Compare Kerry's well thought out comments on National Secuity to Bayh's

[karynnj]

While on the National Journal cite, referenced in the FUN FOR KERRY LOVERS thread, I found this piece by Senator Bayh on National Security. It is not very impressive - as his name comes up as a potential competitor, I thought it would be ok to post.

Excerpts:

"Some in my party are afraid of this fight. They urge that we change the subject to domestic issues that work better for Democrats. Others argue that it is wrong to inject "politics" into something as important as National Security.

I strongly disagree."

(comment: Did he think at all about the inference of the 4th sentence following the 3rd?)
<snip>

"We need a foreign policy that is both tough...and smart. The good news? That it is the historic legacy of the Democratic Party. It is a legacy we must now reclaim. "

(comment: Wasn't there a taller, more charismatic Democrat who used the first sentence a lot.)

<snip>
"It was Democrats who fought tyranny in all of its manifestations. Augusto Pinochet in Chile. Apartheid in South Africa. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Communism in Eastern Europe. "

(comment:The Vietnamese not us fought the Khmer Rouge, and we didn't fight apartheid - other than through sanctions, though a woman who should be first lady protested it in S.A., the Republicans would claim that Reagan (not the Democrats) defeated communism in eastern Europe. Did we fight Pinochet?)

<snip>

"And, Iran, "the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world," may be only months away from having the capacity to build a nuclear bomb"

(Comment: There are many estimates of the time frame from experts, but I've seen none that are "months" , unless the number of months could range to say 60.)

Here's the link:
http://newpoliticalreview.com/article.php?id=63

Oh well I just ruled out another candidate for 2nd choice - who I had thought might be a more experienced "Warner", essentially an ex-Governor of a Southern state (in spite of geography) who also had national experience. (I may have to stick with Feingold)

[JohnKleeb]

1. I can't believe it but I agree with Bayh

I know about Reagan opposing sanctions on South Africa, the Nixon's administration's installment of Pinochet.Also if they do try to use the crap that Reagan alone won the Cold War, we can talk about things like the Marshall Plan. It's odd but in a way I identify with the Cold War Liberal mindset even though communism isn't around anymore.

[karynnj]

2. Those are Republican bad actions

My only point was that Bayh's comment there overstated what Deemocrats did. We did next to nothing on Cambodia (other than destabalizing Prince Sihanouk's neutral regime). Although our sanctions likely hurt, we don't get credit for Mandella's success. On Chile, there is reason to think that we were behind the overthrow (and maybe murder) of Allende under Nixon that led to Pinochet. Democrats didn't like Pinochet but I don't know if we got him eout of power.

[JohnKleeb]

3. Right

I thikn the pepole of South Africa deserve credit for Mandela. Yeah youre right it is overstated.

[TayTay]

4. The Bushies decry the realists in foreign policy

and they despise the 'foreign policy establishment' that pushes that realism. This is one of the reasons that they hated Sen. Kerry so much as they saw him as vulnerable, post 9/11 to being a member of that old style, and to them discredited, view of foreign affairs. (Sen. Kerry's Dad was even more of a realist then he is. His book is pretty dry and cynical when it comes to any actions that the US takes that actually cause good and lasting change in other parts of the world.)

Fukuyama, in his recent book tour and 'confessions' about what went wrong in Iraq is still loath to completely give up the 'Bush Doctrine' of pre-emptive action. I think he is still a neo-con to some degree, only one who has tasted bitter defeat and seen how woefully inadequate the neo-con plan for Iraq really was. (It is hard to believe that 3 years ago the neo-cons were convinced that the entire Middle East was just a house of cards waiting for an American push to collapse and that the rebuilding effort would so easily favor America. That is the bill of goods we were sold.)

The naysayers on DU and elsewhere can debate what Sen. Kerry's vote meant back in 2002, but it is dead cold certain that he never bought into this neo-con bullshit. He knew, from personal experience, that it is never that easy to push a regime to change. Kerry is much too much of a realist to have ever bought that bullshit.

[JohnKleeb]

5. Fukiyama is a name I know from my International Realtions class

The man is a neo-conservative, Project For a New American Century and all that bloody nonsese, Ive heard that he opposed the war in Iraq. His end of history view is pretty crappy and simplistic which most of us in my International Relations clsas agreed. My professor seemed to be a big believer in Samuel Huntington's Clash of Cultures which I need to read more on, we only discussed this briefly because we discussed Vietnam soon after that, Detterence Theory, and DIplomacy. I think you're right about Kerry and his fahter's approach to foreign policy, I don't really have a name for what I would be considered in foreign policy, in a way I am dovish but sometimes I feel sorta hawkish.

[TayTay]

6. You can take a brief trip to Wonkville here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations

and start sorting out the theoretical players. Fukuyama has renounced his view of te world prior to the Iraq invasion and the subsequent morasse of the Iraq situation. He no longer believes in that view of the world or believes that it's that easy to change the world.

He has not renounced the entire PNAC world view that America is the preeminent player on the world stage and that we have that special ability to move all the levers of the world, all the time. Ah, I think that theory has fallen apart, particularly since the chief effect of the Iraq War so far has been to reveal the weaknesses in our military to the world. Sigh! We are far less secure after the invastion of Iraq than we were before and our enemies know this. The neo-cons revealed it to them. Sigh!

[JohnKleeb]

7. Too bad that didnt happen while i took the course

The "End of History" view that he argued was to osimplistic for me. I am glad he's changed his mind about this, I actually did see some of him being interviewed on a TV show some time ago.

[TayTay]

8. Aside from theJokes, the single most interesting thing

that came out of that Boston Irish Breakfast this morning were Congressman Stephen Lynch's comments on Iraq. Lynch is considered a moderate (well, for Massachusetts, he is a moderate. That makes him a flaming liberal in Alabama, but so what.) Lynch said that he was becoming more and more convinced that we need to get out of Iraq and withdraw. I think he has signed on to the Kerry and Murtha view that we need to get our troops out of there. (Murtha believes in 'six months' though this view was expressed in early Nov of 2005 and I don't know if he has a time update on that.) Sen. Kerry believes in 8-10 months or so, which is what Cong. Lynch signed on to this morning.

Interesting. I think more and more Dems are beginning to agree with the withdrawal proposal. I wonder if the Dems will be unified on this by the summer. I am beginning to think they will be.

[karynnj]

9. I think they are very close now - way before summer

I think every Democrat speaking today was in near the same place. I assume Lieberman will not agree - and I heard none of the Hilary/ Bayh/Warner group. Kerry on Friday sounded a lot like Murtha and Reed today. Seeing that these guys want out in weeks - I assume they are actively working to get a unified answer.

[TayTay]

10. That was an odd remark on Friday

And Kerry's remarks as reported by the MFSO that he wanted two weeks to see what happens in Iraq after the Somarra Mosque bombing have got me to thinking. I wonder if he is going to come out with something closer to an Out Now position soon.

What is Congress working on when they get back from recess anyway? More Rethug junk or something real this time.

[karynnj]

11. MFSO?

The Imus remarks were very close to that. Before that it was clear he thought they were in significantly worse shape when he questioned Rice. Is it possible that he is in Iraq or another ME state? (I hope not, but if he is going to come out with something he might be.)

[ProSense]

12. That's the dilemma

I noticed the two bills (one being Menendez' port security plan) by that the Repubs stoles from the Democrats. With little legislative power the Democrats has three options:


1. Criticize the Repubs who have no ideas, and risk being called ineffecitive.

2. Advance ideas and have the repubs steal them as their own, and risk being labeled ineffective.

3. Offer ideas that reflect bold Democratic values that will certainly be voted down, and blame the Republicans if it fails.




I hope that whatever they decided to do involves continuing to try to hold the Repug bastards accountable.

[karynnj]

13. If I had to choose,

If the ideas in option 2 are good for the country, do as Menendez did - put the idea out and if the Republicans take it - publicly thank them for using the idea. Option 3 should be done as well, because the ideas may need to be surfaced many times before they gain traction.

Menendez will likely say it was his plan when he runs this year- if they really use it. If they don't we need to hold them to their rhetoric. Just like Bush sounded like he was trying to suggest something like Kerry's alternative energy proposals, but Kerry when interviewed said he would work with Bush "If it's real".

[ginnyinWI]

14. he said much the same on MTP this morning

Murtha, that is. He said get the troops out as soon as possible, and the earlier the better. He said they are definitely in a civil war.