Why is Kerry running away from Foreign Policy and Iraq...

[mgarretson]

with everything that's going on... I understand he needs to have a strong economic policy but with all the recent attacks and uprisings in Iraq and Condoleeza Rice's testimony before the Terrorism Commission, can't we dedicate this week to foreign policy? Take a look at this LA Times article... it should give you a better idea of my frustration... http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-kerry9apr09,1,761252.story?coll=la-center-elect2004

What do you think?

[sangh0]

1. I think you would probably not ever be satisfied

.

[mgarretson]

9. huh?

You want to clarify? What do you mean by "probably not ever satisfied"? Are you making a dig at me or do you have something substantive to say?

[sangh0]

22. Today, Kerry was on Al Franken's show bashing Bush* over Iraq

and you say Kerry is running away from foriegn policy

If you complain about how Kerry isn't doing something right AFTER Kerry just got done doing it, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to assume that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy you.

[mgarretson]

25. let me clarify...

he is speaking on it to some degree but he seems to be limiting himself when he speaks about it... he has an amazing understanding of foreign affairs and a great deal of experience with it, and he's made comments in interviews and such but then he'll end up speaking on foreign policy for a large part of a speech in which he intended to speak about the economy... i understand the need for caution to some degree, but I just think it'd be amazing to see him dedicate some of his stump speeches to foreign policy at a time like this because i think he'd wow our socks off... then he could go back to a good mix of domestic (definately including economy)and foreign policy speeches...

That being said, he still has my support and my vote...

[sangh0]

27. So "speaking on it to some degree" means "running away from it"?

I just think it'd be amazing to see him dedicate some of his stump speeches to foreign policy at a time like this because i think he'd wow our socks off

IMO, that's a reasonable statement. Saying that Kerry is "running away" from it is not. The latter was the statement I responded to because the latter was the statement you actually made.

That being said, he still has my support and my vote...

I'm glad to hear that. One way you might express your support is by making sure that your critical comments (motivated by a constructive desire, I'm sure) are justified by the facts of the matter, and phrased in a non-inflammatory manner.

[dd123]

2. Because he voted for the Iraq War Resolution,

was part of the group that didn't ask the right questions prior to the vote, gave Bush a blank check, yet claims no responsibility for the Iraq War.

I'd run too if I were him.

[Old and In the Way]

13. Perhaps you should read what he wrote about his vote

and how it was qualified to give this pResident the support of Congress to keep the UN inspectors in Iraq looking for WMD. Bush used the resolution for cover to invade (which he would have done anyway). But he lied to Congress and he's weakened the Office of President to argue for Congressional support when military actions are needed, justifiably, in the future.

In hindsight, it was a bad vote, but I think that the political climate was very different when the IWR was done. Since I think this administration is guilty of allowing 3,000 Americans to die on 9/11, I have no doubt that this vote was engineered as a lose/lose tactic by Karl Rove. Vote for and risk the wrath of the anti-war votes, vote against and be prepared for another "event" that this administration could use to paint Democrats as the Party "Saddam appeasers", implement martial law, and call off the 2002, possibly 2004 elections. Much as it pisses me off, I think the Democrats were strategic on this vote.

[zoeyfong]

43. Give it up. If kerry thought bush wouldn't go to war without UN

approval, for all we know bin Laden could talk him into borrowing the nuclear football. Please, the "I was only giving bush authority to ask the UN permission to go to war" spin either insults *our* intelligence, or it insults *his.* And you're right, the climate was very different when that vote was taken; and a man worthy of being president would have the courage and clear-sightedness to resist the mob mentality and do the right thing, regardless of what the political costs might be.

[Bill Todd]

50. Perhaps *you* should read what he *said* about his vote

in the very speech that he gave on the Senate floor supporting the resolution. He vowed that if Bush did not adhere to the conditions associated with his approval, he (Kerry) would be "the first to speak out".

