Sunday, May 30, 2004

The Bush campaign has a feature on its website called “Kerry on Iraq.” It’s supposed to show how John Kerry continually contradicts himself over Iraq policy. Not surprisingly if you read what Kerry actually says as opposed to how the website selectively edits the quotes, there really aren’t any contradictions. Here’s one that stood out

What the Bush site says Kerry said: “Kerry Ready to Include Saddam Hussein in War on Terror.”

It then gives this quote from the Larry King show:

Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein.

That last sentence doesn’t make sense, but I suppose you could in a stretch see that Kerry is lumping Saddam with al-Qaida, right? Well here’s what the Bush people left out of the quote

KERRY: Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein. I think we...

KING: We should go to Iraq? KERRY: Well, that -- what do you and how you choose to do it, we have a lot of options. Absent smoking gun evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the immediate events of September 11, the president doesn't have the authorization to proceed forward there.

But we clearly are he ought to proceed to put pressure on him with respect to the weapons of mass destruction. I think we should be supporting an opposition. There are other ways for us, clandestinely and otherwise, to put enormous pressure on him and I think we should do it.

I’m continually amazed out how Kerry’s nuance on policy is constantly being cast as prevarication and inconsistent (while not quite this extreme, Slate's new feature 'Kerryisms' is perhaps the height of inanity). But that’s the consequence of having a campaign that’s about politics and not policy. But people like GWB for whom there is no nuance in foreign policy (everything is black and white, good and evil) thoughtful responses to complex issues demonstrate disingenuousness.

# posted 1:03 PM

Thursday, May 27, 2004

The Kerry people have read the Fields Report memo. Here’s an excerpt from Senator Kerry's speech today in Seattle

It’s time for a new national security policy guided by four new imperatives: First, we must launch and lead a new era of alliances for the post 9-11 world. Second, we must modernize the world’s most powerful military to meet the new threats. Third, in addition to our military might, we must deploy all that is in America’s arsenal -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas. Fourth and finally, to secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil.

These four imperatives are a response to an inescapable reality: War has changed; the enemy is different – and we must think and act anew.

#
posted 1:59 PM

Monday, May 24, 2004



Memorandum

To: John Kerry
From: The Fields Report

Re: Stick it to GWB on foreign policy

Noting that despite GWB’s falling poll numbers, your numbers have held steady even as Iraq disintegrates. I urge you to make graduated steps toward more direct challenges on GWB’s foreign policy acumen or lack thereof. Americans are not keen to point out another’s lack of intelligence. This partially accounts for GWB’s enduring popularity in the face of his startling inarticulateness and shaky grasp of the complexities of foreign policy. Without characterizing the president as stupid, I recommend implying this point without being too obvious. Outlined below are my recommendations for making distinctions in your foreign policy experience and comfort level while highlighting not only GWB’s shortcomings, but his reluctance and fear to face the American people and the media lest he be caught in an uncomfortable situation of having to speak in detail about policy.

1. Make this election a referendum on policy. Question GWB on specifics on the stump. Question his vision beyond June 30. What is it? Is “I’m a war president” his vision for American foreign policy? There is a world outside of Iraq. Is GWB aware of that? Make sure the American people know that this doesn’t seem to be the case. Ask GWB these questions from the stump.

2. Keep pushing the debate challenge. GWB’s people will obviously never accept weekly debates. There will be the usual three debates and Bush will initially object to whatever the proposed format is. Use this to your advantage. Beat him to the punch. Emphasize that we live in unprecedented times, yet this president won’t debate you on the issues. Issue weekly challenges. Consider Al Gore’s strategy of showing up on Larry King with or without Bush. Read Elizabeth Bumiller’s article “The Other Long Occupation: Bush in a Bubble,” on how GWB shuns answering any questions even from his own party when the going gets tough. Make this into a leadership issue.

3. Contrast Bush’s crisis leadership with other presidents. Emphasize his reluctance to talk to the American people. Jack Kennedy publicly took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs failure. Remind the American people that globally, things certainly don’t look good, yet this president can’t seem to think of any mistakes he’s made.

4. Continue to lay out policy initiatives. Push beyond generalities. Demonstrate that you think, plan, and adjust, whereas GWB simply reacts (the only way to get him to talk to the nation is for poll numbers to really drop). What’s his plan if Iraq descends further into chaos after the handover? What are the specifics? His first Iraq handover speech was simply a restatement of things we already knew. Critics contend that you aren’t saying what you would do in Iraq. Remind them that GWB hasn’t told the American people what he’s going to do and he’s POTUS.

5. Invoke the ‘A’ word: Afghanistan. Please read Seymour Hersh’s article in the New Yorker (no not the scathing pieces on prison abuse) titled “Bush’s Afghanistan Problem” for inspiration. The stump line should be “If Afghanistan is any indication, Iraq is going to descend further into chaos.”

6. Begin to lay out a future grand strategy for the U.S. Start small and expand as the campaign moves on. But move past the war on terrorism. Remind the American people that Bush can’t seem to think about two issues at once. Detail your vision for what the world should look like. Contrast Bush’s reliance on the war on terrorism as his foreign policy with your vision of U.S. leadership in the world.

#
posted 7:54 PM

From the LAT. "By the normal standards of business or government, Donald Rumsfeld should long since have resigned or been fired as secretary of Defense.

The reason is not ideology, nor is it his role in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, horrifying though that may be. The reason is incompetence. His record in Iraq over the last 13 months is the most dramatically incompetent performance by a public official in recent American history."

Read the rest here.

#
posted 7:36 PM

Friday, May 21, 2004

I’m easing back into this from “vacation.” So here’s a quick bit to start. Tucker Carlson’s whining idiocy on Crossfire would be amusing if it weren’t so stupid sometimes. As I’ve said before, this guy just can’t deal with simple facts that contradict his viewpoint. His solution is to make fun of the messenger. Give me Pat Buchanan from the right any day. Today may have been the height of idiocy. Apparently winning a presidential campaign in Tucker’s world is second to…well something

CARLSON: I'm saying, A, do you think it's a little bit weird that he [John Kerry] would delay it for a month? And, B, for a guy who's for campaign finance, ostensibly, isn't this kind of hypocritical? The whole point is campaign finance reform.

KAMBER: No. The process is the process. What do you -- I'm not sure what you're asking.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: He doesn't understand the process.

CARLSON: Actually, I understand it quite well, James, probably better than you do. And the point of it is...

CARVILLE: I've actually run a presidential campaign.

CARLSON: Yes, but not well.

CARVILLE: Look, we won, didn't we? Better than Bush did in 2000.


#
posted 8:27 PM