In John Kerry, Owen Wilson, and Facing Reality, I noted that:
"I even understand the impetus to look at 2 candidates who offer less than the times demand, and see the stakes before us, and tell oneself that Kerry will have to do the right thing...."
"The reason I am still undecided is simply that, as I said above, I find Bush's strategic vision for foreign policy much more compelling than Kerry's (if Kerry can be said to have a strategic vision). If Kerry sufficiently reassures me on foreign policy, I will vote for him."
Which is just fine. The question is, what standards of judgment does one use to determine this - because I'm seeing bloggers weakening the standards of judgement they apply elsewhere in order to convince themselves. It strikes me as a semi-conscious attempt at self-deception, and Josh's recent Oxblog post (via Andrew Sullivan) is is only notable for having the juxtaposition conveniently packaged in one place.
I'd urge Josh (and others) to consider the contrast between this excerpt:
"My friend Adrianne Truett says that it's "a bit odd" to prefer Kerry to Bush on gay marriage when Kerry has said that he and Bush have the same position on gay marriage (Gay Patriot says the same thing by email and points me to this post). That may be what Kerry has said, but it's just clearly not true. Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act; he's come out in favor of civil unions; and he opposes a marriage amendment. Those are three pretty huge differences between him and Bush...."
...And this one:
"Kerry's performance in the debates has gone a long way towards reassuring me. In terms of strategic vision, I'm still closer to President Bush, and I continue to be impressed and inspired by his recognition that, ultimately, the best way to fight the major threats of the twenty-first century is through the spread of liberal democracy. I don't think Kerry is committed to that vision. But I do think that Bush has done a poor job managing some pretty important aspects of the War on Terror. And Kerry's debate performances have convinced me that he would manage our current engagements at least as competently as Bush has. The long-term goal of spreading liberal democracy is, of course, doomed to failure if the specific short- and medium-term projects fail. I don't know that they are failing, but I am increasingly certain that a better manager would have handled them more successfully than Bush has."
Note the reaction re: gay marriage. "Well, yeah, that's what he says - but if you look at his record, it isn't possible to believe that." OK, fair response.
Now look at Josh's foreign policy judgement. Determined by performance in a debate, not Kerry's long public record. No evidence cited of better (or even equally competent) management, despite a clear record on the issue of Iraq itself - unlike the gay marriage conclusion which cites concrete grounds for his belief.
The standards aren't the same.
I might add that wars aren't managed - they're led, and won, even if Clemenceau's maxim that "war is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory" applies. As it often has in human history. But let's leave that aside, and focus instead on using comparable standards.
My Problems With Kerry et. al...
I've dealt with Kerry's record in a previous post. It isn't pretty:
"Look at Europe now, or look back into human history - illusion and passivity in the face of real threats is an option, and some leaders and states will take it.
One question: is Kerry one of those people? Simple question. Simple answer.
Kerry's positions on issues like Iran are clear, and were openly stated in the debate: normalize relations with the world's #1 terrorist sponsors while they undermine Iraq & Afghanistan, offer them nuclear fuel, propose sanctions the Europeans will drag their feet on in order to stop a late-stage nuclear program that's impervious to sanctions anyway, and oppose both missile defense and the nuclear bunker-buster weapons that would give the USA defensive or offensive options in a crisis.
Gee, I'm sleeping better already. Especially after Cicero's follow-up post about the Iranian moolahs and their bomb program.
Kerry's long record in public life - both upon his return from Vietnam, and in the Senate - is equally clear: Calumnies against both his fellow soldiers in Vietnam and America's current allies in the war on terror that are never repudiated, or apologized for. A long history of votes against defense & intelligence appropriations, and of opposing U.S. military action abroad, even in the face of clear threats. Declarations that that we are engaged in global police work in the wake of 9/11, and not a war. The endless preoccupation with Vietnam.
The only explanation I can find for people who believe a Kerry Presidency would not be Carterite to its core (and worse) is sheer wishful projection.....
The evidence says, strongly, that what Cicero is looking for in his post will not - indeed, cannot - come from a Kerry Presidency. Otherwise, we'd be hearing this instead of this. We wouldn't be hearing this. Or this. Or seeing this. Or observing these things...."
But, as Marcus Antonius might have said: "...John Kerry said he'd fight the War on Terror strongly, and John Kerry is an honourable man."
