Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

NY times has a very lengthy (11 page) article articulating Kerry Doctrine on war on terror.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html?pagewanted=1&hp&adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1097427760-5BfoV+MdeaM9BepKp51rIw

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 06:01 pm: Edit

Typical NYT liberal puff piece attempting to make their candidate appear thoughtful instead of weak. Bob Dole was a true military hero but that did not seem to mean much to the NYT. Sen. Kerry shot someone in Vietnam and now that makes him able to fight terror. The discussion about "are we really in a war" could only come from liberals. I love Kerry's solution for Iran -- get the rest of the world to join our sanctions against Iran. I am sure those sanctions will work just as well as sanctions worked in the oil-for-food program. I am sure everyone will agree to stop buying oil from Iran. Right! Only in Kerryland. Where were the tough question for Kerry? Did the NYT ask Kerry why he voted against the first Gulf war in 1991 but voted for the war in Iraq in 2003? Did the NYT ask Kerry why when he told the world Saddam had WMD he was not misleading us, but when Pres. Bush said the same thing all of a sudden it becomes misleading. The ghost of Jason Blair is alive at the NYT.

By Simba (Simba) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 06:04 pm: Edit

did you read and understand?

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 06:04 pm: Edit

Thinkingoutloud, I should buy you a beer right now.

By Paulhomework (Paulhomework) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 06:38 pm: Edit

Thinkingoutloud, i think you should stop thinking out loud!!!

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 06:52 pm: Edit

I read it from beginning to end hoping to find something that would convince me that I was wrong to believe Sen. Kerry would endanger our nation. Unfortunately, with Sen. Kerry there is no "there" there. The NYT got one part right, however, about the liberal view of the world:

"Inside liberal think-tanks, there are Democratic foreign-policy experts who are challenging some of Bush's most basic assumptions about the post-9/11 world -- including, most provocatively, the very idea that we are, in fact, in a war."

That's right, the smartest of the liberals don't think we are in a war. Go figure!

BTW, thanks Vancat.
And Paul, I have done my homework; that's why I can support my views. How about you?

By Knightmare (Knightmare) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 08:56 pm: Edit

In a rare moment of either candor or carelessness, or perhaps both, Bush told Matt Lauer on the ''Today'' show in August that he didn't think the United States could actually triumph in the war on terror in the foreseeable future. ''I don't think you can win it,'' he said -- a statement that he and his aides tried to disown but that had the ring of sincerity to it. He and other members of his administration have said that Americans should expect to be attacked again, and that the constant shadow of danger that hangs over major cities like New York and Washington is the cost of freedom. In his rhetoric, Bush suggests that terrorism for this generation of Americans is and should be an overwhelming and frightening reality.

When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

I think that's the fundamental difference between the two candidates.

By Simba (Simba) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 09:26 pm: Edit

One approach is of hope and pragmatism, the other is of fear mongering.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 09:27 pm: Edit

jeez knightmare. if you really want to know, Bush said "I don't think you can win it" in regards to questions on whether a formal, "sit-down-at-the-table" type surrender (such as WW2) could eventually result from the war against terror. well, the answer is OBVIOUSLY NO. Just how Kerry said that "there will always be gambling, but you can fight to reduce it, etc," Bush said his statement the same way.

So clearly, we will never "win" the war against terror like we did wars in the past. We will never sit down at the table and negotiate non-conditional surrenders with the top military officials of Al-quaeda, etc. However, like Kerry said about gambling and prositution, we will fight to reduce its danger.

So in the end, there really is no difference between what you think Bush and Kerry "said" aboutt the war. It is just simply some people's inability to understand this War on Terror in reference to other wars in the past.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 10:36 pm: Edit

I actually think the NYTIMES piece is a pretty harsh attack on Senator Kerry. It reinforces the quesiness I feel about Kerry as the commander-in-chief. I just don't sense that he fully understands the scope of the radical Islamic threat and the long-term nature of what really must be viewed as a 'war' on terrorism.

