When you’ve lost the New York Times…
…you’ve lost the election, at least if you’re a Democrat. While John Kerry hasn’t quite lost the Times, he’s come remarkably close with the New York Times Magazine interview that the blogosphere and the Bush campaign have latched onto over the weekend. These days, there’s a great way to see if an interview you did was good or bad for your campaign: if your opponent’s blog highlights it, and your own blog ignores it, chances are that it was somewhere in between a problem and a disaster. This one is somewhere near the “disaster” part of the spectrum. As Jim Geraghty writes, “I’m sure the New York Times did not set out to torpedo the Kerry candidacy… And yet, reading it, part of me wonders if this article - and the ads that have resulted from it - will mark a turning point in the final month of the race.”
The article’s author, Matt Bai, is going to catch a lot of flack for this from his liberal collegues. At the least, he’s put Kerry on the defensive for the rest of the week. At the most, he’s assured Bush the victory. We’re talking Ralph Nader-style flack here. But Bai deserves credit, from everyone. Obviously sympathetic to Kerry, he nonetheless (the aptness of that word says a lot about Kerry) made it his goal to outline what, exactly, is Kerry’s “foreign policy vision.” Unfortunately for Kerry, he finds it. And it is not very palatable, even to Mr. Bai himself.
Bai starts off with some quick background, mainly outlining Bush’s overall vision, and noting that Democrats have not come up with an alternative. Then, he starts wading into the pool that is John Kerry’s foreign policy. He starts by dipping just a toe in, quoting Richard “Please, please make me Secretary of State” Holbrooke: “We’re not in a war on terror, in the literal sense… The war on terror is like saying ‘the war on poverty.’ It’s just a metaphor.” Most Americans, however, recognize that LBJ’s “War on Poverty” was a dramatic, unabashed failure–the sort of failure we, as a nation, refuse to have in the War on Terror.
Bai then goes on to talk with the candidate himself, and things do not get better. Bai asks Kerry how 9-11 changed him:
”It accelerated — ” He paused. ”I mean, it didn’t change me much at all. It just sort of accelerated, confirmed in me, the urgency of doing the things I thought we needed to be doing. I mean, to me, it wasn’t as transformational as it was a kind of anger, a frustration and an urgency that we weren’t doing the kinds of things necessary to prevent it and to deal with it.”
Here we see the remarkable arrogance of the man. All of America, and our president, has had the humility to admit that we did not take terrorism seriously enough before 9-11, that we did not realize that we were in a war, that our foreign policy was not what it should have been. But not Kerry. Kerry, instead, seized upon the one thing in his small political repertoire that he could connect with the attacks–in this case, international money laundering, or what Kerry expands to become “this entire dark side of globalization,” which Bai discusses in greater detail later on–and determines that, if only we had all listened to him, this whole thing could have been averted. It’s staggering. But Kerry doesn’t stop digging:
”You know, when your buildings are bombed and 3,000 people get killed, and airplanes are hijacked, and a nation is terrorized the way we were, and people continue to plot to do you injury, that’s an act of war, and it’s serious business. But it’s a different kind of war. You have to understand that this is not the sands of Iwo Jima. This is a completely new, different kind of war from any we’ve fought previously.
On one hand, this is a legitimate statement. No one would suggest that the tactics of WWII should be used the fight the War on Terror. But for someone who, as Bai writes, finds interviews to be “as treacherous as riverine warfare” in Vietnam, to say something that sounds for all the world like the denigration of American troops and of the war they fight is incredibly, remarkably stupid. While he wanted to convey a difference in tactics, by using the symbol-laden example of Iwo Jima he instead conveyed a difference in respect. In or out of context, it sounds like he respects our current fight much less than the fight of sixty years ago. President Bush should make it very clear that, while tactics and enemies have changed, “make no mistake about it: the men and women of the armed forces, fighting on the sands of Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, are fighting on today’s ’sands of Iwo Jima.’” But he may not have time to focus on that, because Kerry keeps on digging:
We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance. As a former law-enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.
Eugene Volokh has sliced and diced this analogy very well, from his own, libertarian perspective. Like Holbrooke’s inneffectual “war on poverty” argument, the fact is that prostitution and illegal gambling are far, far more prevelant than we will ever allow terrorism to be. The fact is, we already had this discussion. As a nation, in the days following September 11, we considered the arguments of those who suggested that we had best “just get used to it,” that, like Northern Ireland or Israel, we should just learn to live with a certain amount of terrorism. And then we, as a nation, wholeheartedly rejected those arguments. We decided, as a nation, led by President Bush, that we were the United States of America, and we refused to “live with” terrorism. Bush has taken this to what he sees as its logical conclusion: we must transform the Middle East so that it is no longer a place that breeds terrorists that attack America. Kerry is still trying to have the argument that most of us settled three years ago. Reluctantly, I think, this is the same conclusion that Matt Bai is forced to come to, in the final, damning paragraph of his article:
When Kerry first told me that Sept. 11 had not changed him, I was surprised. I assumed everyone in America — and certainly in Washington — had been changed by that day. I assumed he was being overly cautious, afraid of providing his opponents with yet another cheap opportunity to call him a flip-flopper. What I came to understand was that, in fact, the attacks really had not changed the way Kerry viewed or talked about terrorism — which is exactly why he has come across, to some voters, as less of a leader than he could be. He may well have understood the threat from Al Qaeda long before the rest of us. And he may well be right, despite the ridicule from Cheney and others, when he says that a multinational, law-enforcement-like approach can be more effective in fighting terrorists. But his less lofty vision might have seemed more satisfying — and would have been easier to talk about in a political campaign — in a world where the twin towers still stood.