...And My Problems With W's Administration
I have my own complaints about this administration's conduct, and many of them mirror Andrew and Josh's. The rapid expansion of non-military spending. Not coming down hard on b.s. like Enron, and the Boeing tanker-plane boondoggle post-9/11. The proposed constitutional amendment re: gay marriage. Unclear policies re: Iran, and the lack of commitment to regime change even by peaceful means. Consistent hesitation and refusal to press on to victory in places like Fallujah, resulting in a snakepit of al-Qaeda operations that's destabilizing Iraq. Allowing Sadr to live long enough to create the Najaf battle - and then not hunting him down afterward.
To which I'll add: dicking around with the U.N. for a year over Iraq, thus putting us on the present timeline re: Iran with few options. Largely because there was a compounding failure in the lack of any major mobilization post-9/11, leaving the administration short in Iraq and handcuffed in Iran. I understand why W. told people to go shopping, lead a normal life, but it was the wrong thing to say. And increasingly, it looks like the wrong policy too.
Failure to treat the Global War on Terror as a serious war is not just a Democratic Party failing. Recognizing the changed nature of the post-9/11 world is a major edge for the GOP, and a necessary condition of victory - but not enough in and of itself to deliver it.
So yeah, I have my complaints - and no, I'm not 100% sure that Bush will succeed in doing what is necessary.
A Time to Choose
But then I set them against the items in my excerpt above, and add a return to Clinton's appeasement policies on North Korea which gave us the current situation. I add the Kerry campaign's despicable behaviour toward real allies like the Poles, Australians, Italians et. al., and its attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the current Iraqi government... and it becomes utterly impossible for me to imagine Kerry as a better manager, let alone a better leader.
I give you, again, Owen Wilson's illustrative response to Jackie Chan:
"What in our history together makes you think I'm capable of something like that?"
Maybe Kerry's successor will be what America needs, a Tony Blair for the Democratic Party. Maybe not. But we have to choose now, and that means choosing Kerry as he really is (Hat Tip: Michael Totten) - not as we might wish him to be.
I grok where Andrew Sullivan is coming from on this. There's one issue of ultimate importance to him, and it isn't the war, and I don't think he'll be able to get past it, and I can understand why not.
In the case of Josh and other undecideds, however, the war is the key issue. My message to them is simple: Review Kerry's real record abroad with the same rigor you use for his policies at home, and for W's policies at home and abroad. Apply the same standards to both. Then ask yourself if your beliefs about Kerry's foreign policy are a reasonable conclusion... or driven by wishful thinking because you have problems with his GOP alternative.
In war, we don't always get ideal choices. Reality doesn't give a damn, of course - we still have to press on, and choose. It's true for every soldier on the battlefield. It's true for societies on the battlefield as well. You know inside that the issues before us, and the decisions you're about to make, are far too important for anything other than a grimly realistic assessment.
So look once again at Kerry's record, and his declared policies, and then look to the future:
- Does the Kerry campaign's record of dissing allies, focusing on departure dates, and questioning the legitimacy of the Iraqi government promise better management in Iraq? If we have to clear out Fallujah, will he see it through - or blink if he sees setbacks? If he blinks, what does that do to America's prospects for success in the war?
- What damage could Kerry's repeat of the 1998 approach to North Korea do, down the road? Start with the fact that his reversion to a bilateral approach disses a whole bunch of other partners, some of whom (China, Japan) have cultures in which "face" is the most important consideration. Throw in another 1998 style agreement that enables the regime to continue with its programs unhindered. Where do we sit by 2005, when the bilateral talks fail? Where do we sit by 2008?
- Declared actions or statements that have either dissed or will diss Australia, Britain, Poland, Italy, and all other members of the allied "coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted." Not to mention the Iraqis fighting and taking casualties alongside the allies, and Iraq's government. Now add China and Japan once his North Korea policy kicks in. Is this the team who offer a better way through diplomacy - or folks whose record in one short campagn season makes Donald Rumsfeld look like Talleyrand?
- Given that Kerry doesn't believe strongly in promoting democracy, opposes nuclear bunker-buster weapons, is allied to regimes and organizations (France, EU) whose main priority is striking beneficial trade deals with the mullahs, and has had his only alternatives (giving Iran fuel, and having Iran's program contained by the French, Germans, et. al. in the EU) rejected by the mullahs... where does that leave us in terms of options re: Iran?
- What happens if Iran's success in going nuclear spurs significant secondary proliferation in the region, as George Tenet and others have warned for many years? How big do the stakes get if 2008 rolls around and America needs to either fight a massive regional war on multiple fronts to put the genie back in the bottle, or figure out how to prevent EVERY Arab/Islamic state with nuclear weapons from falling to Islamist death-cults whose make up is equal parts fanatical hatred and death-wish?
