Sunday, August 01, 2004

August 1, 2004: The Meaning of Kerry's Foreign Policy Vision

">Link
The dissection and analysis of John Kerry's remarkable convention speech continues. Remember, he wrote the speech himself, in longhand. We must assume it sprang directly from his brain.

Robert Kagan does the latest review in today's Washington Post. You should read the whole thing. I wonder what the impact will be of all the pounding Kerry's speech is taking from very credible analysts?

Here's an excerpt from Kagan's piece:

If Kerry has revealed himself in an unusual moment of honesty, it's time
everyone took an equally honest look at where he would lead the country if
elected. Kerry's "doctrine of necessity," if seriously intended, would entail a
pacifism and an isolationism more thorough than any attempted by a U.S.
government since the 1930s. It would rule out all wars fought for humanitarian
ends, all interventions to prevent genocide, to defend democracy or even, as in
the case of the Persian Gulf War, to uphold international law against
aggression. For those are all wars of choice.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, it's really Ralph again, not anonymous, but too lazy to register.
Comment First: The latest Gallup poll doesn't even show a dead cat bounce from the Democratic National Convention. More like a splat. President Bush has actually closed the pre-convention gap in this poll by a full percentage point. The last Presidential candidate to lose ground during his own party's convention was George McGovern in 1972. Throughout the Democratic primaries and the continuing toll of American dead and wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq, everything has been going the Democrats' way. It is like a nineteenth century sea battle where, owing to the opening position of the ships, only one of the combatants was able to fire the opening volleys. Now it is the turn of the GOP to return fire. The batteries are charged and ready. Give them a broadside, Boys!

Comment Second: The Washington Post column is absolutely on target. Kerry declared, "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." But even the most isolationist of politicians would concur that one has to fight back if actually attacked! What does it say of Kerry that he feels that such a minimal standard of national security must be articulated? He is admitting that his party has called even that standard into doubt.

Comment Third: I thought, and still think, that this election will turn on the issue of national security. But I just heard a talk radio program that made me rethink whether tax policy may also be a key issue on which the GOP can make headway. Leo Terrell, an African-American left liberal KABC host, who bills himself as a "a fair minded civil rights attorney," angrily railed against Kerry's promise to raise taxes on those with a household income in excess of $200,000. "Who says someon earning $200,000 is rich?" Terrell chanllenged. That's the income of two hard-working teachers trying to carry a mortgage and put their kids through college, or a fireman married to a teacher. He vowed that he would vote to re-elect George Bush and that Bush would win! Numerous callers, including (if my sense of voice inflections was accurate) other Afican-American listeners, called in and agreed. I suddenly thought, maybe there is some traction on issue that the Democrats will raise income taxes.

Comment Fourth: This has been fun, and it's alot easier than having my own blog.

Sunday, August 01, 2004 10:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't believe one can extrapolate from Kerry's speech that he has taken an isolationist approach. What is clear, however, is that the "Bush Doctrine" is a complete failure. Whether you blame this on failed intelligence or a Bush "jihad" to finish Hussein you must admit that this country is not at this time capable of accurately predicting future attacks to take this preemptive approach--at least to the degree that Bush has done so. From a moral standpoint I believe it better to suffer loss of life on our part than to guess that we're right and kill innocent people in the process. This doesn't mean we have to wait to be attacked, but if we want to charge down the path of attacking every nation who views the U.S. as the enemy we're going to need a hell of a lot more bullets.

Monday, August 02, 2004 12:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Start posting again, please. I just heard C. Rice say with a straight face that we'll soon have a "democratic partner in Iraq". I need someone to make fun of when they repeat that sort of thing like they believe it.

Tuesday, August 03, 2004 1:24:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home