Re-read this John Kerry speech it is so great

[beachmom]

In light of events in Britain, I think this is a time for us to think about the global war on terror -- and yes, it is a war, and yes, there really are terrorists who will stop at nothing to kill us. I have split with the Left on DU among other sites on Israel, and really, I split with them when they act like there is no GWOT, when clearly there is.

Andrew Sullivan just threw down a challenge to ask for Democrats to offer a vision of foreign policy, not unlike one given by Tony Blair a couple of weeks ago. He has been rightly critical of Kossaks (and you can throw in DU, too) for being more obsessed with intra-party politics than thinking about winning against terrorists. But where he gets it wrong is thinking there aren't real ideas in the Democratic party on what needs to be done. As I searched through the Dem Daily, I came across this speech by JK back in December '05 to the Council for Foreign Relations. It is truly brilliant, and yes, visionary. It's a blueprint for what we need to do:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1340

These are the quotes I sent Andrew (for all his loathing of JK, he likes ideas, and this speech was full of them):

We must counter the teaching of hatred in Madrassas by pressing regimes more consistently and effectively to teach tolerance in schools throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, and to broaden educational opportunities. We must work with moderate Muslims, especially clerics, to permanently discredit the belief that the murder of innocents can be justified in the name of God, race, or nation. The people of the Middle East need to learn who we are from direct experience with Americans-not from watching a failed Madison Avenue ad campaign or from hearing Karen Hughes tell chauffeur driven women with bodyguards they would be better off getting a driver’s license.

And democratic values and openness should be championed not simply as western values but as the universal values that they are. Democratization is not a crusade. If it is seen as the result of an army marching through Muslim lands it will fail. But more importantly, that’s not the way democracy works. Democracy spreads with patient but firm determination, led by individuals of courage who dream of a better day for their country. Viktor Yushchenko had that dream in Ukraine. Hamid Karzai had that dream in Afghanistan. And Lech Walesa had that dream in Poland. We need to create the conditions where this dream can become a reality in the Arab world. If we are serious about spreading democracy and fighting a real war on terror, then, quite simply, our resources must match our rhetoric.

We must do everything possible to promote economic, social and political transformation in the Middle East, especially among Sunni Arabs. Nations like Jordan, Qatar and Bahrain are not only moving towards political freedom and pluralism–they are also trying to build real economies built on the talents of their own people rather than trying to simply pump prosperity out of the ground. Every move in that direction in this critical region should not only be praised, but rewarded tangibly as a role model. There’s no way to overemphasize the importance of ensuring that the Greater Middle East does not continue its long trajectory towards a region where an exploding young population collides with dysfunctional and isolated economies, producing instability and ultimately, more and more terrorism. Majority populations under the age of 18 without jobs or futures are a sure recipe for disaster.

So we must work harder with our allies in Europe and Asia to strengthen our commitment and enhance our efforts to integrate the Middle East into the global economy. This is the only way to stop economic regression, spur investment beyond the oil industry, and spark trade, investment and growth in the region. It’s the only way to turn young minds and energy away from terror.

Further down is relevant to the terror plot foiled yesterday:

But because this is a long-range war, we absolutely have to do a better job of destroying terrorist cells and preventing terrorist attacks here at home.

The fact is that al Qaeda has morphed into a global hydra of hidden terrorists who often share nothing more than a common hatred. To disrupt and destroy their networks before they can attack, we must do much more to improve and overhaul our intelligence and law enforcement capabilities by accelerating the creation of a true domestic counterterrorism capability within the FBI, and greatly increasing our overseas clandestine intelligence service. And to be truly effective in the global conflict, we must leverage much greater assistance from foreign intelligence agencies, expand the Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program and increase exchange programs and liaison relationships.

And we must treat securing dangerous materials around the world with the urgency the threat demands. We can all agree that our top national security priority is to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. How often do you hear politicians pay lip-service to that, yet the 9/11 commission gives the administration a nearly failing grade on that very task. That’s just plain unacceptable.

