Sure, they can talk about things that are hard. I just wish they would come up with some substantive positions so it could be assessed if they will do anything about the aforementioned problems.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 3, 2004 08:39 AM

Democrats lost their backbone with Humphrey and McGovern over 30 years ago.

They are NOW and WILL FOREVER BE “Cheese-Eating, SURRENDER Monkeys, like the French.

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 3, 2004 09:01 AM

Yes, I really think that the Democrat party will have a hard time convincing the country that they have a clue on foreign policy.

Their standard bearer is not exactly lighting up the night sky with his performance. Deeply reasoned, thoughtful pronouncements about what should be done next aren’t exactly made to order for a campaign. It’s all soundbites and stump speeches.

Kerry seems more articulate in ad hoc settings that GWB but he keeps missing the mark. The entire tirade about his “secret plan” is a typical example. It was vague and hard to defend as illustrated by the quotes from Kerry’s poll parrots in the senate.

Kerry’s senate record is borderline indefensible and I expect the RNC to hammer away at that over the next few weeks. Bush will speak to progress both at home and abroad and use his position as president to make things happen thus taking Kerry’s talking points away.

Absent some earth shattering event, like oh say the earth shattering, I just can’t see Kerry and Co prevailing. There’s just no there there, if you know what I mean

Posted by: skip at August 3, 2004 10:06 AM

Posted by: skip at August 3, 2004 10:06 AM
Kerry’s senate record is borderline indefensible and I expect the RNC to hammer away at that over the next few weeks.

INCLUDING the fact that while on the Select Intelligence Commitee he only attended 20% of the meetings & hearings…you know, terrorism/counter-terrorism efforts, THE most “Top-Secret” information that will help keep us safe yet he apparently had more important things to do.

SURE Kerry will make us safer…and the checks in the mail; Of course I’ll respect you in the morning; and I PROMISE not to c…well you get the point!

Posted by: DevilDoc at August 3, 2004 10:17 AM

It ain’t the heat it’s the humidity

My BMW is paid for.

My wife doesn’t really understand me.

I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

I have a secret plan.

Yeah, this all just goes together so well.

Posted by: skip at August 3, 2004 10:23 AM

Ranks right up there with:

• There are WMDs in Iraq — up there by Tikrit.
• We will be greeted as Liberators — there will be no problem.
• Iraq had an Active nuke program.
• Iraq had a working connection with al Qaeda.
• Iraq oil money will pay for the rebuilding.
• The post-invasion fighting is done by Baathist holdouts.

• (The list welcomes additions…there are many.)

Posted by: Don at August 3, 2004 10:53 AM

Ah Don,

so what’s kerry’s plan?

Do tell

Posted by: skip at August 3, 2004 11:44 AM

the secret plan is to proclaim that w screwed up our foreign relations worse than expected. beyond repair. could have done something about it, but that damn w… in 2008 kerry will give notice of his supersecret plan

Posted by: wafflestomper at August 3, 2004 11:53 AM

To all who hold these to be ferverntly true:

Posted by: steve at August 3, 2004 01:15 PM

So Don, can you articulate Kerry’s plan? Can you compare and contrast Kerry’s plan to that which is unfolding even as I write this?

I’ve been asking for weeks during my troll reversal campaign. Vince described the left’s foreign policy as “armed neutrality”. One wonders how armed neutrality responds to an unprovoked attack against two major cities.

DS is too busy trying to get me to agree on a definition of terror to describe what he thinks we ought to do about them.

So it’s down to you Don, What’s the plan?

Posted by: skip at August 3, 2004 01:20 PM

“So it’s down to you Don, What’s the plan?” - Posted by: skip at August 3, 2004 01:20 PM

Just to get things rolling, here’s just a suggestion, Don.

Kerry will take a page out of Clement Atlee’s book and offer to whoever constitutes the leadership of the various terrorist groups to remove all U.S. and Coalition forces from anywhere in the Middle East.

In like manner, Kerry will make promises to those recalcitrant European leaders hiding under their desks and having a hissy fit to make good on the “loses” they incurred since the breakup of their money pit in Iraq.

It will cost us a lot of $$$$$$, will weaken our position in the world exponentially, and will eventually blow up in all of our faces several years down the road.

There is no way to “negotiate” with the terrorists. They are determined and they will not be appeased or mollified.

President Bush has the correct approach - go after the terrorists and destroy their safe havens and means of support. He is also employing a courageous long term program to develop and support a political and societal infrastructure in the terrorists’ own backyard that will over time erode their base.

In the last analysis, the only way to “deal with” them is to kill them, and Kerry hasn’t got the courage or leadership skills to do that.

Posted by: Jim at August 3, 2004 01:52 PM

well said Jim

Posted by: skip at August 3, 2004 02:17 PM

From Jim’s post:

Kerry will take a page out of Clement Atlee’s book and offer to whoever constitutes the leadership of the various terrorist groups to remove all U.S. and Coalition forces from anywhere in the Middle East.

In like manner, Kerry will make promises to those recalcitrant European leaders hiding under their desks and having a hissy fit to make good on the “loses” they incurred since the breakup of their money pit in Iraq.

It will cost us a lot of $$$$$$, will weaken our position in the world exponentially, and will eventually blow up in all of our faces several years down the road.

You have any support in the things Kerry has said that support this? Do you really think that Kerry will turn over the keys to the White House to terrorists? What, in your world, counts as support and would you kindly show an example to support your previous post.

Posted by: Todd at August 3, 2004 03:43 PM

Here’s the deal Todd: Kerry won’t say what he’ll do, so people are left to imagine for themselves. Based on what I’ve seen and heard I’m betting that Kerry will appease, try “law enforcement” and attempt to buy favor from Old Europe.

So if you disagree, tell us what the right course is.

Can you, Todd, articulate an approach to the world today that American should take? Can you compare and contrast your favored approach to that of the current Administration?

Posted by: skip at August 3, 2004 04:12 PM

Todd -

No, I don’t have access to Kerry’s “secret plan.” To understand the background of the above post, read the previous questions on the matter since the convention speech and subsequent interviews with Kerry.

Since Kerry’s convention speech and the interviews with him that followed, people have been trying to get Kerry to elucidate just what he would do about terrorism in general and Iraq specifically that would be 1) different and why; and 2) better than the strategy of the Bush administration.

Kerry keeps saying that he could do better or some variation of that. The trouble is, he has frankly refused to say what his approach would be. For people to vote for him, he can’t just say, “I’m better at dealing with such problems; you just have to trust me.” He has to tell us why.

All we have to go by are the statements that Kerry has made to date. He has stressed that he would “negotiate” to deal with the problem of terrorism. That leads to the questions: Negotiate with whom; for what?

The Europeans want to be made whole after their perceived “losses” in Iraq. One can presume that Kerry would “negotiate” what those amounts would be. In addition, it’s not too difficult to conclude that he will make nice with the U.N., or in Kerryspeak - “negotiate,” and perhaps drop or paper over the investigation of the $10 billion oil for fraud program.

Kerry has decreed that we are unpopular. People don’t like the powerful United States of America flexing its muscle - even in its own defense. And so, one of his top priorities would be to improve the U.S. image around the world. Through the above “negotiations” by the “experienced” Kerry, Europe and the U.N. will “like” us again and all will be well - at least in Kerryworld.

How will he negotiate with the terrorists? There is only one thing that he can give them as president - apart from the keys to the White House - and that is the removal of U.S. and western military presence in the Middle East. That would only be a short term concession, because terrorists are ever hungry and must be fed.

The follow up to turning tail and running in the Middle East would be to back away from Israel and to gradually revise our position of support for that country to one of opposition. Of course that will not be enough. Nothing ever will until the radical Islamists restore the empire that they believe was stolen from them by the West.

Kerry has offered to “negotiate” and has stated that he has had more experience in this area over the years than the President. Let him point to ANY of his foreign policy accomplishments as a public servant which have brought about beneficial results to the U.S.

No, his discussions with Le duc Tho in Paris while we were still fighting in Vietnam do NOT qualify either as foreign policy experience or as an accomplishment beneficial to the United States.

The man is an empty suit only capable of generating long winded speeches with no substance to support his claims. Having done that, he has left the door wide open for others to draw their own conclusions about what he would do based on his record and what he HAS SAID.

That is what I did.

Posted by: Jim at August 3, 2004 04:33 PM

Excellent post, Jim. Your points summarize what is of concern to many about what Kerry would or would not do in the White House. they have to be addressed and left to be found out after the fact.

I know that Kerry supporters can come back with equally specific points to point out that the concerns by Jim are unfounded… without calling Bush a jerk or any supporters of his Nazis to justify.

Next time, though… leave off the “empty suit” lable… it wasn’t needed to cap your othewise thoughtful post.

Posted by: steve at August 3, 2004 05:54 PM

The truth is that there is very little that Kerry can or will do differently with regard to Iraq and terrorism. He apparently would move a little more agrresively to internationalize the coalition force in Iraq. I think that sells a little bit, because most people have grown used to going to war in larger coalitions and are rightly concerned that our tradtional NATO allies, France and Germany, were against us this time. That difference is not going to win or lose him the election, but his goal is not to win the election on foreign affairs, its just not to lose it there. If he can come even close to a draw with the President on foreign affairs he wins the election on domestic affairs (basically the Clinton carryover). So your guys’ demand as to what he would do different on foreign affairs is really irrelevant.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 3, 2004 06:32 PM

Jim,

I, too, think you post was thoughtful. I am trying really hard to get to the root of the debate to where there is some substance. Thanks for taking it in that direction.

I have to disagree with two premises. First, a policy of negotiating with allies does not mean a policy of negotiating with terrorists. I believe Kerry’s stance is to negotiate with allies (and former allies), not terrorists.

Second, Kerry has not refused to say what his approach will be and has not said “just trust me.” He has given his approach, granted in broad terms. You are absolutely correct that he has not filled in the details. From Kerry’s website on how he plans to secure the peace in Iraq:
· Persuade NATO to Make the Security of Iraq one of its Global Missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace in Iraq. NATO participation will in turn open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.
· Internationalize the Non-Iraqi Reconstruction Personnel in Iraq, to share the costs and burdens, end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation, and help coordinate reconstruction efforts, draft the constitution and organize elections.
· Launch a Massive and Accelerated Training Effort to Build Iraqi Security Forces that can provide real security for the Iraqi people, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.
· Plan for Iraq’s Future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts and by supporting the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights. We will also convene a regional conference with Iraq’s neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq’s borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs.
If you are really interested in more details, you can read about them in pages 28-33 of “Our Plan For America” which can be found here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/our_plan_for_america.pdf

On this issue, I do not mean to be Kerry’s apologist. I think voters have every right to demand more details. Most people do not handle ambiguity well. And I want to see Kerry explain better why he is not giving details. He has carved out a bold and not-easily defended position. His ability to defend it will be a critical test. It will be tough when the tizzy-driven, content-deprived media will be most people’s source for information.

I simply understand Kerry’s decision not to release details, at least at this point. If he were to say, “I will gain France’s support by giving them X and demanding Y” he would severely hamstring his efforts to conduct diplomacy when in office. Diplomacy is far too dynamic and circumstances constantly change. It is more like doing a multi-player trade in a league with 100’s of teams. I think Kerry is smart for not revealing which players he wants and not telling who he is willing to give up before he is even the owner of the team.

Let me be clear. I don’t buy the idea that if Kerry is elected, all the nations of the world will run to Kerry and the U.S. with open arms saying “where have you been all my life, sailor.” I do believe, however, that the Bush-initiated foreign policy of preemptively striking perceived threats (whether or not based upon faulty intelligence) with or without global support is not in the United States best long-term security or economic interests. We are truly, and increasingly so, dependent upon the global economy. And I think Kerry is trying to create for the voters a choice between those two approaches.

So, my point is, that wild speculation in an “anything goes” atmosphere may be fun, but don’t be surprised if it bears no relation to what Kerry actually does while in office. To be fair, I think you have to square your speculation with Kerry’s stated approach, however vague you may perceive that to be.

Posted by: Todd at August 3, 2004 07:27 PM

Todd -

Good response. At least we are talking about some specifics - more than Kerry seems to be doing in his speeches and interviews.

To be brief:

1) I wasn’t stating that Kerry had said, “Just trust me,” only that this is the implication of his answers if he can’t or won’t tell us what he would do until he is actually president. So, voters would have to trust that what he “plans” to do is sound and acceptable. I don’t think that too many are willing to make that leap of faith.

2) There are some items in the list of things you provided from the Kerry site that have already been done by the Bush administration or are in the process of being done (i.e., accelerating training & building an Iraqi Security Force; working with our allies to forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debt [see James Baker]; working with Iraq’s neighbors to secure Iraq’s borders).

On the securing of Iraq’s borders and prevention of interference in Iraq’s internal affairs, Iraq has had much to say about these issues of late. This may be an old Kerry bullet point because Iraq is now sovereign, so our “calling of a conference” to seek pledges from other nations vis a vis Iraq would, in my view, only underline the notion that Iraq is an “occupied” state. I don’t think that would be in Iraq’s or our best interests.

3) As for persuading NATO to “make the security of Iraq one of its global missions and to deploy a significant portion” its forces to “win the peace in Iraq”, the possibility of NATO involvement has already been addressed. Though the training of Iraqi security forces by NATO has bee approved in principle, the stumbling block to further NATO involvement in this area has been France. Kerry might say that his ability to negotiate (as yet unproven) would somehow lure France into abandoning its opposition to this proposal, but I doubt that he would meet with any more success than we have to date - unless he’s willing to give them something in return that we don’t know about.

4) As to the premise that increased NATO participation will open the door “to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries,” this fails once again to acknowledge both the limited resources available to NATO and the current participation of non-NATO countries in the Coalition. Again, I don’t see that he gets us anything more than we already have with this recommendation.

5) Re: “Internationalize the Non-Iraqi Reconstruction Personnel in Iraq, to share the costs and burdens, end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation, and help coordinate reconstruction efforts…,” this is being done at present. That’s why the terrorists/civilian clothed fighters/quasi-insurgents are kidnapping and holding for ransom workers and truck drivers from the the U.S., the Philippines, Turkey, Japan, Korea, Italy, et al - to get all of those Non-Iraqi folks to go home.

6) On the involvement of Non-Iraqis to help “…draft the constitution and organize elections,” I’m not sure that the Iraqi government would be all too keen on that idea. Again, this may be an old Kerry talking point. Iraq already has a draft constitution and it’s up to its governing body to modify it as they go forward. To be sure, the U.N. should and, I believe, intends to help with elections. This again is for Iraq to decide - not the government of the U.S.

7) As to the“Bush-initiated foreign policy of preemptively striking perceived threats (whether or not based upon faulty intelligence) with or without global support” not being in the best security and economic interests of the U. S. - there are a lot of assumptions in that sentence. These issues have been addressed in these threads many times before. I will only say the following:

a) Saddam Hussein was a real - not just a perceived - threat. The reports of both the Senate Intelligence Committe and the 9/11 Commission have stated that there was a working relationship between Saddam’s Iraq and Al Queda. No one ever has inferred that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 (although I wouldn’t be surprised if that link is established someday); however, the danger he represented with respect to resources - both in financial and weapons support - was serious. We were right - not fanciful - in removing that threat.

b) The Bush administration did work with both the U.N. and the international community on the build-up to the War in Iraq, and a large number of countries have participated in the Coalition.

c) The intelligence for the War in Iraq was almost universally accepted by all countries, and the jury is still out on WMDs.