This article may be the permission to vote for Bush that a lot of otherwise-liberal voters have been looking for.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. To comment, please register. No profanity, please. Non-family-friendly words will be changed to amusing euphemisms as suits the author.
October 11th, 2004 at 6:43 pm
I hadn’t really thought about that last point you made, though my argument is that by trying to put together an article that would make Kerry as palatable as possible to the Upper West Side, they had inadvertantly demonstrated that they don’t see, even with the gaping hole in the skyline of Lower Manhattan, that things really have changed.
But re-reading the article, I think you may be more accurate.
October 11th, 2004 at 6:44 pm
TO: Tim Goddard
RE: I Have My Doubts
“This article may be the permission to vote for Bush that a lot of otherwise-liberal voters have been looking for.” — Tim Goddard
I think the leftists are so warped up in their blind hatred for President Bush that Kerry could lead a song praising Osama and they’d join in the refrain.
Yes, some others might come to their senses, but not the majority.
RE: Nuanced Nuisances
However, I think this gaff IS important. The undecideds may see it as reason to vote for someone other than Kerry. Especially if they know someone who died or lost a loved on 9/11.
Trying to go back to pre-9/11 is a pipe dream of the first order.
Trying to nuance terrorism as a ‘nuisance’ is the talk of someone who has lost all touch with reality. As I put it where I blog….
There’s more at…
Nuanced Nuisances
Regards,
Chuck(le)
October 11th, 2004 at 6:55 pm
Chuck– I think there’s a difference between “liberal” and “leftist,” and I don’t think even the majority of the former are the latter. Perhaps, but it’s close. Either way, it’s my impression that Bai, at the end of the piece, desperately doesn’t want to vote for Kerry. He still may. But many like him may not.
October 11th, 2004 at 7:24 pm
TO: Tim Goddard
RE: Viva la Difference!
“I think there’s a difference between “liberal” and “leftist,” and I don’t think even the majority of the former are the latter. ” — Tim Goddard
True. To use the appellation of ‘liberal’ in a derogatory manner in Australia would result in a sound and righteous thumping. And no beer afterwards.
Over there, the liberals are not ‘leftists’. However, I’m not so sure about the majority of liberals over here not being such. But that’s just my personal opinion.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
October 11th, 2004 at 7:53 pm
I ouldn’t vote for The Hee-row for half of Tuh-ray-zuh’s money, even if the polls were predicting a 49 state majority for Bush, as a veteran that spent two and a half tours in Viet Nam, plus considerable time in the body and fender shop, I just couldn’t do it. If I knew my [naughty bits] would fall off unless I voted for The Hee-row I’d have to learn how to pee sitting down.
There, my bias is up front. Now for my point.
Is there one thing in The Hee-row’s thirty year political history that points us to believing that he takes any threat to this country seriously? Let’s look. In the early seventies when an expansionist Soviet Union wanted the warm water port of Cam Ranh Bay, while we had troops in combat and POWs in the Hanoi Hilton, which side was he on? Not ours.
In the eighties when the expansionist Soviet Union was moving short and medium range nuclear tipped missiles into Europe, on which side did he propose a nuclear freeze? Not theirs.
When this latest incarnation of expansionist Islam took our Embassy in Teheran, an act of war by any stretch of international law, what concrete steps did this political leader and distinguished veteran demand?
When an expansionist Soviet Union was pouring money and weapons into the Nicarauguan Sandistas, which side did he support. Not ours.
When Hussein invaded Kuwait and we had the cooperation of the ‘allies’ and the blessings of the UN, how did the Hee-row vote in the use of force authorisation? Nay.
After the ‘93 bombing of the World Trade Center, which Senator introduced a bill taking 7.5 billion dollars from the intelligence budget? The Hee-row.
Nothing in this man’s background, including his military service, leads me to believe he is either the most clueless Yale grad ever or that he’s been on the other side all along.
October 11th, 2004 at 8:00 pm
Oh, by the way, we don’t need a majority of Dems to vote for Bush for it to be a Bush landslide, just the classic liberals like Ed Koch and the conservative Dems like Zell Miller. Those two men still represent a significant number of rank and file Dems, in the neighborhood of twenty percent each. If only one quarter of each of those two factions either vote for Bush or just stay home, it’s a landslide for Bush. We’ll see.
