Kerry’s New York Speech
John Kerry is back on track. He’s often been known as a strong finisher, and it seems like that’s what we’re beginning to see here. His speech at NYU is now considered a turning point, seen as strong, decisive, and capable of steering the issues in this campaign.
He started with a compelling vow on fighting terrorism, noting that he now has the official endorsement of the “Jersey Girls,” the widows of 9/11 victims now famous for dragging Bush, kicking and screaming, into allowing the 9/11 Commission to be formed. Kerry is backing its recommendations (which Bush has been dragging his feet on as well).
In the speech, Kerry focused on his strengths: the potential to form international alliances (in contrast with Bush’s ability to alienate the world against us), necessary if we want to fight effectively. In the wake of 9/11, there is no doubt that Kerry would have cultivated the sympathy and support of the world and used it soundly to implement a profoundly better offensive against al Qaeda, instead of pissing it away and insulting the world while letting a personal war sap our ability to focus on the real and dangerous enemy. Kerry has made it clear (to those who read or hear his entire quotes) that he would not have invaded Iraq. He would only have done so if inspections had shown that Hussein was a threat, and they wouldn’t have. But I digress–back to the speech.
Kerry outlined his ideas for fighting terrorism: strong alliances (vital!), a powerful military (not one sapped by a needless quagmire which has made America unable to fight another war elsewhere), diplomacy, and a true application of American values in the Islamic world (not the abortive attempts by the Bush administration to make a few lame videos and then give up). Bush has failed in all four of these areas, but it is clear that they are invaluable to our security. Kerry can make them happen.
But the cornerstone of Kerry’s speech, and to a great degree what made it so notable–in the media, finally–was his focus on Iraq. Kerry points out what should be obvious, but needs to be pointed out:
- Iraq was not related to terrorism, and diverted our focus away from al Qaeda;
- the Iraq war threatens to be a war with no end in sight;
- we have sacrificed the lives of too many good American soldiers;
- Bush failed to create anything close to a true coalition;
- Iraq is not headed towards freedom or democracy, it is deteriorating into chaos;
- American dead and wounded are rising to record numbers as violent attacks by insurgents soar;
- Bush has ceded large areas to the insurgents, “no go zones”;
- conditions for Iraqis grow worse and worse, with fewer jobs and a destroyed infrastructure;
- Iraqis are not coming to our side, they resent us.
Furthermore, Bush has made “a series of catastrophic decisions” in Iraq:
- Bush lied about why we went to war (he gave 23 different rationales);
- his main rationales (WMD & al Qaeda ties) have been proven false;
- he lied about what it would cost us;
- he lied about what kind of commitment was involved (taking years, hundreds of billions of dollars);
- he lied about forming a true coalition;
- he lied about our chances of success.
Kerry pointed out Bush’s devastating mismanagement of our image in the world, and our current lack of credibility; how our allies used to trust us implicitly (an excellent example in de Gaulle’s trust in Kennedy’s word), and how few would trust Bush today.
Kerry pointed out that seeing the errors Bush made in Iraq is not hindsight, but that all were seen in advance of the war. That’s where he used the now-famous phrase, “colossal failures of judgment.” Among them:
- We’d be greeted as liberators;
- looting would not be a problem;
- Iraq’s infrastructure would not be a problem;
- we had enough troops to handle the aftermath of the invasion;
- we could rely on people like Chalabi;
- the Iraqi police, army, and civil service would be able to take over security functions and run the country.
Kerry goes on to describe how things have deteriorated under Bush:
“Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low.”
North Korea is building nukes, as is Iran; Russian WMD are not secure; Afghanistan is destabilizing. Osama bin Laden is more popular in most places in the Middle East than America is.
And while Osama got away, Bush diverted resources away from fighting al Qaeda so we could invade a country which had not attacked us and posed no real threat.
That’s just the beginning of the speech. I’m not finished here, I’ll be back tomorrow. But I would urge you to read the speech in its entirety–you’ll see why some called it a campaign masterpiece, and you’ll see why the media had little choice but to pick this one up and run with it. It’s got the Kerry campaign energized.
Now we’re cookin’.
Paul
Please delete my last post, as it is in violation of your posting rules. I am sorry for the conduct, but I want to make it known that there is no way the either of these candidates will be able to much about our current affairs, more specifically Kerry will not be able to 1. Do anyhting about the Nukes you refer to, and 2. kerry admittied these observations WERE in hindsight. Thanks.
[prior post deleted at request of author]
Kerry will not be able to 1. Do anyhting about the Nukes you refer to, and 2. kerry admittied these observations WERE in hindsight.1. Kerry could do far more than Bush, just as Clinton did far more than Bush before. Diplomacy is they key, and when that fails, effective containment. That’s why Hussein actually had no nukes, Clinton had effectively contained him, and had kept the North Koreans in check. Bush let Korea go, and Iran is going nuclear on his watch. Kerry would use international influence, nuclear inspectors, and if necessary sanctions to control the nukes. Bush is botching it instead.
2. He did? Kerry said in his NYU speech,This is all the more stunning because we’re not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings… major outside studies… and even some in the administration itself… predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq. Give me the quote about hindsight and cite your sources, please.
Paul:
As promised.
I would love to do that for you, but I cannot at this time remember exactly where I heard it on the radio, nor the date. It is possible that I heard the quote above wrong though, and rather than WAS in hindsight, WASNT is what he said. But truly, how can it not be considered looking back if thats exactly what es doing now. Hwere was he when these proplems first arose and we began a war? He was a SENATOR. I didnt hear him actively combating the legislation and presidential actions.
