Kerry on Iraq plus Commander-in-Chief Test: Kerry, Gore & Clark pass!

[_dynamicdems]

There are some interesting commentaries on The Premise Blog.

It seems that folks are starting to agree with the idea of a deadline as a way to make Iraqis stand up for themselves.

That’s really the essence of the problem that John Murtha and John Kerry have been talking about in advocating a timetable for withdrawal and redeployment of U.S. troops. As long as President Bush promises that we’ll hang around to keep the peace with American blood, the Iraqis don’t really have much incentive to step up.

http://thepremise.com/archives/10/16/2006/406

This comment is on a statement by Senator Kerry as to how he would have handled Iraq:

I think most Americans, if they heard that statement now, would think it was the right statement to make before getting the United States involved in any war. It is the statement of a statesman, a commander in chief, a president. Of someone who believes that reason can direct action and not simply provoke or unleash it.

But the nation was led down a very different path, and it’s tempting to lay some of the blame for that at the feet of the American people. Both for voting for George Bush initially, and for not rejecting his excesses when they were being proposed.

But that’s a dodge of another kind, and misses the most important point. Prior to 2000, the bar of what a president should be was lowered to the point that George Bush was applauded for being a guy people could imagine having a beer with. Six years later the verdict is in on that standard, and it doesn’t pass muster.

On this planet it will ever be the case that you go to war not with the army you have, as Donald Rumsfeld famously said, but with the President you have. And that’s a lesson that each of us should be teaching our children from this day forth. Whatever else you think about what or who a president should be, the person in the White House should be someone we trust to take the country to war if that needs doing.

http://thepremise.com/archives/10/15/2006/395

Now this 2008 speculation is very interesting...

So, which Democratic candidates might be able to pass the commander-in-chief test with non-affiliated voters in 2008? Of the current list of prospective or hoped-for candidates — Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Al Gore, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh and Wesley Clark — I see three candiates who could pass the commander in chief test, and two who might be able to make a compelling case.

Passed: Al Gore, John Kerry, Wesley Clark.

Might pass: Bill Richardson, Joe Biden.

Whether you agree or disagree with those lists, note that the candidates most beloved by activists in the Democratic Party — Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Russ Feingold — are the least qualified on questions of national security. And that’s going to be a problem for the Democratic Party in 2008, just as it was in 2004.

http://thepremise.com/archives/10/15/2006/393

[blm]

1. Nothing to disagree with reCommander-in-Chief. Any of the three would

pass it, because all three are capable on foreign policy AND military matters and any of the three can craft a withdrawal plan on their own, with or without advisement, and it shows in the way they handle military questions.

[_dynamicdems]

28. They are my three top favorites too!

I'd like to see an administration with all three.

[blm]

29. I would bet that all 3 would function together with LITTLE ego problems

and be driven mainly by the need to right the course as quickly as possible. I don't see any of the three as having inflated egos.

[_dynamicdems]

31. You're right. These are real patriots who care about America, not

a shred of inflated ego among them. Ironic when you consider their qualifications.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Makes you wonder why those considered the least qualified are

the ones the media is pushing the most. Any suggestion as to why that would be? Any intelligent pundits on Teevee who would give such an analysis? NOT ON YOUR LIFE!

[blm]

8. Well....I could take a wild guess... maybe....the GOP controls most media?

.

[_dynamicdems]

26. The media is has gotten too full of themselve IMHO. They are kingmakers

and they bring someone to their knees on a whim. The media ran with the swift boat lies because it was a juicy story just as was the Dean scream. The same media that pushed Dean to frontrunner status, perhaps before he wanted that bullseye on his back, also turned on him like a pack of hungry dogs.

There is probably a good deal right-wing influence as well, but I think the media is basically amoral or even immoral in that they like to make sport of that which should be serious business. This is the future of our country and our world, not just what looks good on the evening edition.

[freedomchips]

3. Clark is a no-brainer, and you'll completely concur once you finish

reading The Switch: http://www.geocities.com/clarksapples/UndoBush.html

[The Count]

4. Link is inactive

[freedomchips]

6. sorry, was just temporary, is back now

[blm]

7. You have been banned a number of times with those postings. Why come back

time and again and post the same stuff that got you banned in the first place?

[Bucky]

5. K'd and R'd

and Bm'd too

[Fabio]

9. I know Hillary bashing is standard fare around here BUT

eight years as a decision maker in the White House necessarily contains a hell of a lot of foreign policy experience in and of itself. plus senate armed services.

for the record, kerry's my guy, but i like alot of our candidates - edwards, gore, clark, others. and I certainly admire feingolds voting record.

[Clarkie1]

10. Clark trumps both Gore and Kerry on National Security.

And I say that as someone who would vote for Gore in a heartbeat in he should chose to run again and Clark does not.

Clark is a man who has lead coalitions of nations, worked in several administrations, and spoken face to face with world leaders on a regular basis. Gore and Kerry both have a solid academic understanding of international relations, but Clark has the first in his class academic understanding, as well as level of unparalleled real-world experience to go along with it.

That's the reality, then there is image and perception. Clark, because of his status, will be perceived by swing voters and Republican cross-over voters especially as the strongest, most knowledgeable candidate the Democrats have to offer in the national security arena. Clark of course has expanded the idea of national security to include environmental security, economic security, health security, constitutional security, etc. If he runs, he will run on the theme of securing America...from threats both at home and abroad.

[politicasista]

11. I think Clark and Kerry are good on national security

As well as Gore. No need to diminish others just to promote one.

[Clarkie1]

12. They are all good, but not co-equal.

Gore is our our most outstanding voice in the enviromental security arena, and I could very enthusiastically support Gore. Kerry has done good things in the senate. They all have their strengths, but they are not the same. If the focus is national security, Clark is our strongest voice.

