Satayana's Failed Students

[Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)] proposed intense U.S. pressure to force consensus, either by withholding reconstruction funds or threatening a unilateral withdrawal of troops.

Kerry, who voted to give President Bush authorization to use force against Saddam Hussein in 2002, said he would attach an amendment to this summer's defense appropriations bill calling for a total withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by the end of this year. But he acknowledged that the idea would be unpopular. "I know I'm not going to get the majority of my own caucus."

On domestic issues, Kerry predicted that rising public dissatisfaction with the Bush administration could translate into huge gains for Democratic candidates in November's midterm congressional elections.

George Santayana wrote that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Considering Kerry's academic record, is it any wonder to learn that he's considering what he already acknowledges would be a highly unpopular amendment calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by the end of the year? One that would have absolutely no chance of success?

Have the far Left Democrats gone so far over the cliff as to forget how Europe was rebuilt and reenergized after World War II because the US remained engaged and maintained a strong and lasting military presence on the Continent? Have they forgotten the Marshall Plan to rebuild the shattered European economies?

Have they forgotten what cutting and running after Vietnam did? Do they forget that when the last US forces left Vietnam in 1973, the South Vietnamese held on until the last of the funding was cut in 1975, causing the fall of the South to the Communists - but the victory was sealed when the US decided to walk away from an ally? Have the Democrats forgotten the Killing Fields and the Vietnamese boat people? The millions displaced as a result of the US deciding to cut and run?

Have they forgotten that the US was considered impotent by the likes of the Iranian mullahs who overthrew the Shah and sacked our embassy? We were perceived as weak, and our inaction on the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets only further showed our weaknesses to our enemies. Well, our enemies are still looking at us, and are seeing that there are those - like John Kerry who would cut and run the moment things got just a bit uncomfortable, despite the fact that the reality is far different.

So, Kerry has either chosen to disregard the history, maybe he simply doesn't care what happens as a result of even suggesting such an amendment, or he's doing it out of a need to bolster his standing among the hard left - a politically expedient move.

I have to believe that it's a combination of the above, but mostly this is a political stunt designed to curry favor with the hard left, with whom Kerry and the other cut-n'run types continue to seek their support despite the fact that they consistently support anti-US positions on international issues.

And Kerry can't quite understand nuance either. He slammed the Administration for not engaging in sufficient diplomacy, right on the eve of a Big Six agreement on agreeing to an approach on Iran. Now, I'm not a fan of this particular approach by the Administration, but it should be the kind of action that Kerry favors based on his statements that he believes that the US should engage in more diplomatic action on Iran.

Emphasizing that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "a very serious threat to the U.S. and our allies," Kerry contended that the most conservative estimates are that Tehran is at least five years away from developing atomic weapons.

"There is time for diplomacy to work here," he said, but added that negotiating with Iran is "an uncertain proposition at best."

Kerry spoke before news broke of the agreement between six major powers, including the U.S., to offer an incentive package for Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. He hailed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent offer of direct negotiations with Iran, but said any talks "must be more than an effort to check the box on diplomacy as they move toward a confrontation."

He thinks that there's five years for something to be done. Sorry, but considering how the CIA and other intel agencies got it wrong (both seriously overestimating and underestimating the progress) on Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and the Iraq nuclear programs, do we really want to err on the side where we base our decisions on the assumption that the mad mullahs in Iran are five years from obtaining nuclear weapons that they have already stated would be used on their enemies - including Israel and US interests in the region and around the world?

UPDATE:
Posted to Wizbang's Carnival of Trackbacks, Stop the ACLU Friday Free for All, Jo's Cafe, Basil's Blog, and the Outside the Beltway Traffic Jam.