Kerry Foreign Policy

[Mort from NewYawk]

On Democrats who opposed the 1991 gulf war resolution:

"There are those trying to say somehow that Democrats should be admitting they were wrong. There is not a right or wrong here. There was a correctness in the president's judgment about timing. But that does not mean there was an incorrectness in the judgment other people made about timing.

Again and again and again in the debate, it was made clear that the vote of the U.S. Senate and the House on the authorization of immediate use of force on Jan. 12 was not a vote as to whether or not force should be used."


On Somalia:

"The choice for the United States of America is not between two alternatives only: staying in or getting out. There are many other choices in-between which better reflect the aspirations and hopes of our country.”

"I think that the president today made the right decision to try to establish a process which will maintain the capacity of our forces, protect them, and to disengage while simultaneously upholding the mission we have set out to accomplish."


On the Balkan crisis:

"It is important to remember that this resolution does not authorize the use of American ground troops in Bosnia, nor does it specifically authorize the use of air or naval power. It simply associates the U.S. Senate with the current policies of this administration and of the Security Council."


On Iraq, in floor speech given Oct. 10, 1998:

"We know from our largely unsuccessful attempts to enlist the cooperation of other nations, especially industrialized trading nations, in efforts to impose and enforce somewhat more ambitious standards on nations such as Iran, China, Burma and Syria, that the willingness of most other nations — including a number who are joined in the sanctions to isolate Iraq — is neither wide nor deep to join in imposing sanctions on a sovereign nation to spur it to `clean up its act' and comport its actions with accepted international norms."



In New York we take a few steps back from people who talk like that.

I challenge all Kerry supporters to explain his foreign policy. My bet is that if four of you explain it, we’ll get five foreign policies.


Quotes taken from David Brooks in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/13/opinion/13BROO.html

[angus]

That article was excellent, and should be read in its entirety.  Thanks for bringing it to our attention.  I do not defend Kerry's positions--he and his minions will attempt to do just that--and the 'churchillian' language may put some off.  His statements were made as a US senator, and a politician loyal to the Republic.  I, for one, am glad the Constitution calls for legislative action if we're contemplating battle.  And I remember that debate very well.  Kerry is no more or less confused than George Bush, but I'll stipulate that his voting record does not recommend him to us as President.  I'm not sure The People have figured that out yet but I have faith that they will.

"Kerry has made clear that if he is elected president, the nation will never face a caveat shortage."  Amen, Mr. Brooks.

[Gustaf]

Well, he's a flip-flopper, or, not the kind to see things in balck-and-white. To be honest, I'd rather give the world's largest stock of nukes to someone who thinks and doesn't do drastic actions than to someone who doesn't and does. The ideal to me is Churchill, the combination of no-matter-what princples, like standing up to Hitler, and pargmatism, like allying with Stalin.

[dunn]

whooo

[angus]

Gustaf, replace the words Churchill with Bush, Hitler with Osama, and Stalin with House of Saud, and you have described our current situation.  Good for you.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf, replace the words Churchill with Bush, Hitler with Osama, and Stalin with House of Saud, and you have described our current situation.  Good for you.

Yeah, that's an obvious retort, I know. But I seriously doubt that Bush has the same statesmanship that Churchill had.

[dunn]

Gustaf, replace the words Churchill with Bush, Hitler with Osama, and Stalin with House of Saud, and you have described our current situation.  Good for you.

Yeah, that's an obvious retort, I know. But I seriously doubt that Bush has the same statesmanship that Churchill had.

yeah that's the problem

[Gustaf]

Gustaf, replace the words Churchill with Bush, Hitler with Osama, and Stalin with House of Saud, and you have described our current situation.  Good for you.

Yeah, that's an obvious retort, I know. But I seriously doubt that Bush has the same statesmanship that Churchill had.

yeah that's the problem

Dunn, what was the maening of the 'whooo' post you made?

[angus]

Gustaf, Yes, but you are what you call a 'liberal' and what I call a 'conservative' so of course you think Churchill is a big hero.  Bush and Kerry and Churchill and Reagan and Blair also have the same weakness:  they are imperialists.  Don't make the mistake of confusing imperialism with statesmanship.  Roosevelt and Churchill created the UN as a means to legitimize Anglo-American hegemony in the world.  And a success it has been.  I accept the imperialism grudgingly; you seem to welcome it.  You're an iraqi war supporter and a Democrat; I'm in serious opposition to the war and a Republican.  My retort was an attempt at oversimplification.  

