By finally adopting the reactionary “Dean Line” (well, not finally, there’s no such thing with him) on Iraq, Kerry has placed himself in the position of having to root against the forces of democracy in that country, at least until the November election. He must hope for continued slaughter, beheadings and the like from the rag-tag collection of homicidal sociopaths and paleo-misogynists – Baathist and Islamist – that constitute the “insurgents” in order to defeat Bush, so is acting accordingly. Barely was Allawi’s speech out of the interim PM’s mouth when Kerry informed us, in the opinion of one of the two major presidential candidates in the most powerful country on Earth, there would be no January election in Iraq. (From your lips to Zarqawi’s burning ears, Senator.)
Leaving aside whatever moral evaluation we could make of those remarks – that is, after all, a personal matter – what if Kerry wins using this rhetoric? What will he do when confronted with decisions to make on Iraq? Will he help them hold an election? If not, will he withdraw our troops? Will he defend the majority of Iraqis who favor democracy? He hasn’t told the public – ours or theirs. I doubt he knows himself. But it could be worse, far worse, than what happened in Vietnam after we left.
No, I take it back. I will make a moral evaluation. It’s inescapable. One word: shameful.