do it."

A standing army exists for the protection of its nation. It is the frontline barrier on the edge of chaos separating civilization from barbarism. It is a unified bastion of distinct entities acting by volition, as one organism of fortification and aggression; no one component being less or more important than 1000 respective to the whole and its mission. In the case of the United States, it's phalanx is deployed at the discretion of one person, with the oversight of a body of public representation. But, ultimately that one person has the authority to shape the frontier as they choose... in accordance with their worldview. Threats are identified, prioritized and attenuated. Force is exerted as necessary, when a threat is realized. The phalanx is activated by the President for the protection of the United States. The President does not act, in the best interest of the arm, but of the body. So when Kerry makes this statement, "But I will make certain that our troops are protected," he displays a dangerous view point from which to engage world events. A dedication to the individual bricks in the wall of the frontier demonstrates a lack of attention to the wall as a whole, where breaches must be immediately filled with either more bricks or children's bodies. Since the President cannot ensure both the security of the people and safety on the frontier, he must prioritize the sacrifice. Kerry has made his choice - to abandon the fortifications of the frontier in order to fulfill a pledge to the pristine quality its bricks. As a result, the frontier of chaos will move from the streets of Fallujah, to the streets of Charleston, Des Moines, and Seattle.

Kerry's statements and responses are eerily devoid of any value-based conviction. He talks endlessly, without saying anything, forcing us to ask the questions for which journalists seem to have no concern or curiosity. This nation is at war. The enemy is a concept called terrorism and its soldiers are terrorists. It is, therefore imperative to know what is a terrorist by John Kerry's standards when he says, "I will hunt down and kill the terrorists." After all, the ones that delivered the blow on 911 are already dead. Is the mission, therefore, accomplished? Should you, Mr. Kerry, go after their leaders? Who were they? Do you go after their associates? Who were they? What defines an associate? (i.e. if the Saudis' are guilty, are not the French for corrupting the system of UN oversight and pouring money and arms into the terrorist's machine? Hmm?) On what basis therefore do you define additional terrorists groups, individuals, and their associates? What constitutes a target for 'killing' by your standards? What is a potential terrorist or an imminent threat? What is a terror group? And how do you deal with groups who 'sponsor' terror? What about states that sponsor terror, Mr. Kerry? And, oh by the way what exactly defines 'terrorist' activity or intent... activity? ...or intent? With regard to the Taliban, Mr. Kerry, and its Al Qaeda associates in Afghanistan, what more do you intend? - the Taliban is demolished and 75% of the known AQ leadership is out of commission (read, dead). The nation is slowly rebuilding and elections are scheduled to take place. What more do you desire there? Or is Osama Bin Laden to be your personal white whale?

How do you define 'Terror', Mr. Kerry? The prospect is frightening, based on the things you have said, and people and groups that you do attack, all too frequently. Are Christians equally as dangerous as fanatical fascist Muslims, Sir? Is the NRA a terrorist organization? Should corporations be subject to U.N. supervision and taxation? Are US soldiers, as the modern equivalent of Genghis Khan, subject to the 'justice' of the World Court? And what nations would fit within your own progressive definition of 'evil doer.' Might you one day, with the unanimous consent of the of the U.N. Member Nations, deploy US forces to invade Israel to forcibly divide that territory?... viewing both Israel and Palestine through the blurry lens of your moral equivalence. Do you intend to allow Annan to Prosecute President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld in the World Court for war crimes, now that the U.N. has declared the Iraq War to be 'illegal?" It is a judgment that has been re-iterated and supported by you, Sir! The questions are valid.

Just how is it that you plan to convince America that you know 'what to do,' Mr. Kerry, when your own individual constitution is so misguided. In 1972, you stood personal witness to the depths of human atrocity. Its called War. You remind America, continuously of your service in that war - your four months of service. There you looked at two sides of a conflict and concluded that one side was indeed more guilty. Unfortunately, the side you condemned was the one that represented the virtue of life and freedom. It also happened to be the side of the uniform that you wore. It was the same uniform that your were seen wearing when you lobbied on the enemy's behalf, denigrating this nation's effort, its leadership, and its soldiers in the midst of that conflict. It has escaped no one, Sir, that nothing has changed with respect to your character and judgment, and your fetid worldview. You tell us that, " I will make sure that we are successful, and I know exactly what I am going to do and how to do it." And yet, your resume of brief military service, degenerate public fame, and your lengthy yet undistinguished political career suggests that you have never known what to do, and have realized little success at anything.

Even now, your judgment exposes fundamental flaws in your character. You have an enormous degree of condemnation for the current administration for its supposed misjudgment and dishonesty. Where now, is your renunciation of the U.N., Mr. Kerry, during the ongoing exposure of the horrendously corrupt Oil for Food program? Your profound silence on the issue, is quite disturbing - especially as you persist in standing with that organization to further condemn the actions of the United States and demand allegiance to an alternate alliance with world criminals. If you refuse to evaluate that organization based on the actions of its Member Nations and its governing council, why should we take any of your conclusions seriusly? Are you so obsessed with your ego that you'd be willing to forfeit the judgment of the people of the United States to your delusional faith a chimera? Might you finally begin to understand why you are considered by many to be unfit for command?

Bush does not need to twist your words. Karl Rove is not misrepresent you. We hear the words coming directly out of your mouth. The terminology we understand completely. The concepts make no sense. Your character is revealed by your inability to recognize a life dedicated to error. Your world view is as naive as it is dangerous and will prevail at inaugurating armageddon. And we want no part of any of it.

Your Pequod sails without us.

No comments: