While I'm willing to wait for what Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry's foreign policy will look like in September, there are distubing suggestions that it is Carter's redux: there's nothing that talking can't achieve! There was a time, not too long ago, that I admired Carter. He boldly proclaimed that the US ought to uphold the banner of "human rights!" while Reagan and Bush (I) made meaningless military interventions like Grenada or Panama. What changed? 9/11: suddenly Carter's attempt to purchase the goodwill of Muslims by letting Iran go fundamentalist looks like the worst of bargains - and who here will gainsay my switch? Lawrence Kaplan picks up the thread: what would Kerry do about Iran, in the New Republic- "Kerry's advisers would do well to take a closer look at their own candidate's stance toward Iran. It is not hard to discern. But it is hard to defend. "At times, Kerry seems to be taking his cues from Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential run, sounding as though he's blasting his opponent from the right while he quietly offers up solutions from the left. Nowhere is this truer than in the case of Iran, where, when you strip away Kerry's hard-boiled rhetoric about preventing the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon, what the candidate offers is a facsimile of the Clinton-era policy of 'engagement.' Likening the Islamic Republic to a much less dangerous threat from long ago, Kerry seeks to 'explore areas of mutual interest with Iran, just as I was prepared to normalize relations with Vietnam.' Hence, Kerry says he 'would support talking with all elements of the government,' or, as his principal foreign policy adviser Rand Beers has elaborated, the United States must engage Iran's 'hard-line element'--this, while the candidate tells The Washington Post he will downplay democracy promotion in the region. In fact, as part of this normalization process, Kerry has recommended hammering out a deal with Teheran a la the Clinton administration's doomed bargain with North Korea, whereby the United States would aid the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for safeguards that would presumably keep the program peaceful. To sweeten the deal, he has offered to throw in members of the People's Mujahedeen, the Iranian opposition group being held under lock and key by U.S. forces in Iraq. "Nor will you hear any of Kerry's foreign policy advisers calling for regime change in Iran, at least any time soon. Beers has long insisted on engaging the Islamic Republic, as have Kerry advisers Richard Holbrooke and Madeline Albright. " http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=kaplan072304 My comment: If Kerry promises to lose Iran a second time, what would become of our blood and treasure spent on Iraq and Afghanistan? --Orson
Kerry in the NYTimes "In an interview on Friday laying out the framework for the Democratic convention starting here on Monday, Mr. Kerry pointed to his military record and criticized Mr. Bush's terrorism policies in declaring that he would challenge the president on what polls suggest is Mr. Bush's greatest strength. Mr. Kerry said 'it takes time' for a challenger to gain public confidence on such issues, but said he was 'not worried about that.' "To demonstrate his point, he reached for a copy of the Sept. 11 commission report that was issued on Thursday, which he brought to the interview, and said that if he is elected he will carry out most of the report's recommendations right away." Hooh boy! Uncritical acceptance of an institutional CYA - THAT'S IMPROVEMENT!?!?!? --Orson
Hi Orson, While I generally agree with you politically, I have to say John Kerry cannot hold a candle to Jimmy Carter. Iwould vote for Carter over Kerry (and most other Democrats) any day of the week. At least Carter didn't flip flop on issues every time he turned around and at least he has core values.
An outsider looking in but..... I wonder if a properly done study of Democrat foreign policy wouldn't show a strong correlation with a drunk bouncing off the right and left walls while maneuvering down a hallway?
