[mylife]

Having met him, I'm sceptical of Kerry's extraordinarily high valuation of his personal charm. But the notion that he'll be able to bring the French on board would seem to be at odds with Jean-Pierre Rafarin, the French prime minister's aside to a representative of Le Figaro the other day that "the Iraqi insurgents are our best allies". In a summit showdown between Chirac and Rafarin on the one hand and Kerry on the other, I bet on the Gallic weasels.

Speaking as a third-rate hack, I'd say that as a general rule articulacy is greatly over-rated. But, if articulacy is the measure, how come Kerry can't articulate an Iraq policy any of us can understand? By contrast, for an inarticulate man, Bush seems to communicate pretty clearly.

Steyn spares no one in this article but clearly defines the truth.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Speaking as a third-rate hack, I'd say that as a general rule articulacy is greatly over-rated. But, if articulacy is the measure, how come Kerry can't articulate an Iraq policy any of us can understand? By contrast, for an inarticulate man, Bush seems to communicate pretty clearly.

Steyn is too modest; he's a second-rate hack at the very least.

Kerry demonstrated that he is glib, but he doesn't have a program - for the very good reason that GWB would latch onto and implement any truly promising program the moment it was articulated.

What remains is mere criticism for the sake of criticism. Kerry is everywhere, and nowhere. As an inspection of a transcript of the "debate" would inevitably confirm.

But it is not true that we don't know what Kerry would do about Iraq. Kerry would alienate all the existing allies and not attract any new and effective ones. He would do a Mogadishu, and bug out, blaming Bush for having gotten us in in the first place. Bush may muddle for a long time in Iraq, but the casualty rate would allow is to go on indefinitely. Eventually the Iraqis will develop a government which its people respect.