The problem, Dunn, is more complex.  Never in my life has foreign policy been such a serious issue.  The question is not whether President Bush is a major schlemiel.  I'll concede he is.  The question is whether Senator Kerry would be a bigger one.  The evidence suggests that he will.  I don't see how you can intelligently refute this without resorting to cute sound-bites.  That's the central conceit in this thread, If I may be so presumptive.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf, Yes, but you are what you call a 'liberal' and what I call a 'conservative' so of course you think Churchill is a big hero.  Bush and Kerry and Churchill and Reagan and Blair also have the same weakness:  they are imperialists.  Don't make the mistake of confusing imperialism with statesmanship.  Roosevelt and Churchill created the UN as a means to legitimize Anglo-American hegemony in the world.  And a success it has been.  I accept the imperialism grudgingly; you seem to welcome it.  You're an iraqi war supporter and a Democrat; I'm in serious opposition to the war and a Republican.  My retort was an attempt at oversimplification.  

The problem, Dunn, is more complex.  Never in my life has foreign policy been such a serious issue.  The question is not whether President Bush is a major schlemiel.  I'll concede he is.  The question is whether Senator Kerry would be a bigger one.  The evidence suggests that he will.  I don't see how you can intelligently refute this without resorting to cute sound-bites.  That's the central conceit in this thread, If I may be so presumptive.

I wouldn't say that i welcome it...I don't like imperialism, but I can recognize that Anglo-Saxon hegemony is far better than any other alternative. Balance of power is only good if the balancing force is better.

On, the issue of this election, I agree with your basic thinking, I think, lol.

I don't think Kerry will either want to or be able to change US foreign policy as much as Republicans fear. In fact, I hope he wil change it the right amount, not more, not less.

[angus]

That's Anglo-American.  Not Anglo-Saxon.  Careful.  The Germans, like the Japanese, were on the wrong side at the wrong time.  Just bad timing, I suppose.  Still, it's a subtle, but important, distinction.

Who wants to be consistent?

[Gustaf]

That's Anglo-American.  Not Anglo-Saxon.  Careful.  The Germans, like the Japanese, were on the wrong side at the wrong time.  Just bad timing, I suppose.  Still, it's a subtle, but important, distinction.

Who wants to be consistent?

I don't. Nice to see someone pick up on my quote.

I don't think it's only bad timing. I think there's a difference between a country with Magna Charta, Habeus Corpus, Locke Adam Smith, Hume, etc and a country that agve us Wagner and Strauss. That's oversimplifying and unfair, I know, but the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think it was ONLY bad timing. A number of factors played in, and parts of it was cultural. Germany I believe to me completely rid of it by now, largely thanks to the WWII burden, but Japan worries me more.

What's so bad about the term Anglo-Saxon?

[angus]

Nothing is bad about any term which isn't inaccurate.  Roosevelt is American, Churchill is Anglo.  Neither is from Sachsen (which, after unification by von Bismarck, we call 'part of Germany').  Japan and Germany have been the 'good guys' in my lifetime.  I take your point.  Now we're just playing with syntax.  I need to get back to work.  But the fact remains:  John Kerry is not fit for the presidency at this time.  

[Gustaf]

Nothing is bad about any term which isn't inaccurate.  Roosevelt is American, Churchill is Anglo.  Neither is from Sachsen (which, after unification by von Bismarck, we call 'part of Germany').  Japan and Germany have been the 'good guys' in my lifetime.  I take your point.  Now we're just playing with syntax.  I need to get back to work.  But the fact remains:  John Kerry is not fit for the presidency at this time.  

I wouldn't call it a fact, and I need to get some sleep myself...

I don't Anglo-Saxon has been linked to Saxony in a long, long time, but I can use the word Anglo-American if you like...

[dunn]

Gustaf, replace the words Churchill with Bush, Hitler with Osama, and Stalin with House of Saud, and you have described our current situation.  Good for you.

Yeah, that's an obvious retort, I know. But I seriously doubt that Bush has the same statesmanship that Churchill had.

yeah that's the problem

Dunn, what was the maening of the 'whooo' post you made?

It was a good article
very good

[StevenNick]

I think Kerry's foreign policy can be summed up in one word:  surrender.

[M]

Churchill's favorite term, of course, was the "English Speaking Peoples", about whom he wrote a splendid history. Churchill is perhaps the greatest world leader in all of history, at the least he's in the top 5.

Wagner was an antiSemitic preNazi peice of poo, but- I give him this- a truly great musician, the Ring is fantastic. But he and Strauss did some very weird stuff too, so whatever. (What's the opera where Strauss actually got real cows and sheep to make noises at the appropriate points?)

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I'm perhaps a little more wordy... I think it can be summed up in two words:  bend over.

I think Kerry's foreign policy can be summed up in one word:  surrender.