Post by RS Davis on Aug 20, 2004 13:05:01 GMT -5
On war, John Kerry is all Vietnam and no Iraq
By Matt Welch
Special to The Lebanon Daily Star
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Ever since the Democratic Convention in Boston last month, the John-John ticket has been grumbling about having to fend off accusations that would-be president John Kerry previously fudged vivid details of his war record in Vietnam and (most controversially) Cambodia. There is indeed considerable merit to the notion that a nation at war should be focusing on 2004 instead of 1968, but if Kerry's convention performance was any guide, his go-to selling point for taking the reigns of the "war on terror" is the fact that he was piloting swift-boats up the Mekong back when Osama bin Laden was busy trying to grow his first beard.
Those of us anxious to hear some actual specifics about what a Kerry foreign policy would be for, especially in the Middle East and Central Asia, were instead treated to a smorgasbord of what Democrats these days are against: alienating allies, manipulating intelligence, cutting benefits for military veterans and going to war against Saddam Hussein's regime in the precise way that President George W. Bush went to war against Saddam Hussein's regime.
"Republicans have sent our troops into battle in Iraq without a plan and have cut veterans' benefits without remorse," said perma-grinning House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, in a speech that - like the majority of those delivered during the four-day Democratic Party infomercial - did not once mention the phrases "terrorism," "Middle East," "Islam," "democracy," "Israel," "Palestinian" or "Saudi Arabia." So what's the winning counter-proposal? "Democrats have it right: Protect our troops and honor our veterans!" And change the subject as soon as possible to healthcare.
The Democrats' slogan for the convention - "Stronger at home, respected in the world" - was little more than a mirror image of perceived Republican mismanagement, as was hammered home in speech after speech differentiating the administration's actions with, well, Kerry's Vietnam service, which was presented as a contrast to Bush's war-avoiding stint in the Texas Air National Guard.
"Our forces have been dangerously overstretched," said former Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry, in one of the handful of foreign policy addresses among the 80-plus speeches. "Against sound military advice, the administration believed that Iraqis would welcome US forces as liberators. Our soldiers and our Marines have had to bear the brunt of this stunning miscalculation."
So what would Kerry do? Perry's next words sounded a familiar note and provided nary a clue: "Based on his own service, John Kerry understands what our troops need. With John Kerry as president, help really will be on the way!"
At least Perry had the taste to mention American foreign policy. Most other Democrats, unbelievably, did not. San Francisco Chamber of Commerce Vice-President Roberta Achtenberg told us she was "a lawyer, a mother and a lesbian," but refrained from commenting on countries where such a combination is not only impossible, but also dangerous. New Jersey Congressman Bobby Menendez spoke of how his "family fled Cuba for this, the greatest democracy in the world," but he shed no light on how the US should deal with belligerent, murderous dictators, let alone those in violation of multiple weapons-related UN resolutions.
Howard Dean, the onetime candidate whose rabid following energized the Democratic primary campaign and provided what pulse was evident in Boston, managed to speed through his prime-time speech without even once mentioning the Iraq war - his opposition to which was the sole reason why the word "Deaniac" is now in the lexicon.
There were two excellent strategic reasons for this muzzled approach: By limiting most foreign policy discussion to a catalogue of Bush's sins, the Democrats could try to position this election as a referendum on the increasingly unpopular incumbent. And by offering little or no specifics in response, Kerry could remain a viable vessel for the many anti-Bush voters out there, even though they disagree violently about fundamental issues of war, Middle Eastern democratization and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This nose-holding "unity" was the dominant theme of the convention, which is why so many Deaniacs seemed upbeat despite the fact that almost all their political ideas lost out. Whenever I'd ask delegates what made them particularly excited about John Kerry, the average pause was four seconds, and the response was never convincing. After his triumphant speech, the chant outside the Fleet Center was not "John Kerry!" it was "No More Years!" I kept running into newly motivated Democrats, like political cartoonist Tom Tomorrow and polemicist filmmaker Michael Moore, who I'd seen several times during the 2000 campaign stumping for Ralph Nader. "You know," Tomorrow explained, "it's just not the year for Nader."