In "The Rope Bridge", our conflicted Winds team member Cicero had this to say:
"President Bush, who ran on a near-isolationist platform in 2000, redefined conservatism in 2001 because the world changed. That's why he's got my vote. Mr. Kerry, so far, seems reluctant to redefine liberalism in the context of the modern world. His heels are firmly planted on a mountain floating on magma. As president, liberalism, as we know it, will either be redefined or it will perish. Four more years of Bush will only prolong liberalism's promenade with fantasy; four years of Kerry will either return a functional balance within our system or consummate its disequilibrium, at the risk of chaos. It is a vote of fate."
It is. The next 4 years can utterly change the course of the war. I'm not an American, but my family and I will have to live with the results too. Is it really time to give up Bush's approach in favour of Kerry's Sept. 10 strategy?
It's all in your hands now. Good luck with your decisions. G-d bless... hell, G-d bless us all. We're going to need it.
I even understand the impetus to look at 2 candidates who offer less than the times demand, and see the stakes before us, and tell oneself that Kerry will have to do the right thing...."
***************************************************
Like Neville Chamberlain did?
Josh Chafetz's "If Kerry sufficiently reassures me on foreign policy, I will vote for him."
seems rather naive in light of Kerry's statement of "returning" terrorism to Nuisance status.
Obviously Kerry does not have a handle on the current state of affairs if he thinks like that. Just what does he mean by nuisance? Keeping terrorism confined to Israeli pizza huts, Chechen schools ...?
How does one go back from Bali to just the nuisance of some prostitutes bitch-slapping each other on the corner?
Cynic, the troubling part of Mr. Kerry's statement from the NY Times interview that you're referring to isn't the "nuisance" bit. It's the "where we were" bit. That's nostalgia not a mature position.
I deeply resent this attempt by a foreigner to influence the American election.
Seems to me too many Bush supporters are buying the caricature of Kerry's record presented by the Bush campaign and ignoring the facts.
Kerry's history is more (pardon the expression) nuanced than the limp wristed cartoon version represented in blogs like this one. Look into his fight against BCCI for example; or his efforts, with John McCain, to settle the POW/MIA issue. HE hasn't been afraid to stand up to powerful interests in either party to get to the truth and to get the job done.
Bottom line for me; Bush has made his contempt for diplomacy clear by his actions. Kerry's approach is to first fix America's relationships with her former allies. Until that gets done, nothing else of signifigance is possible in the fight against the terorists who attacked America three years ago.
When was the last time France was an ally? 1776?
What did Kerry mean when he said the US military should be put under UN control? Would he now say it should also be put under EU control? How far will Kerry go in an effort to be popular with foreign leaders, perhaps at the expense of the american people?
Judge Kerry by his record. What did his fellow officers in Vietnam say about him? How did the POWs in Hanoi feel about Kerry's pro-Vietcong activities?
"What did Kerry mean when he said the US military should be put under UN control?"
Are you talking about the 1974 interview? He's repudiated it. But if you want to invite comparisons on the basis of what the candidates were doing in 1974, bring it on.
I'm not sure you have assimilated the most important point about Oxblog's dilemma (emphasis mine): "I don't know that they [foreign policy projects] are failing, but I am increasingly certain that a better manager would have handled them more successfully than Bush has."
What good is a chef with grandiose plans for a magnificent menu if his cooks are so incompetent the food as actually served tastes like dreck? Wouldn't even a mundate, inadequately-ambitious Kerryburger tase better by comparison?
By the way, you guys with the nuisance gotcha campaign: any guesses who said this? I'll give you a hint: it's not an advisor to the Kerry campaign. Good job styaing on message, but don't you ever get ashamed of searching for such ridiculous "attacks"?Andrew, in my view you're absolutely right (re Bush's management failures). But there hasn't been anything in Kerry's history that has convinced me that he'd do better. That's one reason I harp so on his campign's management failures - they're the best proxy I have for how well he does at managing organizations (as opposed to writing laws, which is what you do as a legislator).
A.L.
"When was the last time France was an ally? 1776?"
The correct answer the question is "today".
French troops are deployed today in Afghanistan, with 9000 NATO troops alongside US troops.
Your ignorance is frightening, but maybe adherence to blind ideology explains it.
Tom,
I guess I don't consider the hand of friendship to be genuine when the other hand is thrusting a shiv into a kidney.
