Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« April 2004 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
foolishness
gloating
jerk fellation
LEGO
politics
schadenfreude
sports
Stinktown
work
We Three Jerks
Friday, 16 April 2004
Kerry Channels Kissinger
I can't believe it. John Kerry said something that makes a ton of sense, and that I wholeheartedly agree with (link via Kausfiles):
Sen. John. F. Kerry on Wednesday stressed that the chief interest of the U.S. should be to build a stable Iraq, but not necessarily a democratic one -- a view at odds with President Bush's vision of the troubled country's political future.

"I have always said from day one that the goal here ... is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told reporters after conducting a town hall meeting at the City College of New York in Harlem. "I can't tell you what it's going to be, but a stable Iraq. And that stability can take several different forms."

I have been bitching for years about the fact that US foreign policy has been shackled by our own pro-democracy rhetoric ever since the Wilson administration. I really never though that John Kerry would be the major-party presidential candidate to come out and say it.

Why is it such a sin to admit that American national interests do not always coincide with democracy? How would it have been worse if we has found a reliable Shiite dictator to run Iraq six months ago? But the Bush people, predictably, reacted with phony outrage:

Marc Racicot, the former Montana governor who is chairman of Bush's reelection campaign, said, "There is now even further evidence of the fact that Sen. Kerry continues with an approach that is cynical and defeatist, and it's embraced within a political attack that is seriously undermining our efforts in Iraq and in the war on terror."
I say phony, because no one who controls the levers of power in the foreign policy establishment really cares if the guys running the Chiles and South Koreas of the world were democratically elected, but they feel (especially presidents) the need to bloviate about "the people" and "self-determination".

So, huzzah to Kerry for stating an obvious, but historically denied truth - and boo in advance for changing his position two days from now.

Marc

Posted by thynkhard at 9:40 PM EDT
Post Comment | View Comments (2) | Permalink

Saturday, 17 April 2004 - 6:04 AM EDT

Name: Sean

That's nuts, man. I mean totally nuts. Following that logic, Saddam could have filled that dictator void and we could have all gone home, saving a few bucks in the process.

Saturday, 17 April 2004 - 9:43 AM EDT

Name: Tony

I'm not sure Kerry's suggestion is politically sound. It's been hard enough for Americans to rally around an effort to bring democracy to the region. Would they be able to support an effort to replace one dictator with another, however stable (read: pro-West), he is? As far as the foreign policy aspect of this, well, I'm not a foreign policy expert, nor have I ever claimed to be. Obviously stability is the crux of the matter in Iraq, and perhaps it is naive to think that democracy can be thrust upon a people with little to no experience with it, but Pres. Bush made the case for war to the American people by saying that we were fighting to protect ourselves and help bring democracy to an oppressed people. He can't change his mind about what form the Iraqi government should take in the middle of the operation.

This is a very interesting and (gasp!) substantive issue of contention between the two candidates, and if nothing else I'm hopeful that this debate can play a major role in the upcoming election. It would certainly beat talking about Vietnam and who's to blame for 9-11 for the next six or seven months.

View Latest Entries