October 12th, 2004 at 11:13 am
“Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US”
October 12th, 2004 at 11:32 am
to say something that sounds for all the world like the denigration of American troops and of the war they fight
Whoa, how do you get that? The troops will fight the war we ask them to fight. What if we ask them to fight the wrong one? Should we have expected them to second guess us?
that we had best “just get used to it,”
Are you’re saying that Kerry’s war on terrorism will be to talk people in to just accepting terrorism? Or do you think Kerry’s plan is to reduce terrorism to a point where people don’t need to fear it? Do you want people to have to be afraid of terrorism all the time?
This article may be the permission to vote for Bush that a lot of otherwise-liberal voters have been looking for.
BCCI was bank whose main business was laundering money for terrorists and drug dealers.
George Bush’s father used BCCI to launder money when he was giving weapons to Iranian terrorists. He used BCCI to launder money to Saddam Hussein when Congress cut off his funds after Halabja.
John Kerry led the Senate investigation that took down BCCI.
On September 11th, we were attacked by 19 terrorists, most of whom were from Saudi Arabia. Investigations have turned up many ties between the hijackers and the Saudi government.
Most of the funding for the hijackers came from rich Saudis, including the wife of Prince Bandar, ambasador to the U.S. and one of GWBush’s closest friends.
These parts of the investigations have been blocked or classified by the Bush administration.
Many of the people close to the investigations have since joined the Kerry campaign out of frustration, some of them even having to jump ship from the Bush admin to do so.
John Kerry has been fighting terrorists for years. GWBush and his whole family have been found in compromising positions with terrorists for years.
If you’re really serious about the war on terrorism, the choice this election year could not be more stark.
October 12th, 2004 at 12:04 pm
Whoa, how do you get that? The troops will fight the war we ask them to fight. What if we ask them to fight the wrong one? Should we have expected them to second guess us?
The man just said, “These are not the sands of Iwo Jima.” Iwo Jima is synonymous with heroism. Ergo, it sounds for all the world like he’s denigrating the troops. Maybe he didn’t mean to, but it was a stupid, em>stupid thing to say.
Are you’re saying that Kerry’s war on terrorism will be to talk people in to just accepting terrorism? Or do you think Kerry’s plan is to reduce terrorism to a point where people don’t need to fear it?
I’m saying exactly what I said. Kerry wants terrorism to be reduced to a low level we as citizens can ignore–like it was in the 1990’s. But that is criminally stupid, because we all remember how the 90’s ended: in the fire and ash of September 11. And for those in the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the WTC in ‘93, etc., the 90’s ended much sooner. Kerry wants to bring the symptoms down to a low level. Bush wants to cure the disease.
As for the rest of your comments, one part fact, one part fiction, one part innuendo and four parts delusion, I will deal only with the fact. Yes, like I said, Kerry deserves a little credit for his work on ending some international money laundering. But to expand that–as Matt Bai would not let Kerry do–into “John Kerry has been fighting terrorists for years” is absurd. What Kerry is doing, using it as an excuse for maintaining a pre-9-11 worldview, is less absurd, but hardly honest, and very dangerous.
October 12th, 2004 at 3:43 pm
Do you really believe that John Kerry was saying that soldiers who didn’t fight in Iwo Jima or it’s equivalent aren’t heroes?
Are the differences between this battle and that battle so minor that your sense of political correctness prevents pointing that out?
You dismissed several points which are key to this election. I’ve included a number of links to disabuse you of the notion that these are just rumors.
Kerry’s report on BCCI
Iraq Gate and BCCI through BNL Lot’s more info to be had everywhere.
A new tidbit:
I’m not sure how certain it is that Bush wouldn’t have suspected BCCI of questionable connections since those questionable connections were his father’s friends.
Bush wanted to limit investigations
George W. blocked investigation into Saudis
A plethora of info on how Bush blocked 9/11 investigations.
Bush won’t reveal Saudi info. Both the Republican and Democratic head of the investigation went on PBS and said that the classification was unnecessary for national security purposes.
Prince Bandar’s wife funded two terrorists
The Bush administration lied about our own intelligence predicting the attacks, they lied about the threat posed by Iraq while diverting resources, and more importantly, the nation’s and world’s attention from the perpetrators of 9/11. During the build up to the war he said he didn’t know where Osama was and he didn’t really care.
From John Kerry’s website, in addition to the BCCI saga, which alone should be enough to tag him as a career fighter against terrorism:
Who will you trust in our war on terrorism?
October 12th, 2004 at 5:59 pm
Do you really believe that John Kerry was saying that soldiers who didn’t fight in Iwo Jima or it’s equivalent aren’t heroes?
Of course not. I’m saying that what he said was ill-concieved and stupid.
Who will you trust in our war on terrorism?
Bush. Next question?