So while he might have been misled by that wily Dubya (who is otherwise usually considered to be something of a dunce, but perhaps had a rare moment of pure clarity and eloquence in this case) when he voted so injudiciously, it's still puzzling (to say the least) why Kerry failed to keep his promise to be 'the first to speak out' in the month leading up to the actual invasion - after it had become clear to anyone paying the slightest attention (including most of the world population, and even a majority in the U.S., who according to polls did not support an invasion without U.N. approval) that

1) Iraq posed no imminent threat to us,

2) Iraq did not appear to be connected with our 'war on terror',

3) invading Iraq might well worsen the terrorist threat (by energizing their supporters, and according to the CIA creating the possibility that the purported Iraqi WMD would be given to terrorists where no such danger had existed before),

4) even the presence of WMD in Iraq was far from clear,

5) the Bush administration had been systematically misrepresenting intelligence in an attempt to build up support for an unnecessary war (Nigerian yellowcake, aluminum tubes, Iraq/Al Qaeda connections, the likelihood of an Iraqi nuclear weapon in a year or two rather than by decade's end at the earliest - those are just the things that spring immediately to mind, without actually going back to look, which were known to be spurious in February/March, 2003),

6) the U.N. clearly opposed an invasion,

7) the invasion was thus illegal under both international and (by virtue of our ratification of the U.N. charter) U.S. law,

8) we had been utterly unable to create a credible coalition outside the U.N., and,

9) the inspectors were back in, on the ground, and working effectively.

Had he spoken out then, as he had promised to and as so many begged him (and other party leaders) to, his vote could be reasonably explained away. Given that he failed to do so, his vote stands as just another damning piece of evidence - either evidence that he actually supported the war, or that he placed political convenience above his duty as a Senator.

- bill

[Pastiche423]

3. He has to be "careful"

It worked for the Dems in '02, din't it?

[Another Bill C.]

4. Bush is already twisting slowly in the wind

on foreign policy. Foreign resentment toward the U.S. is still building and hasn't reached its high point yet. When it does, it will be so apparent that the Democrats won't have to waste a lot of precious campaign money on the issue.

[happyending]

5. Franken

I heard him speak on Al Franken's show this morning and
outside of couple of statements that I thought were too
general, he addressed
foreign policy and Iraq. 

He made some very good points, too.

[AntiCoup2K4]

6. Probably because Kerry's foreign policy is only marginally different

...no, scratch that. Cosmetically different.

[Old and In the Way]

7. Why?

This administration is doing a perfectly fine job of imploding on their own. He's doing the exact right thing letting this play out. Much better for the Republicans to burn their cash now and let the polls continue to erode.

He was on Al Franken's radio show and made it clear he views Bush's quagmire a completely failed policy built on lies. He's for getting a UN solution done and getting our troops out.

But better he not be viewed as piling on now. He can let the rest of the coutry come to the conslusion that this administration is an out-of-control bunch of criminals that need to be impeached.

[mgarretson]

14. good point but...

For being Old and in the Way, you make some good points... jk :)

On a serious note though, I agree with you that Bush is doing a good job of imploding on his own right now but from what I've read (again the LA Times article and elsewhere) it just seems like it makes for an awkward situation for him to not devote significant time to foreign policy... He'll go out to speak about the economy and end up spending about half the time speaking about Iraq and foreign policy...

For those of you calling Kerry a neocon, or a fundi, or whatever else... what would make you feel better about his foreign policy stands... could a running mate change your views?

[Old and In the Way]

24. You have to wonder, when the rank-and-file Democrats were

so clearly against the war, why would the majority of Democrats risk the backlash to support this President in a war that was clearly unwarrented and foolhardy. They understood the upside/downside of this vote....yet chose to play along. Why?

Because, if this administration LIHOPed 9/11 as I believe, would they set up a vote to get the Democrats to line up opposed and maybe do something else (like have 16 Iraqis steal a few airplanes and take out the Statue of Liberty or the Golden Gate Bridge or do in the Capitol)? Before you could ask, "what's going on", martial law would be declared, the media would be calling for the immediate resigination of every Democrat, and we'd have seen the real "Pax Americana" plan, complete with tactical nuclear weapons, underway accross the ME without a peep of opposition.

I think the Democrats voted against their political inclination, not because they thought a war in Iraq was a good idea, but because they thought the idea of maintaining a 2 Party democracy was a much better one.

[zoeyfong]

44. No way. That one didn't fly at the Nuremburg trials, and it's not

flying now. When it comes to matters of war and peace, the obligation of every individual is uneqivocally resist unjust, unwise wars from day one. Maybe if we had some leadership standing up for principle and resisting the rush to war, the general public might put down their bricks and bats long enough for sanity to be restored. Jeezus H. Christ, i would not have liked to have been a jew in WW2 Europe, living in a neighborhood with some of the war-monger apologists on this newsgroup.

[Old and In the Way]

46. Believe me, I am not apologizing for George Bush's war.

I'm just speculating on how an administration, if they are guilty of murdering 3,000 citizens on 9/11, might try to set the opposition up for political oblivion. A dictatorship hell bent on giving the world a "Pax Americana" has to rid itself of any viable opposition. If the Democrats come out totally opposed to the war and there is another 9/11 event, all the anti-war protestors are completely nuetralized. Done. Our opnion wouldn't matter because we aided and abetted the enemy by letting America get hit again.

It's called situation ethics, my friend, and I think the Democrats had a Hobson choice on that vote. They chose to believe the Bush manufactured intel and based on the intel, voted to protect their constituents. They did not tell Bush to invade and occupy Iraq, they gave him the authority to use force if Hussein would not let the inspectors looks for WMD. He chose to give Congress, the UN, and the world the finger and invaded anyway. It's his problem to explain at impeachment.

[Classical_Liberal]

32. Details about how we are to exit Iraq, not just intentions,

less hostility to foreign leaders like Chaves and the prime minister of Spain. Say nice things or nothing at all, since their opposition are shrubites, and reactionary. An open and proud commitment to continuing the Israeli/Palestinian peace process started by Jimmy Carter. Those are very easy and simple steps he could take and I would be much happier with him.

[Demobrat]

8. This is why.

From Robert Byrd's fabulous speech today:

Where should we look for leadership? To this Congress? To this Senate? This Senate, the foundation of the Republic, has been unwilling to take a hard look at the chaos in Iraq. Senators have once again been cowed into silence and support, not because the policy is right, but because the blood of our soldiers and thousands of innocents is on our hands. Questions that ought to be stated loudly in this chamber are instead whispered in the halls.

http://www.counterpunch.org/byrd04072004.html

[Veggie Meathead]

18. Once we understand that the Democratic and Republican

parties are just two wings of the Money Party, as Gore Vidal has called them,we will understand why Kerry has nothing of any importance to say about Iraq.He, to my knowledge, has not called for
the immediate withdrwal of our troops even after it is clear now that the Shiites and Sunnis have forged a common front and there is less
likelihood of chaos after we leave.In this silence he is echoing that notorious DINO Joe Lieberman who continues to call this war a morally just war without explicitly stating why it is so.

Although I am not fond of GWB's excellent Iraq adventure, I find the difference between him and the Democratic position only a matter of degree.

[Old and In the Way]

47. What a coincidence, so does Ralph!

And Ralph saw no difference between Bush and Gore. Well, there was one difference. Ralph was getting financed by Bush's Party to run his campaign.

Personally, this 32 year Democrat will never buy the bullshit that we are 2 wings of the same party, but don't let that stop you from spreading that fertilizer.

[sandnsea]

10. Because it backfired on Dean

That would be one reason. The more Dean ranted against the war every time he fell behind in the polls, the worse he did. People don't like it when Presidential candidates use things like people dying in a war and 9/11 for political gain. Doesn't anybody remember the outcry when Bush did it?

I swear to god, I have nothing nice to say right this minute. I will shut up.

[zoeyfong]

45. I don't think it backfired, i think kerry voters were strategizing

wrt who they thought would be most electable in the GE, where there would be many war supporters. BTW, i'm guessing dean wasn't speaking against the war for political gain; i think it had more to do with trying to avoid the unnecessary loss of thousands of lives, increased terroist threat to america, and long term damage to america's standing in the world.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. Kerry isn't running away from Foreign Policy and Iraq

he just isn't acting as your ventriloquist dummy. And Kerry is playing to win in November -- not in April.

[mgarretson]

16. ventriloquist dummy?

I just think it's a legitimate area of debate... I'm not saying he should talk about everything the media talks about or toe anyone's line, but Iraq specifically, and foreign policy in general is all over the news... It seems like he could dedicate more time for it now...

Keep in mind, I say this a firm supporter of John Kerry... I was for him for a time before Wes Clark entered the race and I went back to him immediately after Clark withdrew from the race... So I'm somewhat puzzled by statements like "he just isn't acting as your ventriloquist dummy." I want to see him win...

[Classical_Liberal]

33. HOw does he win with the prowar vote

which will be non-existent by november? It would be now if someone would hammer Bush on it. The war is highly sucky.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. Your comments make no sense whatsover

Your false assertions and deceptive mischaracterizations won't be effective at defeating Kerry.

[Classical_Liberal]

38. I am not trying to defeat Kerry

I am trying to find a Dem Presidential candidate that I can vote for and feel good about it. I hope to hell it is Kerry.

Your paranoia doesn't help. If you are so concerned with idiot mushy middle voters, why aren't you concerned with my vote?.

Or are you just posturing for effect.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. So do I understand the essence of your argument?

I'm 'paranoid' and 'posturing' and swing voters are 'idiot mushy middle voters'.


Is that your point or did I misunderstand you?

[rockymountaindem]

12. He's letting it collapse by itself because

he knows the conservative media will immediately slam him for "not supporting the troops" and "giving comfort to the enemy". Why should he open himself up to criticism when the whole thing is going down the shitter by itself?

[Trajan]

15. Me Me ME ! ....

Its all about me ...

When I want to talk about Social Security, Kerry should talk about it, or I will be angry ....

When I want to talk about Peak Oil, Kerry should talk about it, or I will be angry ....

When I want to talk about Foreign Policy and Iraq, Kerry should talk about it, or I will be angry ....

Please ME, or I will be angry ....

[mgarretson]

19. what's with the flames?

See my earlier posts if you question my support for Senator Kerry... I just wanted to have a civilized discussion about his stump speeches (i.e. Economy vs. Foreign Policy) and I've receieved 3 flames...

Give me a break, guys... We're on the same side, at least I should hope.

[Trajan]

20. It's Kerry's job to get elected ...

NOT to please you every step of the way ...

If Kerry does NOT get elected: then Bush wins ....

Criticizing Kerry on this point, that he is NOT immediately satisfying your craving for talk on this issue, is, to say the least, counter-productive ....

SUPPORT Kerry, dont drag him (or us) down ...

[mgarretson]

21. "craving for talk"?

Trajan,
The country's talking about, the whole damn world's talking about it... I agree that each facet of Senator Kerry's platform is important and needs to be aired... I was just wondering why he's trying so hard to run on economics right now when that seems to not be the easiest thing to run on, especially with the whole world tuning in to Condi Rice's testimony and the carnage in Iraq...

As I said earlier, I do SUPPORT KERRY, but I don't believe that dialoging on his stands and his campaign specifics is is dragging him down...

Let's play it this way... does anyone want to get into the specific pluses and minuses of focusing on the economy right now, and then do the same for focusing on foreign policy or some other issue?

I think we can talk about these things without going at each others' throats or cheapening Senator Kerry's campaign...

[sangh0]

23. If the whole damn world is talking about it

why are you demanding that Kerry talk about it too? And why the wildly inaccurate language about how Kerry is "running away" from it?


You say you want dialogue, but phrasing like that is, IMO, not the best way to start a dialogue.

[Classical_Liberal]

39. Your rhetorical style leaves something to be desired as well

when it comes to dialogue.

[Old and In the Way]

26. Were you listening to Kerry talk about it today?

If you had been listening to AA, you'd realize that the point of your post was a non-starter.

[mgarretson]

28. i admit bad phrasing...

I should have used better, and less inflamatory language, and I apologize for not doing so but I do think he'd have an advantage in devoting some of his stump speeches to foreign policy and others to the economy, etc... rather than being forced to talk about foreign policy at speeches on the economy because of current events.

Maybe my poor choice of language for the subject, caused all the bad feelings but instead of a debate or a discussion this thread turned into me having to defend myself against flames... Not at all what I intended, nor is it useful for anyone...

