Yes, I'm writing a post kind of defending Kerry. I think it dramatically illustrates the differences between the two candidates.
In the debate, Kerry proposed:
I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes.
Now most people, especially conservatives, reaction was something like: Give Iran nuclear material? Are you insane? They definitely have a point, because the fact is, we don't really want Iran to have any nuclear material at all with their current government. For one thing, we don't want terrorists to be able to build a dirty bomb, that is, a conventional bomb tied to some sort of radioactive material. From my wife's experience with a recent train accident attests, radiation seriously freaks people out. (read here and here).
That's not quite the point. The issue with Iran has always been that they claim that they want to build a nuclear reactor for "peaceful" purposes. Its just that no one believes them. What Kerry is proposing is calling their bluff by offering them nuclear fuel for free, which they could use only in their nuclear reactor.
Here's where we get to the difference between Senator Kerry and President Bush. Kerry needs this proof in order to keep the granola and Birkenstocks crowd quiet in his own party. This faction in his party is going to seriously cripple his foreign policy, because they insist on being beaten over the head with the obvious. No one seriously believed even before the recent announcements by Iran that they wanted a nuclear reactor to more cheaply make electricity. For one thing, they produce oil. Its ten times cheaper for them to produce electricity using that then it every would be for them to use nuclear energy. It's never made any sense for them to have a nuclear reactor, so its always been obvious that it was part of a weapons program. They have a name for people who believe Iran wanted a nuclear reactor for "electricity": morons.
So while Kerry feels its important to call this non-existent bluff to keep the bland pacifism in his own party at bay, President Bush has never really bothered. Everyone already knows, that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, and at some point, the US (or hopefully Russia) will have to shut them down.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure Kerry (or any other Democrat) is up to the task, because foreign policy means dealing with uncomfortable truths. President Bush may be a bit of a cowboy, and he may piss off our allies sometimes, but he's actually been pretty effective.
Comments (3)
So, where’s the defence of Kerry?
Posted by Ivan Ivanovich | October 5, 2004 9:03 AM
Posted on October 5, 2004 09:03
Yes. Effective. Unless of course you think that “effective” includes securing loose nukes in Russia or preventing North Korea from getting nukes.
Look, I think Pres. Bush’s style could be effective. He knows how to swing a big stick. It’s just that he doesn’t know how to talk softly. I was disappointed at his election, but heartened when he chose Colin Powell for State. But he only calls on him once he’s blown it listening to his chickenhawks.
He irritates and antagonizes everyone, and not just sometimes. Massive swaths of the US public are foaming at the mouth to give him a pink slip (otherwise why would Kerry’s campaign be alive at all?)
I try to give the right a fair chance. I think there’s got to be some truth in any widely adopted worldview, or people wouldn’t take it. So I seek out the truth from all factions. Kerry’s similar approach has led to the “flipflop” allegations from the right (and unquestioned repetition by the media). But for all their espousal of a “marketplace of ideas” they’re not actually interested in hearing the truth the other side has to offer.
It’s really a result of Bush’s executive experience. He claims to conduct harsh debates internally, but then doesn’t use that same approach externally. The facts of the world are that we are more interrelated, interdependant and thus dependant on our allies for victory in the war on terror. Kerry’s experience in foreign policy and diplomacy are crucial to our success.
Posted by Whatever | October 5, 2004 9:19 AM
Posted on October 5, 2004 09:19
Well, Whatever, you say a lot of things I agree with. We do need to both swing a big stick, and speak softly. Where perhaps we disagree is that Kerry doesn’t seem to be able to swing the stick. I think that President Bush has shown the ability to speak softly, the news just tends to emphasize the stick over the speaking softly.
Take the two things you bring up: Nukes in North Korea, and loose nukes in Russia.
North Korea basically periodically has tried to blackmail us. It worked with the Clinton administration, we gave them money, and two nuclear reactors, and they promised not to develop nuclear weapons. Then then used that money to help fund their nuclear development…
President Bush had one great insight here: involve China and Russia. That seems to me to be a prime example of speaking softly by President Bush. Yet Kerry’s alternative is to go back to the failed policy of the Clinton administration.
On to Russia, loose nukes are a problem, but unfortunately, the program that Kerry wants to increase funding for is the same one he says would take 12 years to complete. The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction became a way for the Russians to bilk us for millions.
Half the problem I have with Kerry is not what he says, but because “we’ve been down that road before, we know where it leads”. Kerry seems to believe that if he was it charge, he could do the same things Clinton did, but somehow they would magically work this time.
Some links for you:
Nunn-Lugar North Korea
Though if you are really interested in intelligent discussion of the issues, you can’t beat a subscription to Foreign Affairs
Posted by Opinionated Bastard![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.opinionatedbastard.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 5, 2004 10:24 AM
Posted on October 5, 2004 10:24