Peace Treaty

KERRY: I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history

As you can imagine, Republicans had a field day with this particular statement. Leave it to John Kerry to promise a "sensitive war" on terrorism. However, when you deal with Bush and you are patient, you are going to have your revenge:

BUSH: I have never said we can win it in four years.
REPORTER: I'm just saying can we win it. Do you see it?
BUSH: I don't think you can "win it," but I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world, let's put it that way.

Most certainly, for the whole two days after that Edwards and Kerry have kept smiling like a third-grader who heard his dad say the word "boobs". They were opening their eyes wide and they were telling us that, unlike Bush, they are most certain that they can and will win the war. They just will.

Fine. So what? What is my point? Well, the point is quite simple.
Bush, Kerry and Edwards - we kind of know them already. And we know them well enough. When Kerry talks about a "sensitive war" - it fits. That's what he has been saying all along: that we must not offend our allies (when they refuse to support us - it is our fault, we were too pushy). We must not offend our adversaries (when they attack us or plot against us - it is our fault, we were too rich). His main concern is that "they" do not like us. We are not popular. He wants to be liked by the cool kids, to play with them, to be invited to a pool parties and sleepovers by French, Germans and North Koreans. And, as he told New York Times, he feels "uncomfortable" with the very term "the war on terror".

As for Bush... well, we kinda know that he is not planning to surrender, do we? After years of telling people how stubborn he is and how stupidly he does not understand that full frontal assault is wrong, and how recklessly he charges in before thinking about what to do after victory - it is a bit too late to tell us that he is too pessimistic or that he thinks we will loose. We know he does not. We also know that if there is a guy who may misspeak up to the point where he says something opposite to what he means - Bush is that guy. We know it.

So, when the dust settled, what's left is - John Kerry and John Edwards went on record saying that they will win the war. Period. I do not think it was such a smart idea. Somewhere, somebody, during the next few months and before the election is going to ask them - not just how they plan to win, but also - how will they know that we won? What will the victory look like?

I hope they do not mean to tell us that there will be some ceremony with Bin Laden signing an act of surrender. What then? An act of full capitulation by the High Command of All Terrorists? Problem is - if they will mumble and say something along the lines "well, we are going to reach the point where terrorists will be deprived of safe havens and will find it really hard to operate as an organization..." - wouldn't it be just what Bush said?

On the other hand, may be they do plan to sign some armistice and later - a peace treaty with Hamas and Hezbollah, followed by the Nobel Peace Prizes for everyone? Clinton and Albright thought it was the way. After all, that would be the thoughtful and sensitive thing to do.

Wouldn't it?