So I apologize for my part in it.. let's get back to booting W's ass out of the White House, because Kerry has a better answer than Bush on basically every position, not only foreign policy and the economy. :)

[sangh0]

29. Not to harp on it, mgarretson

but the poor phrasing provided an opening for someone else, obviously not a supporter, to say "Because he voted for the Iraq War Resolution"

[Old and In the Way]

31. Hope you didn't take my responses as a personal attack, either!

That wasn't the case....I only wanted to extend my opinion on the topic. And this is an opinionated board :-)

[daa]

17. Don't get in shrub's way

while he is imploding. Just watch.

[emulatorloo]

30. "Failure of diplomacy. . .foreign policy. . .failure of. . .leadership"

reuters 10 minutes ago

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040409/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_dc&cid=615&ncid=2043

<snip>

Kerry said Bush had failed to minimize the risk for U.S. soldiers in Iraq as well as the cost to taxpayers.

"This administration has stubbornly refused to involve other countries in the real decision-making," the senator from Massachusetts said. "I think this is a failure of diplomacy, a failure of foreign policy, a failure of creative leadership."

<snip catty bush campaign comment>

Kerry said the United States now had three options in Iraq. The first -- to continue along the same lines -- would mean American troops would remain exposed, taxpayers would bear billions of dollars in costs and "we will go down a very dangerous road where the outcome is very difficult."

"Option two, you could just say 'Okay, you guys don't want democracy? We'll see you. We're out of here,"' he said. "Not acceptable, because nobody believes that we are better off with an Iraq that is unstable."

The third alternative -- what Kerry called the "smart" approach --- was to reach out boldly and clearly to the international community, explain their stake in not having a failed Iraq and give them a real say in its transformation.

<snip>

[Nicholas_J]

34. Because Right now

All of the efforts of the BUsh administrations are to attack Kerry on fiscal policy, which Kerry has to continually refute to keep ahead of BUsh in the polls.

[molly]

35. I agree, but also - the bush admin is hanging themselves

why spend time and money when all we need to do is wait.......

[Nicholas_J]

36. thats true

the Bush administration has tried to link Kerry's desire to wait for the U.N. to make a decision about Iraq to Kerry "waiting to allow the U.N. to make the decision about protecting the United States" so they are still subtly trying to link Iraq with Al Qaeda and the events of 9/11. Those commercials have stopped as Kerry was making noises that indicated that Bush was trying to repeat the lies about Iraq and WMD's and Al Qaeda ties, so they stopped running those commercials, and now are running the commercials with lies of ommission about Kerry raising taxes. While Kerry is still outperforming Bush in many polls, the polls also reveal that more people beleve that Kerry will raise their taxes than Bush, though that figure is coming down as Kerry keeps repeeating that he will lower taxes for most small businesses and all of the middle class and poor. So far Kerry is starting to have an effect at preventing BushCo from defining him as a tax and spend liberal, but you will note that they are still running commercials stating that Kerry will raise taxes. Which he will, but only on the 2 percent of the populations that are very rich and received 54 percent of the money in Bush's tax cuts.

The war is imporatant, but There needs to be a bigger Bush failure and the final report of the 9/11 comission has to indicate that much of the causes of 9/11 were related to failures on the part of the Bush Administration before Kerry cn effectively attack the Bush Administration on the entire war in Iraq, and link that to the failure to effectively eliminate Al Qaeda. In any case, there must be more concrete evidence and events which will show that Bush has gotten U.S. into a longterm quagmire in Iraq, and that the insurgency will not be easily crushed and that the only part of his Bush's campaign statements about being a "Uniter not a Divider" is the fact that he has done what no one else in the history of the middle east has done...united the Shia and Sunni.

Right now it is better for Kerry to make a clear case that the Bush Administration considers job creation an "Entitlement Program" that it is very effectively cutting.

[sangha]

40. That's a very good analysis

Thanks for that

[LandOLincoln]

41. Kerry is talking about foreign policy and Iraq, it's just that

the words are coming from Wes Clark.

...which is probably a pretty good preview of the way they're going to handle this godawful PNAC/NeoCon perversion of a "war" when Wes is officially on the ticket. :evilgrin:

[patricia92243]

48. He doesn't have Howard Dean to give him a SPINE.

[eridani]

49. Dennis Kucinich is trying n/t