Kerry campaign tries a new
rearguard strategy.
Posted on 10/05/2004 10:25:35 AM PDT by NorCoGOP
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- One debate down, two to go. We all know President George W. Bush isn't eloquent -- and now we know Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., can be. But if a man's message was less important than how well he said it, then Jesse Jackson would have been president by now.
What is important is what was said ... and Kerry said plenty.
Both of the candidates' strategies to get out of Iraq are nearly indistinguishable from each other -- more training, more security, Iraqi self-governance, etc. The compelling differences in their respective policies concern the rest of the world.
One of the largest points of contention in last Thursday's debate on foreign policy was how to deal with Kim Jong Il's Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea (DPRK) and its nuclear program. Kerry pushed for bilateral talks with the despotic regime, while Bush reiterated his conviction that the ongoing multilateral diplomacy involving the Japanese, Russians, South Koreans and -- most importantly -- the Chinese, was the best method to deal with them.
So why is China so vital?
As the president mentioned, China has certain "leverage" with North Korea -- something we do not have. For simplification, think of China as North Korea's big brother in the global family.
The most prominent example of this fraternal bond is China's involvement in the Korean War. In that conflict, according to "Facts on File World Political Almanac: 1945-Present," the Chinese suffered 900,000 casualties in 32 months of fighting to protect the North Korean regime. Although the two nations may not always agree, the DPRK must respect the Chinese and listen to them when they have something to say.
China does not wish to tamper with the often tenuous Sino-American relationship if they do not have to. The risks of doing so -- e.g., a second Cold War or WWIII -- are outweighed considerably by the trade benefits of cooperation with the U.S. and diplomatic standing in the rest of the world. For these reasons and more, having China's influence and support at the table with North Korea is absolutely vital to American and global interests.
On the other hand, if we deal with North Korea one-on-one as Kerry plans to do, we are likely to end up with another broken anti-proliferation treaty like we had under the Clinton Administration -- or worse. (President Clinton gave the DPRK $1 billion in aid in return for a pledge to halt their nuclear weapons program. In 2002, North Korea announced they had, in fact, made great strides in their attempts to become a nuclear power.)
But apparently, Kerry has a "plan" for everything. He plans to plan "summits" to set out plans and useless documents that we plan to abide by while we can only hope others do.
Plans are important, mind you, but they should lead to something other than more plans.
However, what troubled me personally about the debate was Kerry's deference to the rest of the world (i.e., Western Europe).
All too convenient was Kerry's dodge of the president's claim that the senator supports U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is a transnational tribunal that answers to no authority but its own. If we would join, we would then forfeit our sovereign right as Americans to supervise our military and political leaders as we see fit. Such a venture is absolutely unacceptable.
Also, Kerry mentioned a "global test" for use of preemptive military action by the U.S.
The President and government of the U.S. are answerable first, last, and only to the people of the U.S. Period. There is no test or superceding global interest that comes before our own people, ever.
While our leaders should be respectful of the rest of the world, they should never defer our safety or sovereignty to it.
FTCF PING
I thought Bush won because of the substance of his answers, not the quality with which he delivered it. Some of Kerry's answers were so wrong such as the global test and unilateral talks with N. Korea, that he lost the debate. A smooth talker is someone who can sell you a bridge in NY.
I think the prez did a great job on the debate. He talked to the American public. He formulated his opinions and is criticized about his hesitancy. His hesitancy is better than say "uh" or "uhm". He was eloquent in his answers and honesty. Why harangue him? Ketchupman's makeup made him look like a French whore. He kept sucking up to the moderator, saying effect "to h*ll with the American people." He cheated with his notecards he slyly stuffed back in his pocket. His wife appears to can't stand being near him and wiped his kiss from her lips. Sheesh!
Lots of facts and quotes about the president-wannabe at the John F. Kerry Timeline.
.
Kerry campaign tries a new
rearguard strategy.
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