France's actions toward America in Iraq, being paid off by Saddam, thwarting action in the UN, selling weapons to Saddam used against our troops -- these are not the actions of an ally.
"campaign's management failures"
Again, I am forced to make two arguments. One, when people have screwed up, he's recognized that and replaced them. Switched directions when certain approaches weren't working. And, lo and behold, he's right there.
Vote Bush! Kerry is a lying douche bag and his stance changes with every whim of the public's disagreement. If Kerry is elected he will try to form a "coalition" of countries that despise us and ultimately want nothing but our demise so they may become partners as the worlds superpowers. Great coalition Kerry. As for wartime management...Kerry has never run anything in his life he married into money from Dogface Heinz and his previous wife and rarely even attended his position in the senate where when he was present he voted whichever way he felt like with absolutely no consistency and disregarded the importatance of his position. DO NOT ELECT KERRY HE IS THE TERRORISTS DREAM TEAM CANIDATE.
"A Hermit" - I believe your handle. The stuff in this article is from things Kerry and his team have said and/or put out as policy, and comes with links aplenty. Sorry you missed it all (unless you've been watching baseball instead, in which case good choice), but that doesn't make it less true. As for POW/MIA and BCCI, yes Kerry was deeply involved in both of those bipartisan initiatives. How they cancel out his clear record and policies on Iran, NK, Iraq et. al. or demonstrate his ability to be a wartime leader escapes me, but fair's fair and he does deserve credit for them as the main achievements of his 20 year Senate career.
AJL - your link isn't working, you may want to fix that. As for the manager point, I adressed it directly in my op-ed above. My non-belief in Kerry goes beyond his strategy (though it surely includes that), and to his management abilities as well. His team's endless series of serious diplomatic gaffes destroyed any ability to take solace in a belief in his ability to muddle through and achieve success. Hell, even RUMSFELD is a better diplomat than Kerry based on his performance this campaign.
Praktike, - consider it the beginning of payback for the American Michael Moore's blatant attempt to influence MY country's recent election. Keep him and his works out of my country, and we may be able to avoid future misunderstandings :-)
I will say that Kerry's campaign has improved sharply since Bill Clinton sent his folks in to take over. I'm not sure Kerry replaced anyone so much as he said "OK" to someone else per usual - but now that you mention it, I'll add one to my "complaints about Bush" column. Bush hasn't fired enough people, and it's a weakness.
Mike - I don't think you're going to convince many undecideds with that approach. Actually, I'm not sure you'd even convince many Republicans with that approach. We tend to hold a higher standard here, and hope you'll come back next time with an approach that does you more credit.
I'm sorry for botching the quiz link above. It should be here and as penance I will blurt out that the answer is Brent Scowcroft. So it sounds like the Bush-41 Administration had its share of girlie-men. I guess.
I was impressed with Kerry's campaign team only because they did such a great job sandbagging Howard Dean six months ago. I figured those talents would reappear in time for the general election, and I'd say over the last month they have (finally!). Now, is Kerry as good as he could be at pouncing on Bush's mistakes in debate? No. That doesn't seem to be his strong point. The problem with Bush and his campaign is that the techniques that work so well to scatter Democrats—the out-of-context quotes, the fabrications, the over-optimistic promises—don't matter in areas of national security. Nor is this problem confined to foreign policy: it doesn't matter if the American Public buys that "Clear Skies Initiative" will really clean up our air, the trees and the lungs of asthmatic children aren't a focus group susceptible to that great framing and sound biting. So I don't think I would assume that his efficient campaign will carry over to any sort of visible policy success. (For that matter, didn't Bush's 2000 campaign end on a rather overconfident note, out in California? Or can you do that when Big Brother Jeb and Uncle Rehnquist have your back?)
By the way, I heartily recommend the Poor Man's typology for those leaning Kerry. Me, I'm in Camp Douche.
VT,
Ah yes, Brent "thanks very much Mideast dictators, are your cheques in the mail yet?" Scowcroft. I'm not even slightly surprised to hear him saying this kind of thing, it's perfectly consistent for him.
But then, Scowcroft has never been a favourite of mine (to put it as kindly as possible). He strikes me as the walking proof of Saudi Prince Bandar's philosophy - and because of that, I'd take Howard Dean seriously before I'd listen to him.
I'm afriad paragraph #2 went right over my head. Can I just shorten that to "Kerry has a good campaign team! Bush lied! Bush stole the election!" If so, kudos for adding 2 new refrains this time.
I agree with Praktike.
