Fascinating article for this Sunday’s NYTimes magazine, covering a much larger and more realistic context of Kerry’s views of “The War on Terror”. This is what is missing from American political discourse.
The article does not shy away from revealing how Kerry often exudes defensiveness and paranoia about ulterior motives of the press (including toward this interviewer)
I’m about half way through, and it’s great.
Kerry’s theories on global affairs were just too complex for the electorate and would have been ignored — or, worse yet, mangled — by the press…..This is, of course, a common Democratic refrain: Republicans sound more coherent because they see the world in such a rudimentary way, while Democrats, 10 steps ahead of the rest of the country, wrestle with profound policy issues that don’t lend themselves to slogans. By this reasoning, any proposal that can be explained concisely to voters is, by definition, ineffective and lacking in gravitas.
Example of the kind of analysis and serious talk (as opposed to “sound bite strategy” that we hear on the campaign trail…..any sound coherent strategy will not be compressed into the ADD-riddled American public debate):
By infuriating allies and diminishing the country’s international esteem, Kerry argued, Bush had made it impossible for America to achieve its goals abroad. By the simple act of changing presidents, the country would greatly increase its chances of success in the global war on terror. Both candidates, in fact, were suggesting that the main difference between them was one of leadership style and not policy; just as Bush had taken to arguing that Kerry was too inconstant to lead a nation at war, Kerry’s critique centered on the idea that Bush had proved himself too stubborn and arrogant to represent America to the rest of the world.
Experience:
Beginning in the late 80’s, Kerry’s Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations investigated and exposed connections between Latin American drug dealers and BCCI, the international bank that was helping to launder drug money. That led to more investigations of arms dealers, money laundering and terrorist financing.
Prior examples of Kerry’s being fit for duty:
Other measures Kerry tried to pass throughout the 90’s, virtually all of them blocked by Republican senators on the banking committee, would end up, in the wake of 9/11, in the USA Patriot Act; among other things, these measures subject banks to fines or loss of license if they don’t take steps to verify the identities of their customers and to avoid being used for money laundering.
which makes Kerry “incapable” of carrying out such massive negelect as the Bush administration did in their first 9 months of office leading to 9/11; neglect that led Al Franken to call this tactic “Operation ignore”.
I have this in my queue of links to read right now. I probably won’t get to it for a day or two, though– I have a *huge* deadline looming over my head. I’m working all weekend to try and meet it.
It’s good to have you back, btw 🙂
Eric,
Thanks for the welcome back. I had a lot of catch up blogging to do. I guess that might explain the intensity of my shrillness. THat and the debate series beginning , and hearing all the pundits and spins by the Bushies, and seeing polls show a bounce for Bush today (at least on Rasmussen— and the huge obnoxious sign next door, and the fact that theese people are “Church people” and Southern Baptist, which adds to the disgust (I never get used to it— even after 20 years— really 25 I guess, since I remember the summer of 79 and the SBC electing their first “fundamentalist takeover leader” as president, and I was working under an obnoxious conservative pastor in a summer youth postion that summer here in Nashville, while I was at school at Southern.
Dale