Here's a headline - Bush Insists He Has Made America Safer. Well, he would say that. And Sen. Kerry might agree! Or not, it's hard to tell.
Sen. Kerry was asked about that very point by the NY Times. With unexpected candor, Mr. Kerry bucked popular opinion and conventional political logic, until he thought better of it and swam back towards his party's mainstream. His clarity of vision and communication in response to what should not have been an unexpected question led to this exchange :
Q. In a poll we did recently, we found that a majority of Americans thought that because of the administration policy on Iraq, the chance of a terrorist attack had grown. Do you guys agree with that?
MR. KERRY: I believe that the overall conduct of this administration's foreign policy - the war included, the management of Afghanistan, the diversion from Afghanistan, away from Al Qaeda, the lack of cooperation with other countries, the lack of adequate attention on homeland security, all together - has not made America as safe as we ought to be given the options available to us in the aftermath of 9/11.
Q. That's too mushy. Are we more or less vulnerable to a terrorist attack?
MR. KERRY: Look, because I didn't answer your question the way you want me to doesn't mean my answer is too mushy. What I said is very clear. That there are a whole series of events that have not made America safer.
MR. EDWARDS: The way he answered that question, the way John just answered that question, is the way the question should be answered. Because things don't fit into boxes in this world. Any more than the things that affect American families here at home fit in boxes. You know, it's not health care, and then in another box jobs, and then in another box tuition - they all come together to affect the lives of Americans. It's also true that when you're evaluating what the effect has been of this administration, you can't look at Iraq in isolation, because Iraq acts in concert with what's happening in Afghanistan, what's happening with the war on terrorism in general, what's happening with the deterioration of our relationships around the world, all those things go together in order to evaluate what the impact is. I do not believe we are as safe as we can be, that's what I believe.
MR. KERRY: Can I tell you why? The fact that what's happened in Iraq may have created more terrorists doesn't mean they've gotten to the United States, doesn't mean they have got the ability to attack us. Those are very - that would require the briefing that I'm waiting to get this weekend, for me to ask a lot of questions. The likelihood is, yes. It certainly has increased the recruitment of terrorists and the focus on the United States as a target.
Hmm. Hard to score that - the Senator clearly wants to talk about something other than national security until he gets around to being briefed on it, although one wonders why the subject doesn't come up more often. However, by the end of his final answer, he seems to be drifting towards "less safe". If only the NY Times had provided an "Ask the Audience" feature (Ooops! These guys already are millionaires!)
MORE: Full gold mine, ahh, interview, here.
UPDATE: Patrick Sullivan culls the transcript for "Who's On Frist":
KERRY: Significantly. First of all, Homeland Security left ports unsecured. .... Second, second, the cooperative effort with other countries .... Third, we have a set of other global issues .... Third...
EDWARDS: Fourth. You already did third.
KERRY: That's why he's good.
Man, if I thought these two could keep this up for four years, I might vote for them.
MORE SUBSTANTIVE UPDATE: Eventually, the LA Times will endorse Kerry, but they don't like their evasive answers. This editorial is brutal:
If not murder, John F. Kerry and John Edwards have accused President Bush of something close to criminally negligent homicide in Iraq. "They were wrong and soldiers died because they were wrong," Kerry said of the Bush administration over the weekend.
...The trouble is, both Sens. Kerry and Edwards voted yes on the resolution authorizing the war in Iraq. And now they refuse to say whether they would have supported the resolution if they had known what they know today. Both say they can't be bothered with "hypothetical questions."
But whether it is a hypothetical question depends on how you phrase it. Do they regret these votes? Were their votes a mistake? These are not hypothetical questions. And they are questions the Democratic candidates for president and vice president cannot duck if they wish to attack Bush on Iraq in such morally charged language.
...When Kerry says "they were wrong," he is referring to the administration's basic case for going to war. Kerry supported that decision. So did Edwards. Were they wrong? If they won't answer that question, they have no moral standing to criticize Bush.
Reluctance to answer the question is understandable. If they say they stand by their pro-war votes, this makes nonsense of their criticisms of Bush. If they say they were misled or duped by the administration, they look dopey and weak.... If Kerry and Edwards tell the probable truth — that they were deeply dubious about the war but afraid to vote no in the post-9/11 atmosphere and be tarred as lily-livered liberals — they would win raves from editorial writers for their frankness and courage. And they could stop dreaming of oval offices.