One of the worst myths the President has propagated is that we’ve somehow bottled up the world’s terrorists in Iraq, and by fighting them there, we no longer need fear that they can strike us here.

The 9/11 commission’s report on the administration’s efforts to implement its much-praised recommendations gave our government failing grades on homeland security. And the fiasco of the federal Katrina response showed graphically that you have to do more than create a new Department to deal with grave emergencies competently. It’s time to finally get serious, with money and attention, to the most urgent homeland security threats, including the extreme vulnerability of our ports, the most likely point of entry for terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

Finally, we must adapt international institutions to meet today’s threats. Of course we have to end corruption and inefficiency at the United Nations. But we must not lose sight of its continuing importance to our own security. We should be leading the negotiations of a meaningful convention against terrorism so that the world, in one voice, finally condemns terrorism and the groups that use it.

Despite all of Senator Kerry's fine qualities, it is this speech, and this speech and vision above all others, that I would support him in an '08 bid for president. In short, he knows how to keep us safe, and I trust him with the security of my family.

[TayTay]

1. That was a brilliant speech

I see this speech, the one at Faneuil Hall from April 22 of this year and the Energy Speech, also delviered at Faneuil Hall in June, as a complete presentation of Sen. Kerry's idears on Iraq, the Middle East, how America is involved in these and what we need to do going forward.

The CFR speech laid out what is wrong with how we are dealing with the regimes in the Middle East. Kerry pointed out that we have enabled the Empire of Oil over the years and ignored reform movements there in favor of 'stability' and the need to keep a steady supply of oil flowing from that region. This had led to autocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia and the other repressive governments in the Middle East. We have to begin to confront the reality of what the West's policies are doing to that region. Right now it is forcing dissent into the hand sof equally repressive religiously based movements that don't offer freedom, they offer revenge and the imposition of ancient order as a means of restoring power to the people of that region. We have to offer a real difference from this and show that we support actual freedom, not just freedom of some to make money.

The speech at Faneuil Hall in April was about what this war is doing to America and to our own national soul. It laid down a moral foundation for opposing the actions this country is taking in order to fight a fake war on the wrong targets. We are weaker, not stronger, because of what we have done in Iraq. We are also weaker because we have allowed this fake and unnecessary 'war of choice' to give unprincipled people a chance to undermine our own Constitutionally protected civil rights. As much as anything else, as much as Kerry's speech in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee back in April of 1971, this is a moral argument. America must change course in Iraq because what we are doing is wrong and is damaging America and our ability to stand up for human rights in the world and at home.

The energy speech that was delivered in late June asks Americans and the Congress to change course on energy policy and begin to actually do things that will affect our need for Middle East oil. We must stop relying on this region of the world for so much of our energy supplies. We have to develop renewalable energies that aren't dependent on foreign nations and, ultimately, foreign corruption.

All three speeches form a really incredible whole. This is the argument going forward. It is a complete statement on what is going on, why we must get out of Iraq, find a different way to address our relations with the Islamic world and with the Middle East and find a different way to supply energy for America's needs. No one else, to my knowledge, has anything even remotely this complete.

[beachmom]

6. The Energy Independence piece is not yet fully in Andrew's

vocabulary, but as I said before, it doesn't hurt to pass on these ideas so that they will enter the consciousness of people not sold on the environmental causes like global warming, etc, and how oil dependency makes us less secure and safe, in every possible way.

I like reading Andrew, and hear him thinking out loud, because he was a big advocate for the Iraq War, and I am patiently waiting until he gives up on it. His vision for Iraq was never the problem -- he wanted it to be a beachhead for the rest of the M.E. -- a robust democracy. That's a good idea. The problem is that the means count just as much as the ends. And I continue to wait for the day that he realizes that for a superpower to invade, unprovoked, a sovereign nation simply sets up a democratic experiment for failure. Had we gone to war with Saddam over something obvious, for which the world largely was with us (like Saddam attacked us directly, or was proven to have directly aided terrorists in an attack against America), then AFTERWARDS, we would have had some credibility left to start a democratic experiment. But that wasn't the case. Why we went in -- mostly sold as connection to 9/11 and WMD, with democracy and humanitarian reasons given as secondary -- was a lie, which destroyed the entire thing. Because what you need more than anything else is trust, and we lost that when the reasons we supposedly went in there proved false, and Bush and Blair were exposed as not worthy of our trust.

