Kerry Takes On Bush As A War Leader

by Mary

Posted by Mary
Bush plans to run on his bold and aggressive foreign policy. His motto is "Threaten everyone and carry the biggest stick." He will run as a war president because the Republicans believe the American public will continue to back Bush and find the misguided policy of preemption as the best policy going into the future.

"We look forward to a two-person race when we can clearly define the difference between higher taxes and the president's view that we need to keep taxes low to keep the economy moving," said Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel. "A choice between the president's current strategy to address threats where they emerge or what's being offered by his opponents, which would be a rollback of that policy."

The policy Stanzel refers to is the doctrine of pre-emption, as the vernacular goes inside the Beltway. In a post-Sept. 11 America, Mr. Bush emphasizes that the United States must strike at terrorists before terrorists strike first.

While it still appears that many Americans think that Republicans are better on national security, the time is ripe for showing the public how bad the new Bush policy is for our country. John Kerry's personal record as a Vietnam war vet and his strong team of advisors are starting to break through the media fog (and Bush engendered fear campaign) to challenge the Republican argument. Today, in the day's top news stories, Kerry's foreign policy vision is contrasted with Bush's failing policy.

Kerry is offering American voters a far different vision of the U.S. role in international affairs than President Bush, one that much of the world may find more familiar and more comforting.

The Democratic senator from Massachusetts, now leading in the race for his party's presidential nomination, has accused Bush of extremism in waging the "most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."

While insisting he would never cede U.S. security to any nation or institution and will use force when necessary, Kerry envisions a "new era of alliances (because) even the only superpower on earth cannot succeed without cooperation and compromise with our friends and allies."

Even Kerry's vote for the Iraq resolution last year is being answered with a strong offense against Bush's handling of the Iraq war:

Critics have slammed him for double-talk on Iraq, because after voting for war, he has faulted Bush's handling of it.

But Kerry counters that while Bush was right to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, "he went to war in a rush and he rushed into war almost alone ... How is it possible to do what the Bush administration has done, win a great military victory yet make America weaker?" (emphasis added)

Sydney Blumenthal says that the Republicans will try to undermine Kerry, yet they will run into the same problems Nixon did in the 70s when he tried to discredit Kerry as he spoke up against the Vietnam war. Even better, the hubris of the Bush campaign has provided the Democrats a powerful image to use in the upcoming election. As Bush runs on his record as a war president, the Democrats are planning to use the air carrier commercial Rove created with Bush standing in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner to show what a failure Bush's leadership has been.

Frankly, it is good that the Democrats are beginning to articulate why national security based on a collaborative foreign policy is better because for too long the Republicans have advocated a dangerous and destructive policy that must be reputiated if humanity is to survive for another century. The American public need to hear the arguments and understand why a bullying, warlike America the Republicans want to create is not just wrong, but also counterproductive for creating a safer world