...hearing how Kerry and Edwards explain their votes to authorize a war they now regard as disastrous would be helpful in assessing their character and judgment.
Their continued refusal to explain would be even more helpful, unfortunately.
How anyone can take either of those two seriously is beyond me. That exchange is more entertaining than "Who's on First."
Posted by: Jonathan | July 12, 2004 at 05:39 PM
Count the number of times you hear the word 'terrorism' at the dnc convention. Then count the number of times you hear 'jobs'. Could make for quite a drinking game. If someone has a lot of time on their hands, i'd love to see a breakdown of how often each issue gets mentioned at the convention. I guarantee terrorism shows up below jobs, healthcare, and education. Probably by quite a margin.
Posted by: Mark Buehner | July 12, 2004 at 05:54 PM
I have to admit, that excerpt set off my "Scrappleface" alarm. Maybe it's set a hair too sensitively?
Posted by: Mitch H. | July 12, 2004 at 05:56 PM
J dou mean who's on Frist?
Posted by: dorf | July 12, 2004 at 06:26 PM
This was the best part:
---------quote-----
KERRY: Significantly. First of all, Homeland Security left ports unsecured. .... Second, second, the cooperative effort with other countries .... Third, we have a set of other global issues .... Third...
EDWARDS: Fourth. You already did third.
KERRY: That's why he's good.
----------endquote-------
In the same way Theresa is smart?
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | July 12, 2004 at 06:36 PM
This was the best part:
---------quote-----
KERRY: Significantly. First of all, Homeland Security left ports unsecured. .... Second, second, the cooperative effort with other countries .... Third, we have a set of other global issues .... Third...
EDWARDS: Fourth. You already did third.
KERRY: That's why he's good.
----------endquote-------
In the same way Theresa is smart?
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | July 12, 2004 at 06:38 PM
This was classic:
Q.What if the vote were today?
KERRY: Look, the vote is not today and that's it. I agree completely with Senator Edwards. It's a waste of time. It's not what this is about. We voted the way we voted based on the information in front of us, based on that moment in time. And it was the right vote at that time based on that information. Period. And this president not only abused the intelligence and the information, for which he is responsible, not just Mr. Tenet - not just the vice president, not Secretary Rumsfeld - the president......
So, basically they are saying based on the information they had it was the right decision, period. Someone please explain how that position is different from the the Presidents? Oh, yeah, I know, Bush made up all the information they based their decision on. It was a sinister trick. It coudn't be that the president based his decision on the same information they based theirs as that would not make THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES A LIAR. Please
Posted by: Kamakazi | July 12, 2004 at 07:26 PM
Thank you for using 'wracked' properly. I've been seeing 'racked' everywhere, even the NYT, and I don't think they mean getting medieval on their ass.
Posted by: Walter Ghent | July 12, 2004 at 09:00 PM
You are being totally unfair, Kamikaze. Bush was making a serious decision with real life and death consequences, for which he was obliged to be properly informed.
Kerry was making a show vote calculated to preserve his "tough on terror" status in preparation for the 2004 election - totally different scenario, and it is not right to expect Kerry's vote to actually reflect his thought process, his decision-making ability, his courage, or anything else.
If he only were not burdened by Senatorial office - if, perhaps, he were President - then the country would see, and benefit from, the real John Kerry.
At least, I think that is the rebuttal to your point.
Posted by: TM | July 12, 2004 at 09:00 PM
Senator Kerry (ugh!) is an invertibrate. His solution to any problem is dialogue. Action is not in his vocabulary. If he were implored to get off his butt and do something, his response would be "I Can't."
Posted by: JC | July 13, 2004 at 12:02 AM
Thanks for the link to the article. What a target rich environment this interview is. The notion that these guys are coherent is a product of their speechwriters. Neither of them can think on their feet and Edwards comes off as completely incomprehensible.
Posted by: Brainster | July 13, 2004 at 12:15 AM
I donno I still don't trust him even if he IS more clever these days. http://ludicrosity.com/ had a great comic about Kerry the other day that I think defines quite nicely what it is about the man I can't stand.