I’ve gone on too long, so I’ll stop here. I still think that Kerry hasn’t defined himself well enough or provided any specifics regarding how his approach to foreign affairs would be better than the current administration’s. As far as domestic policy is concerned, his proposals are like a scatter gun approach. Just blast away; you’re bound to appeal to someone’s special interest. How he will pay for all this while reducing the deficit and not increasing taxes on the “middle class” (whom he has yet to define) is anyone’s guess. That’s probably what he’s banking on (no pun intended).

One other thing - this to Steve. Why didn’t you like the expression “empty suit?” It wasn’t meant to be pejorative (well, maybe a little) - only descriptive. Without specifics, how do we know who Kerry really is?

Jim

Posted by: Jim at August 3, 2004 09:17 PM

The Iron Laws of Holes:

• When you’re in a hole, the first thing you must do is stop digging.

• Those who had earlier told you that you were digging your hole too deep are not required to get you out of it.

• It may well serve the purpose of those selfsame folks to leave you in the hole for a while, till it appears you’ve internalized the lessons to be derived from the experience.

• Getting you out will require the wholehearted Cooperation of folks who Can do the job — not folks who signed on to do it, but are incapable of taking effective action.

• To get effective action, you’ll have to convince those Outside your hole that you are sincere and appreciate their assistance with more than lip service.

• When that happens, you will not be allowed to direct the entirety of the operation on your own terms.

• Any contravention of these principles has one outcome — the hole still exists and you’re still in it.

Posted by: Don at August 4, 2004 12:10 AM

The poster named “Don” is a puzzle
His musings seem spun to befuddle
While he answers each thread
with denial and dread
The results are a bit of a muddle

Posted by: Jim at August 4, 2004 01:23 PM

Jim,

Thanks for your well thought out comments. At the risk of being branded a flip flopper, I will agree that Kerry needs to be more forthcomming on the issue. At least he should update his web site!

However, I still think Kerry has a credible stance that he is better poised to call on the international community to get involved, given Bush’s history.

Posted by: Todd at August 4, 2004 02:31 PM

Thanks for the comment, Todd. I’ve enjoyed the exchange!

Posted by: Jim at August 4, 2004 02:35 PM

It’s interesting that the only “allies” Kerry is talking about, and indeed, many on this post, are the old traditional wwII, cold war Allies. These Allies came together to take care of a specific threat against those allies.

So why should the current conflict have the same set of allies as the last one? The allies we have in this fight, Poland, Qatar, Bahrain, Australia(we are currently working with some of the other Stans on bases) are allies that are useful to this fight.

We shouldn’t lose sleep because old allies don’t feel deeply enough to follow us on this pursuit. However, there are plenty of non-traditional allies who do see it in their best interests to participate.

And I wouldn’t hold out for signifigant forces from Nato. They could barely handle a conflict in their own backyard(Yugoslavia). Expecting them to project signifagant power in Iraq without considerable help would be unrealistic. In other words, it’s still a U.S. mission but now with NATO commanders. Nope, I’d much rather have U.S. commanders with U.S. interests at heart taking care of our troops.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 4, 2004 02:58 PM

_Ranks right up there with:

There are WMDs in Iraq — up there by Tikrit.
We will be greeted as Liberators — there will be no problem.
Iraq had an Active nuke program.
Iraq had a working connection with al Qaeda.
Iraq oil money will pay for the rebuilding.
The post-invasion fighting is done by Baathist holdouts.
(The list welcomes additions…there are many.)_ By Don

Was this list really necessary-are you silly enough to not know the difference between a lie and being wrong? Even if the Pres wasn’t wrong. Most of what you post is contentious at best. What you are doing is ascribing the worst possible intent to our elected officials while giving the benefit of the doubt to several heinous individuals and groups. What pupose does this serve?

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 4, 2004 04:27 PM

Jim,

Not to beat a dead horse, because this issue will be be very much alive in the weeks to come, and article in the Washington Post today suggests that Bush’s efforts to increase international cooperation resulted from pressure put on by Kerry’s policy objectives outlined above.