A philosophy of "containing" the radical Islamic threat is simply misguided. Virtually all middle east experts agree that the problem requires a two pronged approach:

a) SHORT-TERM: aggressive, relentless pressure on terrorists and terrorist-enabling countries.

b) LONG-TERM: bringing freedom (and perhaps even democracy) to the middle east so that islamic youth no longer feel economically disenfranchised. It wasn't an arms build-up that brought the Berlin Wall down -- it was the fact that East Berliners could see freedom and economic opportunity every day on West Berlin TV. We need examples of Arab freedom and economic opportunity staring Arab youth in the face. We blew it by not forcing successful Arab economies (such as those under the Saudi royal family, the Shah of Iran, and two-bit thug dictators like Saddam Hussein) to offer real freedom and democratic reforms. So, now we have to start largely from scratch, first in Iraq and, then, when the eventual fall of the radical clerics in Iran takes place.

Iraq and Iran could actually become players in the world economy pretty rapidly. Both were, at one time, very educated and very Western. Both also have the potential for signficant oil revenues to fuel fairly rapid economic growth.

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:01 pm: Edit

InterestedDad, that was an interesting post. I think you are right that the article does contain a number of criticisms of Sen. Kerry. It is comments like these that raised my concern, however:

"He may well have understood the threat from Al Qaeda long before the rest of us. And he may well be right, despite the ridicule from Cheney and others, when he says that a multinational, law-enforcement-like approach can be more effective in fighting terrorists."


I wish someone could come up with a realistic way to counter the Wahhabi brand of Islam which teaches hatred and intolerance of other religions. Saudia Arabia pushes Wahhabism and uses its vast oil revenues to do so. I am not aware of any President who has complained publically about Wahhabism and I doubt complaining would be of any benefit. It may simply anger Saudia Arabia to the point they reduce or cut off oil.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 01:42 am: Edit

>> I wish someone could come up with a realistic way to counter the Wahhabi brand of Islam which teaches hatred and intolerance of other religions.

A major problem in the middle east is that our "allies" have been sitting on their hands for years, failing to present an alternative view of the world in the Muslim community and paying what amounts to "protection" money. Saudi Arabia cut an explicit deal, brokered by Iran, to fund Bin Laden and the other terrorist groups in exchange for a promise to not pursue a radical Islamic overthrow of the Saudi royal family. Pakistan had made similar "bargains".

One of the reasons that I am so opposed to Kerry's "global test" mentality is that our "softness" is precisely what has allowed our so-called allies in the region to undermine efforts to bring some stability to the middle east. This is a "hardball" region. Countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia don't respond to diplomatic nuance.

IMO, Bush's resolve is the ONLY thing that has started to bring Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and some other countries around to actually helping -- not completely, of course, but to an unprecendented degree.

The Middle East experts I've read all agree that a major long-term educational/PR effort is required in the Arab "street". Not only do we have to be willing to make the investment in "democracy" building in the region, but we (and our allies in the region) need to turn around the educational system and counter the Al Jazeera propaganda machine. For all the hand-wringing in the US and European press, the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq ARE a very big deal, symbolically. People with hope in their lives don't strap bombs to themselves. As Rumsfeld puts it so eloquently, only a pretty hardcore "dead-ender" straps a bomb to his waist.

While I think that Bush's advisors fundamentally grasp the short term (aggressive hunting of terrorists and terror-enablers) and long-term ("democracy" and economy building) strategies, I think Bush himself has done a very poor job of selling that vision. I felt even before the Iraqi invasion that his over-emphasis on "WMD" as a rationale was a mistake. Paying $25,000 to families of teenagers who blow themselves up in crowded Israeli streets ought to be enough to pretty clearly identify Saddam as an evil man, even if you overlook his attempted assassination of the President of the United States.

Overthrowing a thug like Sadaam and supporting a return to a economic prosperity in Iraq was simply the right thing to do from a moral standpoint. It is, afterall, our support of freedom that makes the United States what it is. I don't think we need to apologize for that moral high ground and it rubs me the wrong way when Kerry implies that we are somehow the "bad guys" in this equation. The "bad guys" were the government officials in France, Russia, and China accepting bribes under the Oil For Food program to undermine the sanctions.