The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Finally, Kerry Takes a Stand
Substantively, of course, Kerry's speech is completely irresponsible. In the first place, there is a 99 percent chance that other nations will not contribute enough troops to significantly decrease the U.S. burden in Iraq. In that case, John Kerry has no Iraq policy. The promise to bring some troops home by summer will be exposed as a Disneyesque fantasy.
More to the point, Kerry is trying to use multilateralism as a gloss for retreat. If "the world" is going to be responsible for defeating Moktada al-Sadr and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then no one will be responsible for defeating them. The consequences for the people of Iraq and the region will be horrific.
Finally, if the whole war is a mistake, shouldn't we stop fighting tomorrow? What do you say to the last man to die for a "profound diversion"?
But that is what the next few weeks are going to be about. This country has long needed to have a straight up-or-down debate on the war. Now that Kerry has positioned himself as the antiwar candidate, it can.
Kerry is not the antiwar candidate but the cut-and-run candidate. If elected, I hope he is more responsible than that.
Posted by Tim at September 21, 2004 06:33 AMJosh Marshall over at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ cracked me up about David Brooks's review of Senator Kerry's speech:
"Brooks, like Bush, is like a man in the sea, a fifty pound lead weight chained to his feet, slowly sinking into the waves. It's a tough road, he says as the water laps around his neck, but I'm going to keep at it as long as it takes until I start floating up instead of sinking down.
As long as it takes.
I'm staying the course.
Bubble, gurgle, bubble ...
Denial ... and did I mention the weight is chained to your feet too?"
(Brooks did have some interesting points, but this Iraq stuff gets so bleak sometimes that I have to find some sort escape in black humor.)
And now the rumors spin out of Robert Novak that even President Bush is considering a quick exit from the Iraq mess he made.
Posted by: Tom at September 21, 2004 07:33 AMDavid Brooks' misleading characterization nonwithstanding, Kerry is not "antiwar." He supported the war in Afghanistan. He voted t authorize the use of force in Iraq, and IF BUSH HAD PROVED THE NECESSITY, would be supporting the war there too.
But as we all know, the case for the war in Iraq was a house of cards. To oppose the Iraq war is to oppose a stupid waste of American lives and money ... it is not to be "antiwar."
The right has to cast everything in simplistic black and white terms. You're either for the war or against it. What is it about the mindset that rules out posiions such as "I'd have been for it if it had been necessary and had been done right, but I can't support the way it was handled?"
Because, that doesn't seem very complicated to me, but it seems to be beyond the comprehension of many Bush voters.
What's beyond comprehension here is that Kerry actually believes that Europe and the U.N. will come running if he's elected. Or does he? We really can't tell because his head is spinning around like a political top.
Will Europe support us? Some of the latest intelligence on Iran suggests otherwise. The Iranian mullahs are counting on Europe and the U.N. to be unwilling to do anything about their development of nuclear weapons. The Europeans are counting on the mullahs just magically going away. Well, the mullahs are counting on Europe blithely tiptoeing around like that for the forseeable future! And you know what? The mulllahs are probably right.
And John Kerry thinks that he's the one to get Europe to walk in lock step with us. Right! If he's elected all that will happen is that the mullahs and the terrorists in Iraq will have one more obstacle out of their way.
Maybe some of us on the right don't see all the "nuances," but we're not delusional enough to believe that Europe is going to support us. We'll trust the current administration on Iraq and national security, thank you.
As for what's our mindset, it's really easy when things are tough to decide you were "brilliant" enough to see it. I've had "friends" like that before. They're the type that, when the going got tough in the dark alley, decided they were going to cut and run. Some friends!
Posted by: Phil Dillon at September 21, 2004 06:48 PM"What's beyond comprehension here is that Kerry actually believes that Europe and the U.N. will come running if he's elected..." (Phil Dillon)
"...The international community could have helped a long time ago with proper support in 2002 and 2003. They chose a path of least resistance. Why would they change now?..." (trogers)
"...Our allies also know the historic importance of our work. About 40 nations stand beside us in Afghanistan, and some 30 in Iraq..." (President Bush's Republican Convention speech)
And that's the funny part. I mean this is a friggin' hoot in those three comments by you Republicans. When Kerry says he'll get the rest of the world involved in the Iraq fight, you Republican bloggers say the rest of the world is too chicken to fight.
But then when President Bush gets a microphone and a loving audience he tells us how he's a great diplomat---he burps out horse ploppers like his convention speech---how all these countries have rallied to our side.
Which is it, guys? The other countries are a great coalition or a bunch of frightened sheep? Republicans argue it both ways. No wonder they call you flip-floppers...oh wait, sorry, messed that up...aren't you the decisive party and we Dems are the wafflers?
Posted by: Tom at September 21, 2004 09:49 PM