Here is a soundbite I have thought of for the Middle East:

We should have a policy of constructive engagement, not destructive engagement.

I reject anyone who says we must completely disengage from the Middle East. We can not and we must not. But from now on, let's keep the destruction down to a minimum (how about CIA/Special Ops skirmishes only on known terrorists with cooperation with governments there), and showing the way of modernity in a constructive manner.

I also think we need to put together a new containment strategy for Iraq. Instead of containing Saddam, which was far easier in retrospect, we must contain the Civil War with our being based in Kurdistan just like before (or Kurwait, or wherever -- basically Murtha/Kerry, but Kurdistan might be the one part of Iraq our troops/air support could stay long term). It's a sucky solution, but it's actually what many strategists are beginning to think about doing. In the mean time, do all the diplomatic stuff Bush won't do, but our troops have lost credibility too much to be peacekeepers. That hurts to say, but it's true.

[sandnsea]

2. Dec 2003

This is a great one too, some called it the best foreign policy speech in a decade. It got very little press, no Dem support, it was very sad. Between the speech and the Q&A, there's too much in it to pick any quotes out. It's so completely opposite to George Bush and Republican thinking though, people like Andrew Sullivan might not recognize why this is the long term path to ending terrorism.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=6576

[wisteria]

3. I feel as you do. He actually knows what needs to be done and I

trust him entirely to keep us safe.

[ProSense]

4. It was a brilliant speech!

This is the speech that all the spinners pretend doesn't exist as they mis-characterize Kerry's plan for withdrawal.

[TayTay]

5. I agree. It is similar to the one

that Sandnsea mentioned that Kerry gave two years earlier. Sigh! Now there's someone who is ready to be PResident.

[ProSense]

7. Actually, if there is such a thing,

the speech Sandnsea posted is beyond brilliant!

[fedupinBushcountry]

8. Just found the video

at C-Span. Scroll down to the 5th video.
http://c-span.org/Search/basic.asp?BasicQueryText=John+Kerry&SortBy=date&ResultStart=100&

[ProSense]

10. Cool! Thanks! n/t

[beachmom]

9. Resigning myself to disappointment for now

Andrew now has this post up, for which, by the way, he thinks Al Gore is the guy who will come forward with a vision. But absolutely no response on the Kerry speech. I think at this point this is personal -- despite being a conservative, Andrew has a similar mentality as many lefty bloggers with his anger at Kerry losing to Bush. That's the only thing that can explain his not bothering with my e-mail. Because what he says here sounds a hell of a lot like what Kerry has been saying (not exactly, but in the same ballpark), yet he won't give credit where credit is due. And, fuck, we don't need a Sister Soljah moment with the anti-war movement -- Murtha has been praised for his plan, and it kept the troops in the region (maybe not Kurdistan, but close):

One facet of the foiled London bombing is that the Brits succeeded. They succeeded through good intelligence - not dumb torture or invading countries. And this raises a broader question that deserves wider debate. A reader writes:

I generally agree with your post regarding the lack of a clear Democratic proposal to reform the Middle East. To take a step back, though, is it not a valid question to ask whether such reform is possible, at least in a broad sense and in a matter of years rather than decades? Your framing of the issue implies that any foreign policy agenda that does not include an ambitious reform effort is inherently defeatist – here you seem to follow the RNC line – and it is unclear, to me at least, what proportion of such an agenda you believe should rely on military force. Your comment emphasizes the need to use American soft power, but is the willingness to apply military force also a necessary ingredient?

