JOHN KERRY IS CALLING BRITAIN, AUSTRALIA, SPAIN, ET AL. a “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted.”

Is a man who aims such crude insults at our allies capable of being a successful President?

UPDATE: Jason Rylander emails that he thinks I’m being unfair here:

When I went to the article, it was clear he was referring not to the nations generally but the fact that we have to bribe, coerce and extort them to join us in the war effort. That’s very different than what one glea[n]s from a reading of your post, isn’t it?

I don’t think so. After all, it’s a lie — and hence an insult — to suggest that those countries are only with us because they’re bribed, coerced or extorted. Does Kerry really think that’s why John Howard and Tony Blair, for example, are standing by us?

Of course the notion, implicit in Kerry’s statement, that one should never use bribery or extortion in putting together an alliance bespeaks either more dishonesty — if Kerry knows better — or a dangerous naivete regarding diplomacy, if he doesn’t.

There’s just no way to spin this so that Kerry looks good. Unless, of course, you think that a good Presidential candidate should live in “Pilger world,” a place where “doing anything because it’s American-inspired is proof of perfidy while surrender is nothing short of virtuous.”