Posted by: David Banana | July 13, 2004 at 01:23 AM
Is it just me or does Kerry talk a little like Mojo Jojo from the Powerpuff Girls? He seems to deserve the same amount of respect as well....none.
Posted by: Michael Schneider | July 13, 2004 at 01:43 AM
I agree with Mitch H. I'm still not sure that was a real NYT interview!
Posted by: Toby Petzold | July 13, 2004 at 01:58 AM
This interview shows a clever shift in Kerry's rhetoric about the war. He's saying we're not as safe as we should be, which allows him to attack Bush on the war from the right, much as Kennedy did to Nixon on the Cold War in 1960. Check out Jonathan Rauch in Reason. It's a smart move - and the one Kerry needs to make if he wants to win in November, since the war is a threshold issue/ litmus test for key swing voters, I think.
Posted by: Jon Ihle | July 13, 2004 at 05:05 AM
Okay, to the issue of media bias:
Is the comment, "that's too mushy" a hard-nosed insistance on substantive comment from an aggressive and skeptical journalist seeking truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Or, is it a soft-ball offer by a liberally biased journalist offering to let his candidate-of-choice take a mulligan and "do-over" on the question?
I'll give you two chances to answer...
Posted by: Pouncer | July 13, 2004 at 08:14 AM
I don't know, if it was an invitation to a mulligan, you'd think it would have gotten excised, or re-worded on the write-up to make Kerry sound less like the log-faced tool that he is. Almost as if the writer and editor suddenly had an attack of conscience.
It's part of what set off my satire alarm.
Posted by: Mitch H. | July 13, 2004 at 11:29 AM
I certainly thought "that's too mushy" was beating on Kerry. If a journalist interrupted a Bush interview (I realize those don't really exist) by saying "that's too stupid", I'm sure you would find it to be left-wing bias.
Posted by: sym | July 13, 2004 at 01:51 PM
One for the Pouncer, on the "Mushy mulligan" question - how does this grab you from the transcript:
KERRY: And I believe if you talk with Warren Hoge or you talk to David Sanger, you talk to other people around the world, they will confirm to you, I believe, that it may well take a new president to restore America's credibility on a global basis so that we can deal with other countries and bring people back into alliances. The credibility of this country has been tarnished by this president. We can restore it. We will restore it.
Ahhh, Warren Hoge and David Sanger are NY Times journalists. Is that really what they are telling Kerry and his people?
I smell a post coming on. Or anyway, I smell something.
Posted by: TM | July 13, 2004 at 03:32 PM
Okee doke. For one thing, let's settle down a bit and stop worrying about sound bites, who said what in which context and with reference to which particular pile of horseshit. That's not what we need to be thinking about here people.
No, what we need to be thinking about is reality, and I say that with a capital R, here, lemme put it in caps; REALITY.
And I hate to get all didactic as if it's my god-given right to educate you lessers, but the point is, is that there really is a difference between Kerry and Bush. Kerry's a democrat --do I need to spell that out?-- and Dubya is a republican. What that means, on the face of it, is that they have two fundamentally different ideas about how the federal government oughtta be run domestically. (Best apologies)
I could personally give a rat's ass. Turns out that for the most part, there ain't no goddamned sanity clause and my life won't change much whether there's a frickin' republican nor democrat in the white house.
Except for when it comes to foreign policy.
What I know is that most folks didn't give a hoot about foreign policy before 9/11.
Then alla sudden they had to. It was brought home with a vengeance by a pack of rabid anti-christ motherfuckers with vague notions of ruling the world or killing everyone else if they couldn't.
Like most Americans I would personally like to pick the eye-balls outt've any Al Quaeda operative with an old spoon and a dull pair of tweezers. I'm getting sidetracked here but it's fun.
Anyhoo, to make a long story short, the main difference betwixt the democrats and Dubya with regards to foreign policy is this; Dubya has it in mind to go it alone and only as a last resort will he cooperate with our traditional allies. The democratic theory is to work with our traditional allies, to build international concensus, and only as a last resort, to go it alone.
According to my theory the problem with the Bush admin is that it is still operating under a set of assumptions that were valid in the last century, but that have no meaning in our increasingly globalized society.
So get with it Dubya or get the fuck out!
I'm tired of your cracker ass!
Git boy! Git!
Posted by: Big Note | August 04, 2004 at 08:24 AM