Friedman: Kerry, not Bush, can deliver the most crucial comments on Iraq (Kerry undermines US)

The Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 02/17/2004 | Thomas Friedman

[e_castillo]

The situation in Iraq is fast approaching the tipping point. The terrorists know that if they can wreak enough havoc, kill enough Iraqis waiting in line to join their own police force, they can prevent the United Nations from coming up with a plan for elections and a stable transfer of U.S. authority to an Iraqi government. Once authority is in Iraqi hands, the Baathists and Islamists have a real problem: They can't even pretend to be fighting the United States anymore. It will be clear to all Arabs and Muslims that they are fighting against the freedom and independence of Iraq and for their own lunatic ideologies. Which is why they are desperate to prevent us from reaching that tipping point. Their strategy is to sow chaos, defeat President Bush and hope that his Democratic successor will pull out. Which is also why at this moment the most important statement on Iraq that can be made -- one that could even save lives -- is nothing Bush could say. No, the most important statement on Iraq right now could only come from the likely Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry.

Imagine that Tim Russert followed his excellent interview with Bush with an interview Sunday with Kerry. Here's what I hope it would sound like. Russert: "Sen. Kerry, you essentially voted in favor of the war, but argued that the way the Bush team carried it out was deeply flawed. Well, now we're there. Tell the American people how you would deal with Iraq going forward."

Kerry: "Tim, before I answer that question, I first want to direct a message to the die-hard Baathists and Islamo-fascists who've been slaughtering Iraqis struggling to build their first democratic government. And my message to these terrorists is this: 'READ MY LIPS -- if I am president, I will not cut and run. I will not pull our troops out in the face of your intimidation the way Ronald Reagan fled from Lebanon.' Because that panicky retreat from Beirut in 1984 started us down this whole path, where terrorists believed if they hit us hard enough, we would run and they would get away with it. I hate how George Bush has prosecuted this war. I know I could do better. But I want every suicide bomber -- from Bali to Baghdad -- to understand one thing about a Kerry administration: 'You can blow yourselves up from now until next Ramadan, but we'll still be in Iraq. You'll be dead, but we'll still be there. Which part of that sentence don't you understand?'

"I don't say this to be macho-man, Tim. I'm not George Bush. I say this because it's the best way to save American and Iraqi lives. You see, Tim, I identify so strongly with my band of brothers and sisters wearing the American uniform in Iraq. The best way to endanger them is to suggest to the terrorists that there is daylight between me and President Bush -- that if he won't run, I will. Well, there is no daylight on ends. A Kerry administration will see that Iraqis get every chance to produce their own representative government.

"But there is daylight on means. You see, Tim, if I were president, I would insist that we have a real policy of energy conservation to enlist every American in this war, by asking each of us to choke off some of the funds going to the Islamist totalitarians. I would immediately invite the leaders of the U.N., Germany, France and NATO to Camp David to rebuild the alliance that won the Cold War, so we have the staying power to win this war of ideas in the Muslim world. And I would have my secretary of state out in the Middle East regularly, arguing our case, bolstering our allies and trying to bring about a secure peace for Israelis and Palestinians.

"Oh yes, Tim, my means would be very different. Unlike the Bush team, I understand that just because you have a hammer, not every problem is a nail. It takes more than force to win a war of ideas. But on ends, Tim, let no one have any illusions: a Kerry presidency will pay any price and bear any burden to try to build a decent Iraqi regime in the heart of the Arab world. My making that commitment now is the best way to prove to the terrorists that their actions are futile, and in that way save American and Iraqi lives. Failure to make that commitment would have horrific consequences for U.S. foreign policy.

"Tim, I am no dreamer. I've seen a quagmire close up. We can't want a unified, decent Iraq more than the Iraqis themselves. Ultimately, they will have to step up and come together around a plan and a leader. But the terrorists should have no illusions, and the Iraqi people should have no fears: America under John Kerry will give them every chance to succeed. We will not run."

[e_castillo]

Hmmm... I think this wont happen any time soon

[RightWingConspirator]

The terrorist problem began in 1978 when Jimmie Carter yanked the rug out from under the Shah. This allowed the Ayatollah Khomeni and his band of rabble to take over the country--and the US Embassy in 1979. Then there was the abortive Navy-run attempt to free the hostages. The whole Carter cowardly approach to world affairs only emboldened the terrorists and led to the Beirut terror bombing.

[demnomo]

Friedman is desperately trying to give Kerry some hints.

Ha!

[Elmer Gantry]

File this column in the naive and stupid bin. Kerry already voted to cut and run from Iraq.

[rellimpank]

----Limbaugh suggested this to the entire group of Demotraitor dimwits about two months ago as the patriotic and ssensible thing to do---

[LibLieSlayer]

Amen my Brutha!