Wilson:I would love to do that for you, but I cannot at this time remember exactly where I heard it on the radio, nor the date.Have you heard of Google? Search for “Kerry” and “hindsight.” Simple enough. But I won’t do your homework for you. It is possible that I heard the quote above wrong though, and rather than WAS in hindsight, WASNT is what he said.Most likely. The speech is there for you to read, in its entirety; I gave the only quote where the word “hindsight” was used.But truly, how can it not be considered looking back if thats exactly what es doing now. Hwere was he when these proplems first arose and we began a war? He was a SENATOR. I didnt hear him actively combating the legislation and presidential actions.Because you weren’t listening. At the time, October 9, 2002, Kerry said:”Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days – to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out “tough, immediate” inspections requirements and to “act with our allies at our side” if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.As for the dangers of fighting a war, the quotes are far too numerous to post here. Lots of people were predicting the dangers and folly of going into Iraq. Hell, even I predicted many of them, on August 27th, 2002! I wrote:First is international support. There is none. A coalition is vital to carrying out an armed conflict in the Middle East, and not only is there no coalition, but it appears that at this point, a coalition would be impossible to form. This is primarily due to Bush Jr.’s poisoning of the well; from the start, he has disrespected world opinion, breaking treaties left and right, and has pushed forth self-serving agendas without any concern that it was generating outrage around the globe. Add to this the fact that Bush started promising war on Iraq without any consultation with our allies, and you have an atmosphere in which no one would want to support us.
The immediately obvious repercussion of the go-it-alone strategy is cost: This war could easily cost $80 billion, probably much more than that. Bush Jr. has already snatched a huge deficit from the jaws of a surplus, and the country can ill-afford to pay for a costly war all by itself. We’re already in big budget trouble, helping to push us into deeper into recession, but a war paid for by the U.S. alone could aggravate the national debt substantially; Bush Jr., in just the course of a few years, could erase more than a decade of red-ink recovery and send us into deficits that would dwarf those of the 80’s.
But the cost would not simply be financial: we would also pay in terms of lost reputation, international respect and influence in world affairs. This is hard and vital currency for the United States, and its value would be decimated if Bush Jr. started a conflict in the Middle East that everyone, even his own people, disagreed with. Future presidents would be saddled by the body blow to our prestige, likely needing decades to repair the damage and to rebuild worldwide confidence and trust. This kind of irresponsible action could remove us from our already precarious seat of world leadership. …
Contrary to the rosy the-Arabs-will-love-us-for-saving-them pipe dream that Cheney has been hawking, the Arab people do not and never have reacted kindly to U.S. intervention, even when their governments allow it; should we go in with everyone opposing us, tempers will flare further still. Cheney argued that “extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad.” Is he truly so utterly naive? An unsupported attack by America on an Arab nation would generate such fear and hostility in so many people that extremists would be swamped with volunteers willing to die for their cause. It would fire the call for a greater jihad, not frighten the extremists into impotency. Conflict is the friend of the terrorist. …
And then we come to the end game: what is the exit strategy? How long will it take? How many Iraqis (whom the Bush Jr. administration claims to be acting to benefit) will we end up killing? How long will our troops be there? How deeply will we become involved in rooting out everyone there who violently disagrees with our occupation? And how will the nation-building succeed? What guarantees do we have that the moment we extract ourselves, another Saddam Hussein won’t pop up again and bring us back to square one? As far as I can determine, not a single one of these questions has been answered.So before Bush even got congressional approval, 7 or 8 months before the invasion, here I was, no expert in international affairs, predicting (1) the dangers of not having a solid coalition, (2) the costs, (3) loss of American credibility, (4) increase in Arab hostility to the U.S. and a surge in applicants to al Qaeda, (5) the unanswered questions about an exit strategy, and (6) the morass of insurgency and the impossibility of nation-building. If just an average Joe like me can figure all that out, why couldn’t Bush? And there were many, many people saying these things and far more.
So, can you refute any of this, or are you ready to admit that Kerry has it right?
It’s suddenly gotten very quiet in here, hasn’t it?
After watching things, I think it’s going to come down to the debates. Kerry needs to seriously score some points on Bush there, and I’m really really really hoping he will.
Kerry’s campaign has finally figured out what to do about the Swift Boat Liars for Truth; more or less dismiss and ignore them. The group came out with some new ads, with even more ridiculous claims (like that Kerry “secretly” met with North Vietnamese officials in Paris when he was open about his trip and when scads of peace activists and journalists were occasionally talking to both South and North Vietnamese officals.)
Kerry’s campaign appears to now be taking a tack I approve of; blow off the accusations as ridiculous and obviously stupid/false, and keep hammering home on the things that matter.
Iraq.
The economy.
The federal budget.
The cost of stuff, like health care and gasoline and groceries.
Jobs.
The really ironic thing about this campaign is that terrorism isn’t really much of an issue, despite the Administration’s attempts to MAKE it an issue.
I expect us to go to “orange” nationally at least once, if not more often, before the election. In fact, given some of the news balloons that are being floated, I think we’re going to see them make it “orange” immediately before the election… and blame the election itself as the causal factor.
Of course, it’ll all be referenced to “chatter” and so forth, and the worst bit of it all is that we’ll probably never know if it was real (which is a possibility) or if it’s false (given this Adminstration, also a possibility).
Paul