The vetting of John Kerry

[IndianaGreen]

The vetting of John Kerry
By Patrick Martin
21 February 2004

A column February 15 by the principal foreign policy columnist of the Times, Thomas Friedman, suggested that “the most important statement on Iraq right now could only come from the likely Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry.” Friedman urged Kerry to declare that despite tactical differences on the war in Iraq, there was “no daylight” between himself and Bush in relation to the guerrillas fighting US forces there. A Democrat in the White House would have to proceed just as ruthlessly as the Republicans to crush the resistance by military force, Friedman argued.

Friedman speaks for that section of the liberal establishment most closely identified with support for the war in Iraq, and he suggested the following language for a Kerry address on the subject: “I want every suicide bomber—from Bali to Baghdad—to understand one thing about a Kerry administration: ‘You can blow yourselves up from now until next Ramadan, but we’ll still be in Iraq. You’ll be dead, but we’ll still be there. Which part of that sentence don’t you understand?’”

The same day the Washington Post published an editorial noting that Kerry had still to define his position on issues ranging from gay marriage to tax policy to health care. The Post outlined Kerry’s shifts on US policy in Iraq over the past decade, voting against the 1991 Persian Gulf War, supporting bombing of Iraq in 1998, voting for the war authorization in 2002, then opposing the war appropriation in 2003.

“More important,” the Post continued, “Mr. Kerry should clarify what he believes should be the objectives of the US mission in Iraq going forward—and what military and aid commitments he is prepared to make... Mr. Kerry spoke of ‘completing the tasks of security and democracy’ in Iraq. But he hasn’t yet offered a realistic plan for how he would do it or committed himself to the likely cost in American troop deployments and dollars. If he is to offer a credible alternative to Mr. Bush, he must explain how he would manage the real and dangerous challenges the United States now faces in Iraq—without the fuzzing.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/elec-f21.shtml

[feistydem]

1. Friedman is a Middle East hawk...

Friedman would like to see the whole Middle East turned into a democracy on the backs of American troops and taxpayers. How is he considered a 'liberal'? just because he writes for the NY Times?

[The Zanti Regent]

2. Tom of Finland is NO liberal

Ol Tom of Finland Friedman is a fifth columnist who true alligence is to Likud.

[Gunit_Sangh]

3. Duuuhhh

<Mr. Kerry spoke of ‘completing the tasks of security and democracy’ in Iraq. But he hasn’t yet offered a realistic plan for how he would do it or committed himself to the likely cost in American troop deployments and dollars. If he is to offer a credible alternative to Mr. Bush, he must explain how he would manage the real and dangerous challenges the United States now faces in Iraq—without the fuzzing.”>

One question ... has shrub done this? Heck, last I heard the Generals were telling congress they'll run out of money in September and * refuses to submit a supplemental until after the election just so he can peddle his "cut the deficit in half in 5 years" b.s. while pushing making his faith-based tax-cuts for the rich program permanent.

[Nancy Waterman]

4. The biggest difference I see on this issue

is that the shrub administration is till battling about how much power to give the UN, with Cheney in the lead for hoarding the power and control as much as possible. All the neocon ulterior motives play into this. Kerry wants to give the control to the UN who would be trusted not to abuse Iraq for self-interest (an alien concept to neocons). Beyond this, Kerry has said what he would propose depends on the situation come November. It depends, in other words, how this June 30 deadline unfolds. Will we see civil war or peace. Describing how one would respond to a hypothetical situation can be a real trap.