LLS

[GulliverSwift]

But the column does raise a good point. In fact, I believe that John Kerry would have attacked Iraq (though not as well) just as Bush has.

The only reason that the Eurotrash governments didn't support this war was that it was being waged by a Republican who doesn't spend his time bootlicking Euroweenies and who happens to be a conservative ("far right" in their view). Had Bush been a Democrat, they'd have lined up a long time ago.

Friedman has been very good at trying to get Democrats to have an actual foreign policy other than "Bush sucks! What he says is bad!" (Which, is no policy at all, of course.)

[jackbill]

Hey, Tom, Kerry is running for President, not you.

Shut your pie-hole.

[LibLieSlayer]

"The only reason that the Eurotrash governments didn't support this war was that it was being waged by a Republican.....".

Then there are those pesky ole "oil credits"!

LLS

[Shermy]

Imagine that Tim Russert followed his excellent interview with Bush with an interview Sunday with Kerry. Here's what I hope it would sound like

Mr. Friedman is disingenuous. Kerry has made his criticisms known. He has often opined that France should be brought in, and that Bush insulted France, etc.

[bpjam]

I'm sorry, but what right wing journalist could do this and not get completely written off as being in the tank for W. A reporter actually writing script for a candidate? I guess there really is no wall between the press and (democrat) politics.

[okie01]

"But the column does raise a good point. In fact, I believe that John Kerry would have attacked Iraq (though not as well) just as Bush has."

I very much doubt that. On his own, Kerry may have gone as far as Clinton, lobbing a few cruise missiles into Baghdad, claimed victory...and quit.

He may not have gone that far, though. Kerry is even more of a poseur than Clinton. "Talking tough" may have been the extent of his repertoire.

Had Kerry been President, the UN sanctions would've been lifted by now...and Saddam would've had his WMD apparatus back up and running.

Then, where would we be...???

Repeat after me:
"Liberals cannot be trusted with executive power"
"Liberals cannot be trusted with executive power"
"Liberals cannot be trusted with executive power"
"Liberals cannot be trusted with executive power"
Et cetera...

[conservative_crusader]

let us pray that although we may have a special distaste for Mr.Kerry that he would see the integrity in this approach. I am not particularly fond of the man. He has at this point insulted most if not all of what I believe in. however, I try to keep in mind the possibility that people can change. And I know this may be novel or extreme, but God institutes all forms of Government,(or so I have been taught) If Mr.Kerry is elected it is our duty to stand behind the policies of his administration. Having said that, It is still February and only time will tell If this man has the guts to stick his neck out and say something so bold and daring.

Mr.Kerry If you read this I want you to know this above all else...

BRING...IT...ON. this is my challenge to any democrat. back up what you say, if not with force, then with some kind of action. (voting down defense spending bills will come back to haunt you.)

James writes to the twelve tribes of Israel In his famous epistle:

Chapter 2:14 What good is it my brothers if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? can such faith save him?...18 But someone will say "you have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds and I will show you my faith by what I do. 19 You believe that there is one God? good even the Demons believe that and shudder. 20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?... 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.



I can only wonder if Mr.Kerry were elected would it be a blessing or a curse. at the moment Im leaning toward the latter quite strongly. If he is elected I pray he proves me wrong.

[GulliverSwift]

I never said that he'd have invaded it. He'd have done something, though. Because as a Democrat, he needs to protect the legacy of Clinton. Clinton let Saddam fester and even Kerry would have done something (no matter how poorly) to address it.

It's dangerous to our country that one of the two major political parties has no foreign policy positions aside from "get the UN involved," which means absolutely nothing since our country would have to present some sort of position at the debate. I applaud Friedman for trying to kick his fellow Dims in the rear and wake them up to reality. It's a rarity these days coming from a committed Democrat.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

If he said this right now, Howierd Dean would soon regain frontrunner status. Besides, I don't think Kerry will ever have the spine to take such a position. Since his return from Nam he's been nothing but a bootlicker to the liberal elite, who will disown him should he act like a man and a patriot.

[e_castillo]

I think this goes beyond simple posturing for Kerry. They have to get the core of the democratic party in line behind the leader and this is how they have always done it.

Wasn't it LBJ who ran the commercials with the little girl getting blown up in a nuclear fireball insinuating that Goldwater would start a nuclear war in trying to win in Vietnam..

[VadeRetro]

I think this wont happen any time soon

The Dems would howl if he said anything like that.

[Unam Sanctam]

Friedman supported the war but he is so, so, so embarassed vis-a-vis all his liberal friends as being on the same side as the hated George Bush that he always has to slip in a Bush slam in practically every article.

[hershey]

Just reading Kerry's rant makes my hair stand on end.

[Brilliant]

Friedman has no clue. He has a good imagination, though.