|
it's the Bush impression metaphorically speaking
that he will stand on the front porch and put himself
between criminals and the people he is sworn to protect.
It's hard enough to imagine Kerry in that role and the
recent headlines of foreign support for Kerry have only
made the problem worse.
It's about terrorism, John, not testosterone levels
By Collin Levey
John Kerry is spending the campaign's homestretch
looking for some conservative voters. He has been
talking more about his faith, dusting off the shotgun
and associating himself as much as possible with the
Red Sox victory over the Yankees. Campaign spokesman
Mike McCurry called it all part of an effort to
introduce voters to Kerry as "a guy."
That is, he's hoping to look more like a "guy's guy"
the kind who would reach for a brewskie before a glass
of chardonnay. The point, of course, is to attract the
men who believe in America as a force for good in the
world. Instead, the only men Kerry seems to be
attracting are Yasser Arafat and Kofi Annan.
The campaign has seen the same numbers we have,
indicating that President Bush holds a significant
margin among American male voters from the touted
NASCAR dads right on down the line. And the
Massachusetts senator is proceeding as he has since
early in the campaign aiming to remedy the situation
by showing manly qualities, like athleticism
(windsurfing) and toughness (duck hunting).
Problem is, the strategy has never gotten much
traction, and won't now for a simple reason: Those male
voters are drawn not to Bush's cowboy boots but to his
policies his strong stance on terrorism and his tax
policies. They tell pollsters so again and again. Kerry
would have to decimate the world's duck population to
compensate for what men fear are his wobbly knees on
the world stage and his plan to raise taxes on the
earnings they provide for their families.
If we must dither in the realm of manly intangibles,
it's the Bush impression metaphorically speaking
that he will stand on the front porch and put himself
between criminals and the people he is sworn to
protect. Men respond to that. They get it.
It's hard enough to imagine Kerry in that role and the
recent headlines of foreign support for Kerry have only
made the problem worse. Not long after the primaries,
you'll recall, he boasted that he'd been talking to
certain "world leaders" who were secretly hoping he
would win the presidency.
Republicans and critics pounced on the story, digging
through the archives to see which world leaders the
senator had been hobnobbing with or whether he was
making it up. Now, perhaps, some of the mysterious
supporters are coming out of the shadows. And they only
deepen concerns about Kerry's perceived attempts to win
a global popularity contest.
Let's start with Arafat. He, of course, is the Nobel
Peace Prize winner also known for his bloody leadership
of the Palestinian Authority, his sponsorship of
terrorism in the form of suicide bombings in Israel,
and so on. Earlier this week, an Arafat aide was quoted
as saying that Arafat "thinks Kerry will be much better
for the Palestinian cause and for the establishment of
a Palestinian state."
Meanwhile at the U.N., Secretary General Kofi Annan has
spent recent days railing against President Bush's
policies in Iraq in a way designed to make headlines
during the presidential election. While he stopped
short of an outright endorsement, voters were meant to
get the message, and they did: The man now embroiled in
charges that opposition to the war in Iraq was tainted
by dirty dealings in the U.N.'s oil-for-food program
would like some less-independent U.S. leadership.
And that's not even getting into Europe. There,
sentiment on the street overwhelmingly supports Kerry.
If the French got to choose our president, Kerry would
run away with it 72 percent to 16 percent, according to
one French poll. Ditto Spain, Greece and Germany.
Oxford historian Timothy Garten Ash recently called
November "a world election in which the world has no vote."
He's right, of course, thank heavens. But in the spirit
of transparency, it's also good for Americans to hear
what foreign leaders think. Above all, it provides a
window into what they expect from each candidate were
he to serve the next four years. Americans can use that
prism to inform their own decisions at the ballot box.
Despite his non-participation in Iraq, Russia's
Vladimir Putin offered thinly veiled support for Bush
this week. The message? Deep down, those countries
worried about terrorism agree with Bush's agenda.
All of this resonates deeply with the conservative and
male voters Kerry is trying to win over in the final
days. The senator has put intense effort into
convincing the country that he would not weigh foreign
sentiment or a "global test" in his judgments on how
best to protect the country. But, by their tacit
endorsements, foreign leaders clearly believe otherwise.