Fact is, Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, and said last week that he'd do it again even knowing what we know now. He has stacked his foreign policy team with liberal hawks like the former State Department spokesman James Rubin, and gave a crucial prime-time slot on the final night to a Democratic interventionist lefties despise, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
Albright brought the normally raucous crowd of 20,000 to an almost stunned silence when she said: "But have no doubt, John Kerry will do whatever it takes to defend America whether others approve or not." Ditto for vice-presidential candidate John Edwards, who, when finally bringing up foreign policy for the first time two-thirds of the way into his own speech, drew no applause for saying: "John and I have one clear unmistakable message for Al-Qaeda and the terrorists. You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you."
Contrast that with the raucous reception for former Vice-President Al Gore, when he said: "Isn't it now obvious that the way the war has been managed by the administration has gotten us into very serious trouble?"
What, finally, will Kerry do about this trouble? The Democratic Party platform says little beyond "internationalization" (a catch-all solution to most of the world's problems), increased training and the creation of a High Commissioner for something or other. As for the rest of the Middle East, Democrats aim to "launch a 'name and shame' campaign against those that are financing terror. If nations do not respond, they will be shut out of the US financial system. And in the specific case of Saudi Arabia, we will put an end to the Bush administration's kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money."
Kerry says more of the same in his campaign book "A Call To Service," with the exception of a rare flash of enthusiasm about signing free-trade deals with Arab countries that end their economic boycott of Israel.
"I know what we have to do in Iraq," Kerry said, tantalizingly, in his convention-capping speech. "We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers." In short, we can be sure that Kerry will almost certainly not be George W. Bush. Beyond that is anybody's guess.
"How to handle Iraq is the most important question facing the president," wrote a disappointed Matthew Yglesias of the liberal American Prospect magazine, just after Kerry finished, "and he just punted."
By Matt Welch
Special to The Lebanon Daily Star
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Ever since the Democratic Convention in Boston last month, the John-John ticket has been grumbling about having to fend off accusations that would-be president John Kerry previously fudged vivid details of his war record in Vietnam and (most controversially) Cambodia. There is indeed considerable merit to the notion that a nation at war should be focusing on 2004 instead of 1968, but if Kerry's convention performance was any guide, his go-to selling point for taking the reigns of the "war on terror" is the fact that he was piloting swift-boats up the Mekong back when Osama bin Laden was busy trying to grow his first beard.
Those of us anxious to hear some actual specifics about what a Kerry foreign policy would be for, especially in the Middle East and Central Asia, were instead treated to a smorgasbord of what Democrats these days are against: alienating allies, manipulating intelligence, cutting benefits for military veterans and going to war against Saddam Hussein's regime in the precise way that President George W. Bush went to war against Saddam Hussein's regime.
"Republicans have sent our troops into battle in Iraq without a plan and have cut veterans' benefits without remorse," said perma-grinning House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, in a speech that - like the majority of those delivered during the four-day Democratic Party infomercial - did not once mention the phrases "terrorism," "Middle East," "Islam," "democracy," "Israel," "Palestinian" or "Saudi Arabia." So what's the winning counter-proposal? "Democrats have it right: Protect our troops and honor our veterans!" And change the subject as soon as possible to healthcare.
The Democrats' slogan for the convention - "Stronger at home, respected in the world" - was little more than a mirror image of perceived Republican mismanagement, as was hammered home in speech after speech differentiating the administration's actions with, well, Kerry's Vietnam service, which was presented as a contrast to Bush's war-avoiding stint in the Texas Air National Guard.
"Our forces have been dangerously overstretched," said former Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry, in one of the handful of foreign policy addresses among the 80-plus speeches. "Against sound military advice, the administration believed that Iraqis would welcome US forces as liberators. Our soldiers and our Marines have had to bear the brunt of this stunning miscalculation."