Would you be satisfied by a Democratic agenda, or a Democratic candidate in 2008, supporting political and economic reform and extensive counter-terrorism measures but recognizing that the use of military force in the conventional sense is likely to have limited value and much more downside than up? Iran is a difficult issue here, to be sure, but even the Bush administration seems to recognize that the military options is an invitation to apocalypse. Such a policy would of course model Baker/Scowcroft ‘mainstream’ Republican thought pre-9/11, with a heightened sense of the need to support measures counteracting radical Islamic fundamentalism and jihadist groups. Is such a policy squishy and weak, or is it simply realistic?

My own view has adjusted over the last few years, though not changed dramatically. The Iraq fiasco has shown the enormous difficulty of using blunt force to create an organic democratic change in a few years. But the future is not written yet - and the Scowcroftian policies of propping up fast-failing dictatorships (a policy that gave us the first Islamist government in Iran) was clearly insufficient after 9/11. So call me a chastened neocon, if you must: appalled by the execution, humbled by the unintended consequences, but still unable to surrender the belief that more democracy and liberal institutions in the Middle East is the only long-term solution.

What does this mean in practice? Redeployment within Iraq to regions where we truly can encourage democracy and prosperity, like Kurdistan. More "soft" support for democratic movements in the Muslim world - the kind of backing we gave Eastern European dissidents in the Cold War - is essential, if done subtly enough not to prompt backlash. Encouraging the entrepreneurial Gulf states to grow in wealth and influence cannot hurt; a serious non-carbon energy policy at home is part of the mix as well. The credible threat of military force is also vital - especially as far as Iran's regime is concerned. And a much more credible homeland defense policy. If the Democrats could present a multi-faceted, hard-nosed approach to winning the war, a lot of us in the middle would give them a second look. But so far, not so good. I'm waiting for a leading Democratic nominee to pill a Sistah Souljah on the anti-war left, to call them on their irresponsibility and narcissism. Gore could do it. The question is: when will he start talking like a future war-president rather than an angry dissident?


Yes, Sully is annoying as ever, but come on -- he is definitely moving in our direction. Also wanted to add that he is in total cohoots with Joe Klein, so that smear against Kerry on the torture (the focus group BS from the campaign) I think was cooked up by both of them with the help of a disgruntled former Dem consultant or campaign worker. I have zero proof, just my own instincts.

I know lots of you hate Sully, and all, but I still think there is actually more to his blog than many lefty ones when it comes to foreign policy, so that's why I keep reading it.

[Mass]

11. deleted after having read Sullivan's website.

[Mass]

12. After having gone to Sullivan's website, I hope that he does not like

Kerry's foreign policy (except if he has an epiphany), because it seems clear from what I see there that his foreign policies' views are closer from Buchanan's isolationism than from Kerry's diplomacy. (not being very knowledgeable of Sullivan, I had to go to his website).

Interesting that he thinks Gore will have the vision. What makes him think Gore will say something he may agree with.

We have to be reasonnable in our expectations: he is promoting Lieberman/McCain 08. We cant expect him to like Kerry.

[beachmom]

13. He likes McCain a lot, but thinks Lieberman deserved what he got

on Tuesday. He actually said McCain/Lieberman has "jumped the shark".

He does not have a FP vision like Buchanon -- no way -- but obviously, he's a little too eager for war, what with his support for too long of the Iraq War.

He endorsed Kerry in '04, so I still think he's worth engaging with. He'll probably support McCain in '08, but he has some issues with McCain, too.

[beachmom]

14. There's a thread about the "Dem Challenge" from Sully in GD

right now, and it is in desperate need of intelligence. Throw in what you think:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1907925

I am pretty embarassed by most of the poster's replies they're so dumb. Oh yeah, putting the boot to Israel -- that'll REALLY help. Sarcasm over.

Also to Mass -- you're right. Sully is now talking up McCain/Lieberman -- make me barf a lung. Luckily, I doubt they'll get many takers, on the Left or the Right.