So, we say, let all the foreign leaders of the world
speak their minds and let's see what the preference is
in Syria or Sudan or Saudia Arabia. Then, when it comes
to protecting the country and crafting foreign policy,
Americans can decide whether "it takes a village."
Collin Levey is a weekly op-ed columnist at the Seattle
Times. Before joining the Times in September 2003, she
was an editorial writer and editor for The Wall Street Journal.
2004, Collin Levey
Posted By Permission
--
LP
"We are fighting today for security, for progress,
and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all
men, not only for one generation but for all
generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world
of ancient evils, ancient ills."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
State of the Union Address - 1942
|
| |
| |
LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message news:<41798ED6.8AC8F475@igs.net>...
it's the Bush impression metaphorically speaking
that he will stand on the front porch and put himself
between criminals and the people he is sworn to protect.
Your brains have been spun-washed.
Bush had a chance to take out terrorist mastermind Abu Musab Zarqawi
back in 2002 but didn't do it because he was afraid it might weaken
the case for invading Iraq.
It's true.
Since we knew at the time that (a) Abu Musab Zarqawi and the terrorist
group Ansar al-Islam was connected to al-Qaeda, (b) they had camps in
the Halabja Valley in northern Iraq, and (c) the area in question was
in the American-patrolled no-fly zone and not under Saddam Hussein's
control, why not mount an attack on it?
Given the obvious link between achieving this objective and the war on
terror, and given the assertions by France and others that credible
evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda would justify use of
force, would the Security Council be willing to approve U.S. military
action in this area?....This would be an excellent test of where
exactly the French and Germans stand. Is their opposition to Iraq
based on a blind determination to counter U.S. power, or is there some
nuance to their stance?
Unfortunately, it turns out it wasn't France and Germany we had to
worry about. It was George Bush:
In June 2002...the Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp
[but]....the plan was debated to death in the National Security
Council....The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White
House again killed it....The Pentagon drew up still another attack
plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation
was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist
camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
Unlike Saddam, Zarqawi really was developing poisons such as ricin and
cyanide for use in terrorist attacks in the West and elsewhere. But we
hesitated to take action because destroying the Ansar al-Islam camps
might have been inconvenient for George Bush's speechwriters.
Zarqawi has reportedly killed at least 700 people since then. But it
might be many more. We will probably never know for sure how many
people died at his hands because of George Bush's uncertainty in the
face of danger.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_03/003430.php
NBC News
March 2, 2004
Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind
Abu Musab Zarqawi blamed for more than 700 killings in Iraq
By Jim Miklaszewski
Correspondent
With Tuesday's attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with
ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings
in Iraq.
advertisementBut NBC News has learned that long before the war the
Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist
operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself but never pulled the
trigger.
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that
Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in
northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.
The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise
missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where,
according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in
the National Security Council.
People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow
Saddam than to execute the president's policy of pre-emption against
terrorists.'
Roger Cressey
Terrorism expert"Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a
country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11
and we still didn't do it," said Michael O'Hanlon, military analyst
with the Brookings Institution.
Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use
ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.
The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again
killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with
Iraq.
"People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow
Saddam than to execute the president's policy of preemption against
terrorists," according to terrorism expert and former National
Security Council member Roger Cressey.
In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six
terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in
Iraq.
The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third
time, the National Security Council killed it.
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation
was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist
camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the
war, but it was too late Zarqawi and many of his followers were
gone. "Here's a case where they waited, they waited too long and now
we're suffering as a result inside Iraq," Cressey added.
And despite the Bush administration's tough talk about hitting the
terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi's killing streak continues
today.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
|
| |
| |
Barney Lyon wrote:
LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message news:<41798ED6.8AC8F475@igs.net>...
You can not rely on NBC et al, for true reporting any
more - not in the last 15 years
--
LP
"We are fighting today for security, for progress,
and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all
men, not only for one generation but for all
generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world
of ancient evils, ancient ills."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
State of the Union Address - 1942
|
| |
| |
|