Posted by: Todd at August 5, 2004 10:13 AM

Todd,

I don’t think you are beating a dead horse. In fact, given that Sen. Kerry has raised his qualifications and approach to the War on Terror as issues, it’s an important discussion. I just don’t see it working either in his favor or against the President.

The involvement of the international community in the War is not disputed. Many countries (30+) are involved to one degree or another and have been from the start. France, Germany and Russia are not in Iraq; however, Germany and Russia have been involved in Afghanistan. Furthermore, each of these countries have been working with us in pursuing terrorists - and that includes Spain since Zapatero’s election.

From 9/11 forward and beginning with Afghanistan, President Bush began building an international coalition to bring the fight to the terrorists. Kerry and his campaign can claim that everything the President did was due to pressure put upon him, but the facts just don’t support that claim.

This past week after the 9/11 Commission report was released Kerry criticized the administration for not acting quickly enough to implement the recommendations contained in the Commission’s report. One Week! Now, I fully anticipate that once any of the recommendations of the Commission are acted upon we will hear Kerry claim that the President acted only because of pressure from him.

There was an excellent article on this issue in yesterday’s Washington Times, about as unbaised a source as the Washington Post (/sarcasm), written by Tony Blankley entitled, “Spook Reform.” (see http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040803-082035-6320r.htm)
While the article isn’t on the identical subject, it does provide a snapshot of the Kerry campaign’s approach on such matters.

Another example, is the Michael Mooreish nonsense that Kerry is talking about today - namely that he wouldn’t have waited 7 whole minutes before announcing to all assembled on 9/11 that he, the President of the United States, had to leave because he had “things to do.” Any day now, I expect Kerry to show up at a campaign rally, dressed in white tie and tails, and start singing “Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better; I Can Do Anything Better Than You.” There are more important issues to discuss and we deserve better rhetoric from our candidates - especially in these times.

In short, Kerry can state anything he wants to and most likely will about what the President has done or should have done, but the facts in this instance do not support him.

Jim

Posted by: Jim at August 5, 2004 07:35 PM

THERE ARE A FEW THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION —- LETS PUT BUSH ON THE DEFENSE BY POINTING OUT A FEW THINGS — 1. I KNOW I DIDNT VOTE FOR THE 87 BILLION DOLLARS FOR OUR TROOPS AND I EXPLAINED MANY TIMES -BUT U INFACT DID GET THE 87 BILLIONS DOLLAR, SO TELL ALL THE FAMILIES OF SOLDIERS WHO WERE KILLED IN IRAQ,AFTER GETTING THE MONEY WHY WERE THEY NOT PROPERLY PREPARED TO GO TO WAR — WHY WASNT OUR SOLDIERS GIVEN THE NEWEST BODY ARMOR — WHY WASNT THE HUMVEES PROPERLY PROTECTED — - 2. ON TERRORISM — WHAT HAS BUSH REALLY DONE — LOOKING AT THE TV - KERRY MUST SAY — “HOW MANY FAMILIES OUT THERE KNOW WHAT TO DO IN CASE OF A TERRORIST ATTACK — DO U KNOW WHAT TO DO IN CASE OF A SMART BOMB ATTACK -DO U KNOW WHAT TO DO IN CASE OF A CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL ATTACK — THIS PRESIDENT HASNT PROPERLY PREPARED U WHEN IM PRESIDENT I WILL MAKE SURE EVERY ONE IN THIS COUNTRY KNOWS WHAT TO DO — THE ONLY THING U KNOW IS THE COLOR CODE - DONT U THINK U SHOULD KNOW MORE
ALSO ABOUT THE FLU VACCINE — WHY DIDNT THIS ADMINISTRATION GIVE U A HEADS UP ABOUT THE FLU VACCINE — THEY KNEW MANY WEEKS IN ADVANCE — — JUST A FEW THINGS TO PUT THAT CLOWN ON DEFENSE — SHAAP01

Posted by: shaap01 at October 11, 2004 11:42 AM