So what would Kerry do? Perry's next words sounded a familiar note and provided nary a clue: "Based on his own service, John Kerry understands what our troops need. With John Kerry as president, help really will be on the way!"
At least Perry had the taste to mention American foreign policy. Most other Democrats, unbelievably, did not. San Francisco Chamber of Commerce Vice-President Roberta Achtenberg told us she was "a lawyer, a mother and a lesbian," but refrained from commenting on countries where such a combination is not only impossible, but also dangerous. New Jersey Congressman Bobby Menendez spoke of how his "family fled Cuba for this, the greatest democracy in the world," but he shed no light on how the US should deal with belligerent, murderous dictators, let alone those in violation of multiple weapons-related UN resolutions.
Howard Dean, the onetime candidate whose rabid following energized the Democratic primary campaign and provided what pulse was evident in Boston, managed to speed through his prime-time speech without even once mentioning the Iraq war - his opposition to which was the sole reason why the word "Deaniac" is now in the lexicon.
There were two excellent strategic reasons for this muzzled approach: By limiting most foreign policy discussion to a catalogue of Bush's sins, the Democrats could try to position this election as a referendum on the increasingly unpopular incumbent. And by offering little or no specifics in response, Kerry could remain a viable vessel for the many anti-Bush voters out there, even though they disagree violently about fundamental issues of war, Middle Eastern democratization and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This nose-holding "unity" was the dominant theme of the convention, which is why so many Deaniacs seemed upbeat despite the fact that almost all their political ideas lost out. Whenever I'd ask delegates what made them particularly excited about John Kerry, the average pause was four seconds, and the response was never convincing. After his triumphant speech, the chant outside the Fleet Center was not "John Kerry!" it was "No More Years!" I kept running into newly motivated Democrats, like political cartoonist Tom Tomorrow and polemicist filmmaker Michael Moore, who I'd seen several times during the 2000 campaign stumping for Ralph Nader. "You know," Tomorrow explained, "it's just not the year for Nader."
Fact is, Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, and said last week that he'd do it again even knowing what we know now. He has stacked his foreign policy team with liberal hawks like the former State Department spokesman James Rubin, and gave a crucial prime-time slot on the final night to a Democratic interventionist lefties despise, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
Albright brought the normally raucous crowd of 20,000 to an almost stunned silence when she said: "But have no doubt, John Kerry will do whatever it takes to defend America whether others approve or not." Ditto for vice-presidential candidate John Edwards, who, when finally bringing up foreign policy for the first time two-thirds of the way into his own speech, drew no applause for saying: "John and I have one clear unmistakable message for Al-Qaeda and the terrorists. You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you."
Contrast that with the raucous reception for former Vice-President Al Gore, when he said: "Isn't it now obvious that the way the war has been managed by the administration has gotten us into very serious trouble?"
What, finally, will Kerry do about this trouble? The Democratic Party platform says little beyond "internationalization" (a catch-all solution to most of the world's problems), increased training and the creation of a High Commissioner for something or other. As for the rest of the Middle East, Democrats aim to "launch a 'name and shame' campaign against those that are financing terror. If nations do not respond, they will be shut out of the US financial system. And in the specific case of Saudi Arabia, we will put an end to the Bush administration's kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money."
Kerry says more of the same in his campaign book "A Call To Service," with the exception of a rare flash of enthusiasm about signing free-trade deals with Arab countries that end their economic boycott of Israel.
"I know what we have to do in Iraq," Kerry said, tantalizingly, in his convention-capping speech. "We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers." In short, we can be sure that Kerry will almost certainly not be George W. Bush. Beyond that is anybody's guess.
"How to handle Iraq is the most important question facing the president," wrote a disappointed Matthew Yglesias of the liberal American Prospect magazine, just after Kerry finished, "and he just punted."