This is a Canadian plot to weaken the US by:
1. Continuing Bush's policy of borrowing billions, which will lead to a fiscal crisis;
2. Weakening our military by overcommitting it to ill-planned foreign adventures;
3. Dividing our people by the Bushite's use of divisive social and religious issues as wedges;
4. Allowing a small minority to plunder the wealth of the US, instead of promoting fair wages and collective bargaining;
5. Turning much of the world against us by using pointless and foolish rhetoric in its public "diplomacy;"
6. Undermining faith in our electoral system.
Oh, no, you've totally missed all the key elements of the REAL Canadian plot - which has been ongoing for many years now. The only overlap is that the real plan also involves Florida. Good try, though.
When I was in the U.S. Navy, my ship went to Halifax on a port visit.
We had to wear our uniforms the first night out.
I was in a bar. Out of nowhere, a man subjected me to a tirade about how, if the US invaded, the Canadians would repel us and inflict heavy casualties.
President Bush has a restaurant with mixed reviews; some really fine dishes, some dreck. Thecooks who make both sorts of dishes still work inteh kitchen. BUT AT LEAST GEORGE BUSH HAS A RESTUARANT OPEN. His mistakes are those made moving forward. Senator Kerry, on the other hand, would not have opened any restaurants since 9/11. His mistakes will be those made by a man going backwards.
President Bush is criticized for too much loyalty and not admitting mistakes, for staying on message and having only a happy message. Legitimate criticisms, but not a complete picture. Being resolute is critical to successful wartime leaders. It is rare to get such a man as FDR, a smart, resolute man with great communications skills and partnered with the bull-dog of Winston Churchill. One of the things both men committed to, without wavering, was unconditional victory as the only acceptable outcome. I'd rather have a leader who is focused on victory but a bit inflexible, then a manager who is flexible about everything, including the goals.
Our choices are not good. If I had my druthers, tonight's debate would be between Mayor Guialani and Senator Clinton as the respective nominees, because they both get it that the GWoT is the most important issue of our time. But, the choice is Bush or Kerry. Given both men's flaws and strengths, both men's records, both men's vision of the future, I am supporting the President over the Senator.
Three of the most important national security issues in this election are 1) Handling Iraq, going forward 2) Iran 3) North Korea.
Handling Iraq, I am sure Kerry would be superior. I mean, how could he not? He will be more trusted by the Iraqi people for not having nefarious designs, and he will be more competent, securing ammo dumps and nuclear plants and the like. He will do a better job at creating jobs for Iraqis by not having so much corruption in the contracting process, and by hiring US officials in Iraq, who sort of, you know, know what they're doing, and speak Arabic, rather than friends and family. Hw will be more willing to hold real elections (the elections in January are too convoluted, with people voting in a complicated way for slates of political parties, rather than directly for people), and deal with legitimate Iraqi leaders trusted by the Iraqi people. He will do a better job.
Handling North Korea, I am sure Kerry will do a better job. The administration's argument "bilateral bad, multilateral good" is nonsensical bullshit, a fig leaf to conceal the fact that they haven't had a North Korea policy for four years, other than sticking their heads in the sand. Kerry's answer on North Korea in the debate is a model of clarity and common sense.
Iran, I am not absolutely sure about. It's a tough situation, but I believe that an attempted preventive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would be a serious mistake, as would have been an attempted strike against Cuba in 63 or against Russia in the 50's. The situation is different now than in Osirak. That was only a few years after the third war of Arab aggression against Israel, against someone who had clearly proved his aggressive intentions in an unambigous way, at a time when the Arab/Muslim world was deeply divided against itself. Now an attempted preventive strike would isolate the US&Israel and unite everybody else (including the Iranian people and mullahs), instead of isolating the terrorists and uniting everybody else. If a preventive strike is off the table, what are the options? Joe might be reassured by Bush's firm statement "Iran will not develop nuclear weapons", but Bush said the same thing about North Korea, and showed himself to be a paper tiger. I trust Kerry's judgement, and more importantly, Kerry's willingness to face unpleasant facts and to deal with the situation in a prompt and immediate manner, and seek reasoned solutions, instead of sticking his head in the sand and repeating comforting platitudes.
Alright, last harangue. I think the choice could not be clearer, but vote for whoever the hell you want.
Handling Iraq, I am sure Kerry will cut and run. As for the elections, I don't see how Kerry can just change their structure at the last minute.
Praktike, Klaatu,
Thanks for the laugh. I didn't contribute to this thread, b/c I've been an annoying voice in too many threads here recently, and i thought, "well, let Joe state his preferences, I'll let it go".
