Senator Kerry, you MUST talk about “War on Terror” and “Iraq War” in more concrete terms
Posted : September 9, 2004 at 2:11 pm [America/Los_Angeles]
Kerry is the candidate of the intellectually vain — of those who, practicing the politics of condescension, consider Bush moronic. But Kerry is unwilling to engage Bush’s idea.
Hence he is allowing Bush to have what he wants, a one-issue election. The issue is a conflation of the wars in Iraq and on terrorism in the single subject “security.” Kerry is trying, and failing, to pry apart judgments about the two. But even if he succeeds, he continues to deepen the risible incoherence of his still-multiplying positions on Iraq.
In his speech last week to the American Legion convention, Kerry said that in Iraq he, as president, would have done “almost everything differently.” The indisputable implication is that if he had been president since 2001, America would be in Iraq.
But when pandering to Iowa’s Democratic activists last winter, Kerry placed himself among the “antiwar candidates.” More recently he has said that even knowing what we do about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, he would still have voted to authorize force. But on Monday he said Iraq was “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” He has said that “it would be unwise beyond belief” for America “to leave a failed Iraq in its wake” — and that too few U.S. troops are there. But he has also said that he will bring some of them home — “where they belong” — in his first term. Then he said in his first year. Then in his first six months.
The New Republic, which supports him, says his position, which had been “inscrutable,” is now “indefensible.” He represents a party whose activists detest the war in Iraq, so he dwells on his participation in the Vietnam War, which those activists detested then or have learned to detest through liberalism’s catechism. And having made a hash of his thoughts on the most serious subject, his speeches about the outsourcing of jobs appear, grotesquely incongruous, on newspaper pages carrying photographs of the broken bodies from School No. 1.
I find it nothing short of bogus the author’s claim that “The Bush administration…hopes for democratization of the Middle East”. Worse, he rather conveniently forgets to mention “…the risible incoherence of..” current Administration’s “… still-multiplying positions..” on why the Iraq war was really fought. I don’t remember hearing the “…democratization of the Middle East” phrase as a justification to send our men and women to Iraq back in 2002.
Having said that, I do agree (the highlighted lines in the excerpt above) that Senator Kerry needs to talk about this issue. It’s unthinkable to not directly confront the War on Terror and Iraq War issue head-on, especially in the world that we currently live in. I don’t care if it’s not as catchy as “preemptive” and I certainly don’t want it to be as lofty and naive as “Democratization of Middle East”. But he definitely needs to clear this up.
A visitor at Senator Kerry’s blog had this reply to the above article:
I sent the following response to George Will’s article today called “Bad News for Kerry” in today’s Washington post.
Dear Mr. Will,
It is a ridiculous idea that people can’t handle more than a black and white position on the Iraq war, as well as, link our financial security to our overall security. President Reagan could have chosen a military solution against Communism, but used our financial power and international influence to pressure Russia. I think the title should read the opposite of what your article suggests. I believe it is this administration’s lack of having an intellectual basis that will most likely be bad news for Bush. Bush may prevail because of journalist like you who have to find a way to justify this administration’s party line, along with the fear and smear tactics of Cheney and the lack of people’s interest in reading up on the facts. But the facts must keep getting in the way.
Try keeping it a little more real, you’ll feel better.
As much as I sympathize with this comment, I still think Senator Kerry (and not people like me and this commenter) needs to get this cleared away once and for all.
This news snippet, also from Washington Post, gives me some hope:
Aides said Kerry is planning a speech soon in which he will offer a detailed plan to end, or greatly curtail, the U.S. military operation in Iraq by January 2009 and reduce the cost to U.S. taxpayers in the interim. The twin offensive is designed to help Kerry regain his political footing on Iraq as the number of U.S. personnel killed there topped 1,000. Recent national polls show a majority of voters trust Bush more than Kerry on Iraq.
Kerry has been under relentless attack by Bush and the GOP for what they say are his vague and inconsistent positions on Iraq, and his advisers said the Democrat must clearly state his policy so he can shift the focus of his campaign — and the election — to economic issues. “You cannot ignore the 800-pound gorilla sitting in the middle of the room — we are involved in a quagmire in Iraq,” said Joe Lockhart, senior adviser to Kerry.
- Anand
Category: United (or not) State of American Politics 2004