Friday, December 15, 2006
John Kerry travels to a dictatorship and attacks American policy
"Kerry Criticizes Bush in Egypt"
Bad idea. The last time somebody did that he suffered through a dozen plagues.
I have previously erupted over the subject of American politicians junketing to some dictatorship and then publicly attacking the United States or its policies. It turns my stomach. Say what you will at home in your campaign to persuade American voters, but do not stand at a podium as the honored guest of a vicious authoritarian and turn on the policies of the country you purport to serve.
UPDATE: Joe Malchow has more on this phenomenon of Democrats lending their prestige, such as it is, to dictators in order to attack the administration's policies.
17 Comments:
By 
Andrewdb, at
Fri Dec 15, 02:01:00 AM:
Much as it surprises me to say this, Mr. Clinton has actually been very good about defending the US when he is speaking abroad.
(Don't worry, I have lots else I don't like him for)
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Dec 15, 09:45:00 AM:
Kerry's behavior annoys me, too, TH. However, we cannot expect to keep our political arguments within our borders in this age of globalization. Many of my friends in other countries believe they should have the right to vote in America's Presidential elections. "The U.S. is the world's only superpower," one overseas friend said. "The actions and decisions of the U.S. government often have a greater impact on my country than they have on the average American citizen."
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Dec 15, 11:04:00 AM:
DEC, I appreciate that our political arguments flow overseas, and in that way attacks on American policy in Iowa register in much the same way that they do in Cairo. Agreed. However, it is another thing entirely to legitimize the dirtbags who run these countries by using their forums to attack the US. It would be at least a little different to do that from London, Toronto or Stockholm, where the governments are at least respectable. But why make a brutal and hideous man like Hosni Mubarak look any more credible or serious than necessary? Sometimes the sitting president and his cabinet have to sully themselves that way, but it is truly degrading for somebody to do that voluntarily.
My own view is that guys like Kerry simply do not regard the dictators of the Middle East as the brutal and revolting people that they are.
By Georg Felis, at
Fri Dec 15, 01:25:00 PM:
Flashback: Didn’t the Democrats do the same thing in the Reagan years? I seem to recall a “Dear Commandante” letter, and a certain law they passed to protect the delicate flowers of Communism in South America from those nasty Republicans.
So they’re reverting to type. Perhaps if they continue to revert, they will eventually redevelop the will to become pro-defense.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Fri Dec 15, 02:45:00 PM:
In a democracy you don't have to pretend to agree with the A-hole in charge. I hope the people of Egypt take that to heart.
And this may shock you, but some people aren't above ripping on Kerry if he says different things in different places. Anyone who has accused him of "flip-flopping" should be proud that he's giving the same speechs stateside and abroad.
Finally, if you want to talk about confering honor on authoritarians, look at the way Cheney was just sent to Saudi Arabia for a dressing-down. That's the weakest projection of world power ever. The second in comand of the largest democracy in the world was summoned and scolded by a Saudi prince.
It almost makes me want to claim that guys like Bush/Cheney simply do not regard the monarchs of the Middle East as the brutal and revolting people that they are. (but then i realize it's a cheap partisan attack and bite my tongue)
By Pudentilla, at
Fri Dec 15, 03:39:00 PM:
Same outrage for Dana Rohrbach's Taliban diplomacy. Right?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Dec 15, 03:47:00 PM:
LB: "The second in comand of the largest democracy in the world..."
You forgot that India is the world's largest democracy, LB.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Fri Dec 15, 11:21:00 PM:
So I did...feel free to substitute your own superlative.
The point is: for all the tough talk about the Middle East and the evil authoritarians, we spend some serious effort kissing up to monarchs in Osama bin Linden's homeland.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Sat Dec 16, 09:54:00 AM:
Oh man, I gotta learn to proofread. (Linden=Laden)
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Dec 16, 10:57:00 AM:
If the Vice President had gone to Saudi specifically to criticize the US in front of a foreign audience, then I'd care. As it is it's just the execution of foreign policy and diplomacy, whether or not you agree with it.
"Many of my friends in other countries believe they should have the right to vote in America's Presidential elections."
Yeah, just as soon as I get a say-so in their country's government. 'Oh no, but that's a loss of sovereignty, you imperialist bastards!' You don't say?
By skipsailing, at
Sat Dec 16, 02:49:00 PM:
my dear Mr Bastard, how do you know it was "dressing down"? I don't watch tv or listen to much radio so would you tell me about your sources of insight into this conversation?
Was a joint communique issued? Or are you repeating someting Chris Matthews said? Or something you read on a liberal blog?
Honestly I don't recall any reliable reports concerning to content of Cheney's meetings. Please advise.
Are the Saudi's nasty despots? Well yeah, but I understand their situation. They have a true issue with the fundamentalists in their midst. I have read elsewhere about the shift in the ME from Pan Arabism to Pan Islamism. Islam being the new glue that binds all these people "together". The house of saudi is interested in liberalizing, but they must do so at a pace that confounds the rabid fundamentalists. They, it seems to me, face the same issues as the Shah. He couldn't make the transition. Can the house of Saud? Only time will tell.
By pst314, at
Sat Dec 16, 05:43:00 PM:
Georgfelis: Yes, Senator Kennedy approached the Soviets with an offer to collaborate to undermine President Reagan. Treason.
By 
, at
Sun Dec 17, 01:08:00 AM:
The Democrats have no class, are held to no standards and just aren't all that concerned with our nation's security and they are not even subtle about it. They got the major media wholly on their side and the Republican politicians are too lazy or scared to fight back. In a couple of more years the country will totally be back to the 90's 'stick our head in the sand and sit back and watch the media cheerlead the economy/stock market bubble cuz there's a Democrat in the White House' routine. The only hope is that the next attack won't be as big as 9/11. Although I'm not even sure anymore if that actually happened.
By , at
Sun Dec 17, 02:18:00 PM:
I don't believe it matters WHERE someone criticizes U.S. policy? What matters, I think, is reasoning behind the criticism. Perhaps its valid, and it should be embrace, or it's flawed, and should be discarded.
The latitude and longitude shouldn't matter, one would think.
It's not as if the people of Egypt are going to rise up in rage and mutiny, declare John Kerry their king and immediately invade and occupy New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvian.
If that were to happen, I would be very surprised.
By , at
Sun Dec 17, 03:01:00 PM:
Stilll a jerk and still a traitor just read the book UNFIT FOR COMMAND you will find out a lot about this scoundrel
By , at
Mon Dec 18, 08:17:00 PM:
Just like Gore
"A Failure Fans the Flames"
(or, Looser Lashes Out?))
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21301
And then there's...
Oh, heck, There are so many that I just don't have time to do justice to them all right now.
ytba
By , at
Mon Dec 18, 08:50:00 PM:
"Are the Saudi's nasty despots? Well yeah, but I understand their situation. They have a true issue with the fundamentalists in their midst." -- By skipsailing, at Sat Dec 16, 02:49:28 PM
What do you mean "they have a true issue" with the evil that they created, perpetuate and export around the world? They ARE the "fundamentalists in their midst."
http://www.meforum.org/article/535
http://www.iags.org/fuelingterror.html
The Sado Arabian leadership isn't interrested in liberalizing anything, because they are the root of the problem.
ytba