But - perhaps I'm not soft, lazy, ignoring the massed hordes from our northen border...I must use my keyboard to defend the US!
:)
"Now an attempted preventive strike would isolate the US&Israel and unite everybody else (including the Iranian people and mullahs), instead of isolating the terrorists and uniting everybody else."
So would Iran with nuclear weapons. They could wipe every last bit of progress we've made completely off the map, and own the Middle East... and terrorists under their sponsorship would be able to stage conventional attacks against the Great Satan with near-impunity.
Iran must not get nuclear weapons. If they do, the War on Terror is over.
In this election, the choice is between the stubborn Grant, who believes in victory and will keep pounding away until it happens, and McClellan, who sure seems to be a smart guy but doesn't show much inclination to actually get the job done. I'll take Grant.
There's just one problem. Bush and Kerry do not have quite the same position on gay marriage. Bush has simply said he opposes gay marriage. Kerry has said he opposes gay marriage but favors civil unions that would give gay couples the same rights and protections as married heterosexual couples. He said as much in the last debate. Bush has taken no stand and made no statement that he supports giving same sex couples the same rights and protections as married heterosexual couples.
From my POV, at least Kerry wants my family to have those rights and protections, allbeit under another name. Bush does not want to have them, period, based on his stated positions.
Roublen,
I'd be interested in hearing a more detailed argument for you re: exactly what makes Kerry's North Korea policy "a model of clarity and common sense" and why you believe it would work, taking into account the nature of North Korea's regime.
>want a more detailed argument from you. . .
uh-oh.
Well, here is the Kerry answer I was talking about:
There are two different routes to a bomb: plutonium and enriched uranium. It is the assertion of the Clinton administration & Josh Marshall that the plutonium program was far more significant & important, and more potentially threatening, than the enriched uranium program. The Clinton administration apparently knew about the the North Koreans covert uranium enrichment program, and briefed the Bush administration about it, and were planning with South Korea to confront the North Koreans about it and shut it down, as the North Koreans had already shut down their plutonium program, in concert with all the other issues at hand. Clinton once said somewhere that "I thought I was handing them a big win on North Korea" and Colin Powell apparently agreed. The Bush administration did nothing for 18 months. Then, they publicly disclosed the existence of the covert uranium enrichment program, and said the North Koreans were dishonorable and therefore that there was no point negotiating with them. At some point after that, the North Koreans kicked out the inspectors and tv cameras monitoring the plutonium program, brought out the plutonium rods from hibernation, and started, we presume, pursuing both the plutonium and enriched uranium programs to the best of their ability. (Kerry asserts that there are now 4 to 7 North Korean bombs. I personally doubt that's true, but they probably have something). At some further point the Bush administration modified its policy from "There is no point negotiating with the North Koreans" to "There is no point negotiating with the North Koreans bilaterally", but somehow multilateral negotiations are a different matter entirely, and are going to produce the manna from heaven.
In any case, the key part of Kerry's answer for me was the the long-term human rights of the North Korean people would be an issue in any negotiations with Kim-Jog-Il. It is hard, but by no means impossible, to monitor whether the North Koreans are making any progress in covertly trying to develop weapons on the sly; it is much more straight-forward to see whether the North Koreans are keeping their word on any human-rights "concessions" that they have agreed to. If we can win some real, even if small, freedoms for the North Korean masses at the negotiating table, in exchange for economic aid, we will have laid the groundwork for gradually changing the regime into something less evil and awful. The alternative is to try to foment a Ceaucescu-like revolt of the masses against Kim Jong-Il, probably by starving the regime into submission. Is that what you're advocating?
Roublen,
Points to you.
The popular meme seem to be that John Kerry is some type of master diplomat who will solve all the worlds problems and make America loved one more.
What abject nonsense. Please, look at what the man has actually done. He has repeatedly and publicly belittled our allies as being a "coalition of the bribed and the coerced". He has publicly called the Iraq Prime Minister an America puppet. He has campaigned hard to defeat the Australian Prime Minister; had he succeeded in his efforts, Australia would by now be withdrawing its forces from Iraq. If this is an example of his diplomatic skills, then it seems safe to predict that he will start a world war as president. He has already done immense damage just running for office. What kind of person wants to see what he would do if he actually gets elected? How can anyone claim with a straight face that John Kerry is a diplomat? It's simply staggering.
It's baffling that so many people are so consumed by their Bush hatred that they can convince themselves that this comically incompetent man can put all the world to rights.