Surprisingly not The Onion: John Kerry as the new Winston Churchill

Posted by: Phineas on May 1, 2014 at 3:52 pm

**Posted by Phineas

With apologies to Sir Winston

With apologies to Sir Winston

(Image via Greg Nash / Getty Images)

I realize The Hill leans a bit left, and Budowsky himself is a hardcore liberal, but either he had the “special mushrooms” for dinner last night, or he was laughing uncontrollably while writing this:

Looking across the landscape of world affairs, from sectarian carnage to Middle East instability, from climate change that threatens the earth to a Russian dictator who threatens security in Europe, from the bellicosity of China to nuclear issues with North Korea and Iran, if there is a Winston Churchill of modern times who issues warnings and offers solutions, it is Secretary of State John Kerry.

Since the founding of Israel in 1948, Israel has had no better friend than John Kerry. His aspirations and efforts for Middle East peace might soon be dead, and if they are, historians will long condemn the intransigent and small-minded Israeli and Palestinian leaders who will force young Israelis and Palestinians to pay the price of their pettiness for generations to come.

While commentators grow impatient with Kerry’s Churchillian warnings about the consequences of failure in the Middle East peace process, the world might sadly witness how right Kerry is.
As Vladimir Putin escalates his war against Ukraine, employs lies as an instrument of invasion and subversion, and wages war against the sanctity of sovereignty and borders that has kept the peace in Europe since Hitler fell and the Berlin Wall tumbled, Kerry calls on a timid Europe to demonstrate resolve with the moral force with which Churchill addressed Neville Chamberlain.

Winston Churchill, for all the mistakes he made in World Wars I and II, got one thing, the Big Thing, right: there could be no alternative but absolute, unbending resistance to Hitler and the Nazis, even if it meant war. He knew that diplomacy not backed up by the credible threat to use force would only encourage civilization’s enemies. He was also an eloquent, masterful speaker and writer.

In my opinion, Winston Churchill saved Western Civilization.

John “Christmas in Cambodia” Kerry, on the other hand,  is a fatuous dunderhead who has been serially, perennially wrong about our enemies. Far from having “Churchillian foresight” about the Middle East, Kerry’s obsession with a two-state process is doomed because he refuses to recognize (1) the strength and depth of Islam’s rejection of Israel’s very existence; you can’t negotiate peace with someone who thinks it’s a commandment from God to kill you. As for Ukraine, it’s hard to take Kerry’s moral force seriously when his first reaction is to say “don’t be so 19th century, Vlad.” The fact is that no one in the broader world takes Secretary of State Kerry seriously, because he’s a stuffed shirt who knows nothing except how to spew empty platitudes. As for his speaking and writing… Well, I challenge you to try to get through one of his speeches without laughing or yawning.

This man is like Churchill??

Nah. I must’ve clicked on The Onion.

Like I said this morning on Twitter:

(Thanks to a friend for the idea.)

Footnote:
(1) Or he’s intellectually incapable of it, which is also possible.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

7 Responses to “Surprisingly not The Onion: John Kerry as the new Winston Churchill”

Comments

  1. Libertarian Advocate says:

    Phineas: Jello? I think not. More like fine ash.

  2. Drew the Infidel says:

    Kerry is more closely akin to Neville Chamberlain.

  3. yonason says:

    Jello? I was thinking something a bit more, uh, esthetically unpleasant: and don’t forget to flush when finished admiring the artwork.

  4. yonason says:

    to “Drew the infidel” – note that there is evidence that Chamberlain was at least partly stalling for time in order to build up the RAF and other British military assests (which he did do). Britain in her current state wasn’t ready for war, and it might have been suicide to declare war against Hitler at that time. To his credit, he did declare war on Germany after it’s invasion of Poland.

    While I don’t condone what Chamberlain did, I think comparing Kerry to him is giving way too much credit to Kerry.

  5. Drew the Infidel says:

    @yonasson–The point I was trying to make was “peace for our time”.

  6. Carlos says:

    Comparing Frenchy to Churchill is akin to comparing Duh-1 to Michael Jordan as a ball player. It not only doesn’t work, it’s ridiculous and laughable on the face of it.

  7. Drew the Infidel says:

    There are similarities. Chamberlain and Kerry each capitulated their stances by getting carried away by their own enthusiasm and shooting off their mouths.

    Chamberlain gave in to Hitler at Munich in ’38 leading to the Battle of Britain in ’40. Weakness invites aggression. In the interim FDR had furnished enough Lend-Lease armaments to at least get the ball rolling. We were remaining out of “Europe’s War” because of a strong and vocal isolationist sentiment in Congress, reflective of the electorate that put them there. Pearl Harbor changed all that in ’41.

    The Lend-Lease materials plus the expanse and other defensive characteristics of the English Channel, Churchill’s leadership, and the determination of the British citizens made Hitler’s amphibious and aerial invasions fail.

    “Pacifism is simply undisguised cowardice.”–Hitler