Sensitive War

Dick Cheney, on Hugh Hewitt's show yesterday, criticized Kerry for his statement that he would conduct a more "sensitive" war.

Mr. Kerry needs to read General Sherman. He seems to think that we could have convinced Saddam to come clean through another 12 years of diplomacy. What he doesn't get is that Saddam had bought off at least two permanent members of the Security Council. There was no way we were going to get the U.N. to authorize deposing him.

The big criticism on the left has been that Bush was too unilateral, but all that boils down to is saying that our national defense and foreign policy should be subject to veto by the French, Kofi Anan, Canada and Belgium. That is unacceptable. The U.N. is not the source of law for America's national security. It's a debating society, but the Democrats seem to think we can't do anything without it. That's why I think we should test it to see who can get along without whom.

I don't think Americans realize the damage we did to our diplomacy by pulling out of Vietnam the way we did. We've done it again and again since, in Lebanon, Somalia and Iraq. Why should anybody in the world believe what we promise when we have a major party, now leading in the polls, which is willing at the drop of a hat to back out of any undertaking that gets nasty? If we elect John Kerry, we should just disband our state department and withdraw our troops from around the world. Tell the EU its their baby from now on. That's what "sensitivity" boils down to.