The Jerusalem Post sizes up the Democratic field

Those Democrats who think that “foreign policy” means a policy approved by foreigners should check out this editorial by the Jerusalem Post, by way of National Review Online. (I’m assuming here that these Dems are willing to include in the decision-making process foreigners with a demonstrated recent history of friendship towards the U.S.). The J-Post’s editorial board believes that “after 9/11, there should be no debate over the need to prevent governments from supporting terrorism. If this is possible short of regime change, as may be the case with Libya, then fine (though tyranny should not be accepted blindly even it is not combined with terrorism). But there should be no illusion that it is impossible to win against terrorism with police measures while not holding governments responsible for threatening international security.”
Unfortunately, the editors find that, with the exception of Joe Lieberman, none of the Democratic presidential contenders accepts this basic principle. Not John Edwards, who sniffs that “the most critical thing that’s missing from the administration is a working relationship with many of the countries in which [terrorist] groups operate” (e.g. Iran and Syria). Not Howard Dean who, by his own admission, reached his decision to oppose toppling Saddam without considering whether or to what extent he supported terrorism. Not Wesley Clark who wants to limit the war on terrorism to “going after Osama bin Laden” and the “terrorist networks.” And not, the Post could have added, John Kerry who wants to give Europeans who think like Edwards, Dean, and Clark a veto over how we prosecute the war on terrorism.


Books to read from Power Line