Kerry and the Hawks

[Classical_Liberal]

.....In his April 18 appearance on Meet the Press, Kerry distanced himself from his younger, anti-war incarnation. Host Tim Russert showed a clip of the young Kerry in uniform, just back from Vietnam, telling of the atrocities he and his fellow soldiers had taken part in, and saying that the United States had engaged in war crimes in Vietnam. "Atrocities?" Russert asked Kerry. The candidate squirmed and tried a stiff joke, making light of his own earnest image in that early video footage: "Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That's a big question for me," he said, chuckling awkwardly. He went on to say that his description of burning villages and machine-gunning women and children as "war crimes" was "over the top"--just the bluster of an angry young man.

On other issues of war and peace, Kerry sounded similarly defensive and eager to portray himself as a hawk. He bobbed and weaved and qualified his way out of his eminently sensible statement that the war on terror is not primarily a military endeavor. He reminded Russert that he supported more troops in Iraq and more money for the military budget. He left no daylight at all between the Bush Administration's staunch support of Ariel Sharon's aggressive policies in the Occupied Territories and his own.

...It is time to "replace unilateral action with collective security," Kerry told the Council, in conclusion. Among the most important steps on the road to peace is bringing together the Israelis and Palestinians. "In the first days of a Kerry Administration, I will appoint a Presidential Ambassador to the Peace Process. . . . President Carter, former Secretary of State James Baker, or . . . President Clinton."

Unfortunately, Kerry promptly backed away from that list on Meet the Press, saying he'd no longer consider Carter or Baker. Apparently, some of his more hawkish advisers on Middle East policy didn't approve......

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0427-09.htm

There is much more

[jpgray]

1. Some of his hawkish advisers didn't approve of Baker?

Give me a break. Common Dreams needs a better editor, since this mostly clowns about how "awkward" and "stiff" Kerry is, repeating the pundit scripts to perfection. Some people are dumb enough to fall for the idea that focusing on what's bad about Kerry is a better way for a progressive to spend his/her time than focusing on defeating Bush. The answer is to recognize and keep in mind Kerry's failings, but to keep the main focus on ousting Bush. Common Dreams increasingly seems to have a personal issue with Kerry, rather than any objective criticisms of his stances. The lack of general research and editing, and especially the silly Dowdish subjective characterizations are really disappointing.

Doing this work is easy. The mainstream media LOVE these guys for doing it, because it aids Bush immensely. Kerry is attacked from both right and left for being too left and too right, and some people on the left are too stupid to realize their focus should not be destroying Kerry, but destroying Bush. Nothing wrong with recognizing Kerry's flaws, but it's silly to do so to the exclusion of removing Bush from power--that's what the media want, and because it is easy, that is what many leftist publications will do.

[Classical_Liberal]

2. They also didn't approve of Carter

Bakers views on foreign policy are not that bad and are opposed the the present Bush administration. He is an enemy of the neocons.