Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Kerry's Hindsight Leadership

ABC's "The Note" has reprinted a portion of John Kerry's conversation with Diane Sawyer. When I read it, a picture formed in my mind of Ms. Sawyer trying to nail a piece of Jell-o to the wall! But on a more serious note, this exchange illustrates a key point for us to consider: George W. Bush and John F. Kerry have very different views on leadership. Bush has a realist view, whereby a leader must make difficult decisions based upon the available evidence, with the best predictions of possible outcomes. Kerry, on the other hand, seems to be operating on a fantasy basis of leadership, whereby a leader can know the future and make decisions on that basis.
Now that might sound far-fetched--a partisan distortion. But it is actually illustrated by Kerry's inability to answer the simple question of whether or not he would have taken the US to war with Iraq given what he knew then. Kerry always shifts it to what we know now. But we all know that you can't live life that way.

Here's the exchange, with a few comments of mine inserted
DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today. [Real leadership requires making tough decisions at the time with limited information. Everyone's a genius in hindsight. (Actually, even in hindsight Kerry isn't being a genuis, but my point still stands!]

DS: So it was not worth it.

JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately [Here it is again!] — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat [Bush never said there was--he explicitly said that we should engage Iraq BEFORE they became an imminent threat, and that we can't just wait around for threats to materialize] — there were no weapons of mass destruction [True, but John Kerry sure thought that their were, and said so often! Again, we have Hindsight Leadership here] — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein [Strange that Kerry has apparently not read the 9/11 Commission report that concludes the opposite!]! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.

DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?

JK: No. [Huh? This is the obvious corollary to the idea that "if thinks turn out bad, it's not worth it." Sawyer has called his bluff.]

DS: But right now it wasn’t [ … ? … ]–

JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we’ve done what he’s — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That’s the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

DS: But no way to get rid of him.

JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely. [If 17 UN resolutions won't work, try, try again!]

DS: So you’re saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . .

JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don’t twist here. [No twist. Just trying to draw out the logical conclusions.]

Yikes. Consider that Kerry--like Bush--has been spending a lot of time in pre-debate mock sessions preparing for the toughest questions. I'm not sure that Kerry is ready for prime-time.

Posted by at