What Policy?
The lefties say "John Kerry has a foreign policy!".
"Prove it", say the right.
"Look," says the left, "He just gave a speech about it!
So let's take a look...
Kerry spoke Tuesday at the American Legion convention, and touched the global War on Terror.
Or...did he?
Kerry's problem so far, as re the War on Terror, is that his statements have been resolutely content-free.
In a sharply worded challenge to President Bush, Democratic Sen. John Kerry said Wednesday "extremism has gained momentum" as a result of administration missteps in Iraq, but said the war on terror is a winnable one with the right policies.
OK. And those "right policies" would be...what?
"When it comes to Iraq, it's not that I would have done one thing differently, I would have done almost everything differently" than the president, the presidential candidate said in a speech to the national convention of the American Legion.
Er, right, Senator Kerry.
So what would those things have been?
Kerry spoke dismissively of a statement Bush made Monday - then rescinded on Tuesday - that the war on terror might not be winnable.
"I absolutely disagree," he said. "With the right policies, this is a war we can win, this is a war we must win, and this is a war we will win." Kerry said. "... In the end, the terrorists will lose and we will win because the future does not belong to fear, it belongs to freedom."
Yes, Senator Kerry, but again, what
are those
policies?
Forget the plural even - what is one of those policies?
Just one!
But wait - Kerry does start to get specific in a bit here:
He accused the administration of failing to keep faith with the nation's 36 million veterans by underfunding VA programs that leave thousands of former servicemen and women without adequate, timely health care and reduced retirement and disability payments.
"The job will be done when the government stops asking veterans for increased co-payments, enrollment fees and other charges to shift the burden of care to more veterans and drive more than a million veterans out of the system," he said.
Doh! He's talking about
veteran's benefits - which are to fighting a war as welfare policy is to building an economy; only tangentially related. It's the sort of soft-focus, entitlement-related issue that Democrats can get into, make a lot of concerned noise about, and seem to be compassionate without actually dealing with any of the
real problems facing the nation.
More on Iraq:
I would have made sure that every soldier put in
harm's way had the equipment and body armor they needed.
Well,
that's a nice switch.
"And if there's one thing I learned from my service, I would never have gone to war without a plan to win the peace," he said.
Oy.
"Planning to Win the Peace" is the "no blood for oil!" of the spats and
frats set. One can never "plan to win the peace"; if no battle plan
survives its first contact with the enemy (and even in the supremely-successful 2003 campaign, the plan was in flux from day to day), then plans to "win the peace" are even more doomed; an enemy army reacts to a battle fairly predictably; a liberated people much less so.
And besides "consulting with allies" and making sure everyone has their flak jackets zipped up, what is Kerry's plan?
What?
More later.
Posted by Mitch at
September 2, 2004 01:28 PM
| TrackBack
And he is covered by the press on the quote, or it would seem they tried. From the Washington Post...
"Under fire from some in his own party for failing to draw crisp and clear differences with Bush over the war in Iraq, military service and terrorism, the Democratic nominee offered one of his sharpest and most detailed explanations of how he would have handled the conflict and its aftermath differently. "When it comes to Iraq, it's not that I would have done one thing differently, I would have done almost everything differently," Kerry told the national convention of the American Legion here.
Most detailed?!? He gave not one example, other than everything differently. And that was the most detailed....and they wonder why his poll numbers drop.
Posted by: Dave V at September 2, 2004 02:24 PMMitch, ever consider that a plan to "win the peace" may have less to do with troops or battle? Must everything be framed in terms of military action for you?
Besides, even if Kerry had no plans at all (a point I'm not convinced of yet), that's still far better than a guy insisting on following the wrong plans and ignoring those who have actually studied the problems. At least with Kerry there is room for discovering a better path. I don't think Bush has any inclination to learn the roots of terrorism, it's all just Good v. Evil to him, a Manichean fantasy shared by the neocon wingnuts who have taken over the Republican party over the last few decades.
Posted by: Jeff S. at September 2, 2004 03:35 PMJeff S.: right on.
Quite frankly, I love that this is all about Kerry for the right. George W. Bush has--let's all say it--a lousy record as President. The economy is in the tank. Unemployment is up (indeed, filings are up this week!) Iraq isn't exactly a quagmire, but Wolfie's lotus blossoms haven't materialized, and neither have all those tons of WMDs. And through it all, Bush has steadfastly stuck to his guns, whether or not his strategy is working.
So of course the right has to go after Kerry--because the only way they can win is to show he's worse than the guy in charge right now.
So Mitch--I'll turn the question on you. What is Bush's plan going forward? How is he going to change what he's doing to make our country more secure?
Posted by: Jeff Fecke at September 2, 2004 04:25 PMJeffs S. and F.:
You're both wrong. I'll post on it tomorrow.
Posted by: mitch at September 2, 2004 04:35 PMOh, and Jeff F? I'm looking for any evidence that you understand what Bush's strategery *is*.
That needs to be clear to you before you can determine what is or is not working.
Clearly, it's not.
And you know it!
Posted by: mitch at September 2, 2004 04:37 PMIf the economy is so bad, why are they buldozing the landscaping at my division for more parking and down sizing my cubical so they can stuff in more new hires annnnnnnnd offering substantial finders fees to employees that attract new hires.
Which reminds me Mitch, any interesting being a software engineer?
Posted by: rick at September 2, 2004 04:56 PMRick: I'm not a programmer! My title has bounced among "Information Architect", "Human Factors Engineer", "Human Computer Interaction Designer", "GUI Business Analyst" and "Usability Engineer" for the last eight years, but I'm no programmer.
But that said, I'm always interested in talking...
Posted by: mitch at September 2, 2004 05:05 PMDave V,
You missed the point. That IS the most detailed explanation Kerry has given.
(end of sarcasm.)
Posted by: Trudger at September 2, 2004 06:48 PMMYOPIA
It is the single word that comes to mind when I hear the "they didn't find WMD." Let's just ignore all the other reasons the war in Iraq was a noble cause. Also, Do you think that maybe a little Hurricane that roared up the state of Florida might have caused some people to file for unemployment this week? Just wait until next week when Frances is done with us! If I were a betting man, and they call me Mr. Vegas, I would bet there will be another spike in 'unemployment filings' except for maybe insurance adjusters and roofers!
BIG PICTURE
Just once I would like to hear an argument that relates to the sum of actions taken since...pick a date, 9/11 whenever, Recession turned around? It would probably be much more dramatic without the terrorist attacks, but the President's domestic plan like any "battle plan" certainly couldn't survive contact with the terrorists. Is the world safer? Some would argue "no" because they have to...gasp...wait in line at the airport, etc., but anyone who thinks that taking down the Taliban and Hussein didn't make the world safer merely has to think about the resultant surrender of Libya's nuclear weapons program. To all MYOPIC aruguers, please pull your heads out of....the sand and realize that this is truly a different world. Terrorism today, compared to 20 years ago is not unlike the internet. In 1984 we probably would have said "inter-what." And, speaking as someone who deals with it daily, there never would have been a conceivable need for military fighters to possibly have to arm up and shoot down a civilian airliner over the Continental U.S.
Posted by: fingers at September 2, 2004 11:27 PM