Post Debate Thoughts - Bush is Steadfast - Kerry Caters

Bush pointed this out. After stating it once, twice, etc. what more did he need to say? Kerry also suggested that no military action should be taken without passing a "global test". Bush immediately presented the fundamental difference between he and Kerry in international policy. While Kerry looks to the international community for approval Bush acts in the interests of the American people with steadfastness and resolve [more from Powerline]. However, Bush could have gone further.

The fatal flaw in Kerry’s international policy is his abdication to foreign powers. The "global test" that Bush nailed him on is enough to completely discredit John Kerry. Submit our nation to the judgement of the United Nations? I think history would have taught us to reject the notion. Consider the following headlines (today):

• Congressional investigators say that France, Russia and China systematically sabotaged the former United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq by preventing the United States and Britain from investigating whether Saddam Hussein was diverting billions of dollars. New York Times


• UN officials are investigating a video showing Palestinians loading suspicious, elongated objects into UN ambulances after Israel released the images and accused UN personnel of collaborating with the terrorists [CaptainsQuarters, update: analysis of the U.N. response here, hat tip: Powerline]


• The Rev. Haruun Ruun, the executive secretary of the New Sudanese Council of Churches (NSCC) who has sharply criticized the United Nations for being slow to respond to the crisis in the Darfur region of his country, will address an international group of religious leaders here Wednesday. [more]


• Update: Saddam bribed several U.N. member nations who spoke out against the UN's action against him, according to a recent report. "The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action." [hat tip: Powerline]

Kerry suggests a Summit of allies as a solution to the problems in Iraq. He also stated,

How Kerry's dream would work is completely unknown [well not entirely, see Beldar]. However, Bush rejected the idea, stating "I've been to a lot of summits. I've never seen a meeting that would depose a tyrant or bring a terrorist to justice."

Kerry's abdication to foreign powers is probably why individuals in socialistic countries favor him. He presents himself as agreeing with Bush's steadfast stand for American sovereignty but exposes his flawed political philosophy by always adding a "but" (as in, "I stand with the president but ...").

Today Palestinian masked militants from Izzedine al Qassam, the militant wing of Hamas, had their first press conference in front of various weapons in a mosque. They threatened to fire rockets at the Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon, which is 15 kilometers (10 miles) north of Gaza and has so far been out of reach of the rockets. How should this be dealt with? By a Summit? Right. Imagine how ridiculous this would look (and be). Terrorists want a voice which is why they want Kerry for President.

Update: