QandO

June 17, 2004

Albright on Kerry, foreign policy and tax collection
Posted by McQ

The Dallas Morning News published a bit of a Q & A Madeline Albright had with the paper's editorial board. Some interesting stuff:

Question. You're an informal adviser to John Kerry. He said some European leaders don't want George Bush re-elected. Is that true?

Answer. Let me put it this way. Foreign leaders don't like to interfere with domestic matters. But there is a sense of discouragement that the U.S. is not relating with them better. Generally, foreign leaders like incumbents, but that's different this time, even though they know better than to get involved.

Translation: Some foreign leaders don't like to have their bluff called and be shown for the toothless appeasers they really are.

Now, I'll give any QandO reader one guess as to the top two (and maybe the only two ... not counting the new Spanish PM) of those she's talking about.

Schnitzel and Brie won't get it either.

Why is this such an important point to the left?

Question. What would John Kerry be like as a foreign policy leader?

Answer. He is an internationalist who has been around foreign policy a long time. He's served three, four terms on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He's ready to be president, and I know. I testified under him many times. He's not overly partisan or strident. His position on Iraq started supportive of President Bush, for example. And he wants a strong defense.

Ah, he's "been around" it "a long time" ... so naturally he's qualified. No matter that foreign policy is the absolute territory of the Executive Branch and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can't do much else but sniff around it and snipe at decisions made by presidents. To believe that his committee membership qualifies him in the foreign policy area is absurd. As president he'll actually have to make decisions about foreign policy instead of holding hearings and criticizing.

And its certainly comforting to hear he's an "internationalist". One wonders if Albright's tongue was sprained when she suddenly tried to qualify that by saying, "And he wants a strong defense."

Its a matter of sovereignty, Ms. Albright, and we either cede it to an "international body" such as the UN and abide by its decisions or we choose to remain a sovereign entity and make those decisions here as they effect our nation. You can't have a "strong defense" when you cede your sovereignty to some other governing body since you also cede your power to use it effectively.

This, of course, is John Kerry trying to have it both ways again, albeit through Madeline Albright.

Here's one we agree on, well almost:

Question. On another front, can we work with Yasser Arafat?

Answer. He's incapable of making many of the decisions that need to be made. He sees himself as a liberation fighter. I saw him work at Camp David. He was marginalized because he was so passive. But you have to deal with him. It would be best if a new Palestinian leadership could marginalize him.

"Incapable" or refuses to make the decisions necessary? I believe it to be the latter. The best thing that could happen to the peace process in that benighted part of the world would be for the earth to open up and suddenly swallow that murderous cretin.

Also an interesting quote about Vladimir Putin and Russia. Albright pointed out that she thought Putin was "putting Russia back on its feet". When challenged on that she said the following as "proof" he was doing so:

The Russians are actually collecting taxes.

Wha ...?!

To be fair she followed that with:

And he's trying to give them hope and a sense of identity as Russians.

But still ... leave it to a Democrat to see "progress" in tax collection.

TrackBack