Via Carpetbagger, we read that Bush has recently adopted an Iranian nuke policy which is extraordinarily similar to one Kerry had proposed last year, which the Bushies had derided as: “ignorant” “dangerously wrong” “appeasement”. Carpetbagger wants to know what the difference is and whether Kerry’s plan is still wrong.
But the difference is blindingly obvious. As I wrote over there, Kerry came at this as a peacenik dove, cowering at the sight of his own shadow and willing to make a deal with the devil just for one day of peace; while Bush is coming to this as a sterling cowboy, riding high in the saddle and scaring those damn Iranian bastards into submitting to our high-flying agenda.
This isn't about the outcome at all, but about the income. Bush has an awesomely powerful framework to work from, while Kerry's was running scared and shitting itself silly. It's that simple. If you have the reputation as the eternal strongman who bends to no one, then you’re allowed to appease and retreat; but if you have the reputation as being eternally weak and soft, then you have to be extra tough and unforgiving. It’s one of those contradictions of life that libs just need to get over. Especially as cons are eternally strong and libs are eternally weak.
P.S. If the GOP effectively defines a Dem presidential candidate as a softie appeaser (as is their wont), and that Dem ends up as president and is thus treated by foreign countries as if they are the eternal softie…does that mean that Repubs are traitors for having undermined our president’s foreign policy abilities? After all, the GOP knows better than us how effective propaganda is, especially in terms of sending messages to our foreign enemies. And wouldn’t this have sent the worst of messages to those enemies? Or is this just more confirmation of why Dems should never be allowed into the Whitehouse?