Last week's profanity—laden Democratic fundraiser in Radio City Music Hall has important consequences, far beyond its impact on voters' understanding of candidates Kerry and Edwards, and their relationship with the Hollywood elites. The audience which is closely watching this domestic political imbroglio includes potential foes of the United States overseas. What have they learned about the way a future President Kerry would deal with them?

Senator Kerry has demonstrated the worst kind of irresolution possible, sending a message of weakness, vacillation, and, yes, flip—flopping. At the conclusion of the performance itself, he spoke of the performers embodying the 'heart and soul' of America. Flattery of the powerful donors sitting in the audience was the trait he was manifesting in the moment. A man who has married two centi—millionaire heiresses certainly must have some practice at this particular skill.

But, when word leaked out of the specifics of the verbiage employed by the onstage performers (thanks to the New York Post — the New York Times found the language unworthy of much attention in its own coverage of the event), Kerry flip—flopped, and appeared to condemn the language itself, via his spokeswoman. In other words, he lacked the guts to take on his supporters directly, but instead sent a woman to do a man's job. But even shielded as he was by his representative, he defended the 'right' of the performers to say their worst — as if anyone had demanded censorship, rather than questioned their judgment and manners.

So what conclusions can the mullahs of Iran, Kim Jong—il, or Usama bin Laden draw about the man who might lead their greatest enemy?

They see that he is a man who is easily cowed by power. Assuming that he really was offended by the language he heard at Radio City, he held his tongue. Then, when others criticized his words, he changed his position.

Or, assume that he really wasn't offended. Then, they could safely draw the conclusion that this is a man who will cave—in to a strong position taken by his enemies.

Either way, Kerry is the kind of man they would want to face—off with. Someone who lacks the courage of his convictions, and who caves in when challenged.

Kerry's reputation as a flip—flopper is well—earned, of course. But publicly crumbling in the face of opposition is especially dangerous for the emboldening lesson it sends to enemies. Consider the way that Kerry first proposed sending Jimmy Carter and James Baker as envoys to the Middle East "peace" envoys. When pro—Israel critics predictably blasted their anti—Israel track records, Kerry not only caved, he blamed his words on his "speech—writers." I ownder how you translate "wuss" into Arabic?

If you think that international foes do not watch our domestic politics closely, think again. We now know in retrospect that President Reagan's handling of the air traffic controllers' strike deeply impressed the leadership of the Soviet Union. They saw that he was a man unafraid to escalate conflict to the next level, even if it required him taking some political hits, and giving ammunition to his critics. He was a man who kept his eye on the larger prize, and would accept damage when it was absolutely necessary to ultimate victory.

President Reagan's resoluteness may have saved the lives of millions of people, who might have been incinerated in a potential armed conflict with the Soviet Union. Having learned that Reagan was not to be pushed too hard, the Soviets chose to surrender by degrees instead. They knew what kind of man they were dealing with.

The terrorist enemies of civilization now understand that President Kerry would be just the kind of leader for America that they crave. He is the anti—Reagan, a man who will not stand—up when challenged. Just the kind of man who will buckle, if they hit us hard enough.

And hit us they will. Count on it.