[politicasista]

13. I think they can all make a difference

I stand by my previous post.

You will never see me put Gore, Kerry and the General down to promote one or the other. I would rather stick to listing the positive qualities of each men, not bragging or putting them down to promote one person.

[Clarkie1]

15. Absolutely they can all make a difference! Not sure what your point is...

I'm not putting down any Democrat. It's the last thing I would do!

[ProSense]

17. I think Clark is the strongest voice on matters of the

military. As a General, it doesn't mean he necessarily has the strongest voice on national security, which involves foreign policy and diplomatic experience, and homeland security figures into it as well. Kerry has significant experience in foreign relations, and as the ranking member on the Asia subcommittee, key experience in dealing with North Korea.

[Clarkie1]

32. Clark's business is security...take a look.

http://www.wittassociates.com/index.xml

Also, he has more real-world (outside the senate) foreign policy and diplomatic experience than Kerry or Gore, if we are comparing the three individuals.

I'm not taking away from anything Kerry has done or his knowledge of foreign affairs, or Gore, but to pigeonhole Clark's national security credentials as being limited to his military expertise is just plain inaccurate. There is no one alive today who understands the dynamics of the internatiional community, the problems we face globally, and how to go about addressing those challenges more than Wes Clark. Just listen to him speak.

[Crunchy Frog]

14. Clark is great on national security

but I think Gore and Kerry are supremely qualified as well. I think it's possible to promote one guy without putting down others. I think any of them would make an outstanding president.

[politicasista]

16. Exactly

:hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. I too agree Crunchy Frog

Especially when we are comparing Democrats who have all shown competence in a related area, why try to raise one up by pulling another down? It's not even like we are debating whether national security experience is important, all of these men know it is and all of these men have a lot of it. If the time comes when some of these Democrats start to compete with each other for Primary votes, THAT is the time for us making those types of critical comparisons. For now, when I want DUers to favorably consider a Democrat who I like, I'll do so by pointing out some of the favorable things that Demoocrat has said or done.

[blm]

23. Clark is solid but Kerry has most experience tracking terrorism and

its financial networks. Terrorism needs a combined effort between law enforcement and specialized military strikes.

[Bucky]

19. Altho I'm a dedicated Clarkie, let me name some more "unqualified" leaders

The following candidates were utterly unqualified to offer any national security leadership and had zero experience in working as a commander of troops:

John Adams
Franklin Roosevelt
Abraham Lincoln
James Polk
William McKinley
Woodrow Wilson
Bill Clinton

and, hell, while we're at it...

Margaret Thatcher
Sam Houston
Giuseppe Garibaldi

Meanwhile, over in the "well qualified" category...

Experienced WW2 vets Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson nudged America step by step into Vietnam--a strategic footnote that led to a political disaster.

George W Bush bumbled the US into the current Iraqi morass while flanked by (well, babysat by) the men who planned the strategic and geopolitical success of the 1991 Desert Storm war--Dick Cheney and Colin Powell.

I don't think having commanded troops in battle or training is the key ingredient in what it takes to be the commander in chief of US armed forces. What it takes is clarity of objectives and goals, an openness to new ideas, a good ear for expert advice, a talent for personnel management, strong communication skills for securing domestic support for military objectives, and an understanding of what our true political interests are in the world. This is what failed this country in Vietnam & "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and what made a success in other wars.

[Leilani]

22. Johnson was NOT an experienced WW2 Vet

He spent the war in DC, & made several trips to the Pacific to have his ticket punched.

[Bucky]

30. That's true. But Ike consulted w/ him as Majority leader often in the 50s

The point is that LBJ would have passed this "commander" litmus test, having spent many years working on national security policy and oversight. He still fucked up in Vietnam.

[blm]

24. Actually, Bill Clinton's naivete allowed Poppy Bush to manipulate him on

serious matters.

Had Clinton been a more seasoned strategic leader at the time he took office, he would have seen and rejected Poppy Bush's manipulations.


By Robert Parry
May 11, 2006

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Snip...

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Snip...

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

[tomreedtoon]

20. Okay, a good question: will the 2006 convention be OPEN?

For the most part, the conventions have relied on candidates who have won primaries. That means candidates with the deepest pockets who can campaign in as many states as they can.

I'm only guessing at this, but don't Kerry and Clinton have the deepest pockets for the primaries?

Which means that the other guys don't stand a chance in hell of being the nominee?

I don't like it; I think there should be a more level playing ground in the primaries, IF that's the way Democrats are going to select the candidate.

[blm]

25. Then vote for the future - vote for candidate who will advocate for public

financing of campaigns as president.

In 1997, Kerry wrote the Clean Money, Clean Elections bill and submitted it to the senate with Paul Wellstone. Only 4 other senators supported it.

I would bet the time is ripe for a new push for public financing of campaigns, and we could see it before the 2010 and 2012 elections.

[loyalsister]

21. As long as these are the priorities

the "war on terror" will remain a reality.
The way our culture has grabbed onto that belief is almost like professional wrestling.
It will be our undoing if we allow that to perpetuate by accepting the basic underlying premise that people want war if something goes wrong.
As long as we allow that to be the standard, then the puppetmasters with an agenda who can have influence will have a populist argument everytime something happens.
It would be much more productive to consider that experience as "a" qualification, and lead the conversation in terms of what is good for us internationally as a country that relates to the rest of the world. As well as to focus more attention on domestic issues.
To accept those conditions, is to accept the media offering of a state of perpetual war.

[blm]

27. Fortunately, Kerry believes terrorism is more of a law enforcemnet issue

with occasional backup from specialized military forces. He received attack after attack for his view in 2004, but it is the best way to handle it.