Brownstein:Kerry Skips Nuance on Mideast When Needed Most

[DeepModem Mom]

Los Angeles Times:

Ronald Brownstein
Washington Outlook
Kerry Skips Nuance on Mideast Policy When It's Needed Most


Terse isn't the first word usually applied to Sen. John F. Kerry's disquisitions on foreign policy. At a town meeting just before January's New Hampshire primary, Kerry wandered through nearly five minutes of agonized ambivalence when a fellow Vietnam veteran asked him why he supported the war in Iraq....

***

But Kerry was a model of unambiguous concision the other day when he was asked about Bush's meeting this month with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon....Bush's meeting with Sharon seemed precisely the sort of unilateral, headstrong gesture that Kerry has in mind when he accuses Bush of pursuing the most arrogant and ideological foreign policy in U.S. history.

So jaws dropped across Washington when Kerry responded with just one word after host Tim Russert asked him on "Meet the Press" whether he supported Bush's promises to Sharon.

"Yes," Kerry said....

***

The reassuring lesson (re. Kerry's "thinking") is that Kerry isn't captive to international opinion. Kerry constantly accuses Bush of isolating America by ignoring the views of others. But Kerry's response to the Bush-Sharon initiative signaled that he doesn't value world opinion so much that he won't confront it when he considers it misplaced....

***

The troubling aspect of Kerry's response was that he failed to recognize — or at least acknowledge — (the "critical point" of direct talks with Palestinians). Perhaps Kerry feared a backlash from Jewish donors and voters if he complained about freezing out the Palestinians. Perhaps he saw no advantage in opening any daylight with the president over Israel....


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outlook26apr26,1,215349.column?coll=la-home-nation

[aquart]

1. I take it Kerry didn't say what Brownstein wanted to hear.

Bush has the vote of those Jews who favor screwing the Palestinians at every opportunity.

Kerry has the vote of American Jews who identify more strongly as Americans than Jews.

The Palestinian vote in America is bupkis. Arabs who vote for Bush should be examined for suicidal impulses. Arabs who spend any real time helping out Palestinians is very tiny indeed.

So why, exactly, is it important for Kerry to open his mouth on this issue? Because the liberals won't vote for him if he's mean to the Palestinians? Suuuuuuuuuuuure. Except for the deranged egotists who vote for Nader because they still don't get the situation, all sane Americans have one choice: Kerry.

He gets nothing for discussing what makes nobody happy.

[DaveSZ]

3. Kerry is a brillian man

He knows how to play this game.

I hope once he's in he returns to the Clinton/Carter/Bush 1 balanced approach.

[still_one]

5. bush is using the Jews in America

I still believe the Jewish vote will go to Kerry, no matter how they try to distort his position

[still_one]

2. Brownstein is an ASS

First you can not sum up Kerry's response with one word. Second and most important, I did not see the LA times or Brownstein critisizing bush's position, just Kerrys.

Doesn't that seem odd to anyone.

In that interview Russert was essentially talking about Hamas, and indicated that hamas revoked destruction of the state of Israel, that he believes negotiations could resume.

The press will try to play this as a black and white issue, but for 3 and one half years bush was not engaged. In fact he ignored the situation, and would not take over negotiations where Clinton left off. This will not happen with Kerry. He has to get in first. If he doesn't we will be in a full scale religious war for the next one hundred years under bush. Is that what you want for you children?

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Well, he did offer some Bush criticism, in an article...

long on criticism of Kerry:

"....But Clinton offered Israel these concessions in a negotiation that also provided important benefits to the Palestinians, such as land swaps inside Israel's borders. The most telling criticism of Bush's maneuver — from critics abroad and in the United States — is that he reached these understandings with Sharon without including the Palestinians in the discussions. Bush did note that the issues could only be resolved permanently through direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians. But on critical questions, he seemed to prejudge the results of those negotiations. That threatens America's credibility as a broker between the two sides...."