Kerry: Back on the Sauce

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060723/UPDATE/607230360


Kerry knocks Bush on handling of Mideast conflict

Valerie Olander / The Detroit News

Advertisement
GET FREE HEADLINES BY E-MAIL



* Printer friendly version
* Comment on this story
* Send this story to a friend
* Get Home Delivery

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., who was in town Sunday to help Gov. Jennifer Granholm campaign for her re-election bid, took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John's bar and grill in Detroit's Cass Corridor.

Bush has been so concentrated on the war in Iraq that other Middle East tension arose as a result, he said.

"The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East," Kerry said. "We're going to have a lot of ground to make up (in 2008) because of it."

Kerry lost by a narrow margin to Bush in 2004 and plans to seek the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2008.

Today marks the 12th day of fighting between Israel and Lebanon. Israel launched air strikes after Hezbollah militants, whom operate within Lebanon, kidnapped two Israeli soldiers in an attempt to swap them for prisoners.

Israel began a ground invasion, sending tanks and troops across the border as thousands of Lebanese have fled to escape the fighting.

Hezbollah guerillas should have been targeted with other terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida and the Taliban, which operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Kerry said. However, Bush, has focused military strength on Iraq.

"This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq.…We have to destroy Hezbollah," he said.


Couple of things:

1. Yo, John, what do you think Israel is doing right now? I'd call it 'destroying Hezbollah.'

2. They've been fighting since Hezbollah was founded. It's whole purpose when Iran established it was to destroy Israel. And you think you could have magically stopped it? Pass the bong old man.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

My point is that he says there would not be this confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah going on, but then says that we need to deal with Hezbollah.

Am I wrong, or is Israel dealing with Hezbollah? I mean, they have been trying the diplomatic approach over there for years, and it did not work out. What makes him think it would be any different with him in charge?

Hezbollah does not want peace, they want all Israelis dead. You can reason with or come to a truce with people like that. It is either going to be you or them, and that is what Israel is doing right now.

[IceColdBrewski]

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry...


Typical armchair QB'ing from Kerry. Always condemning Bush without offering any alternative. Just like during the campaign.

Anyone can criticize after the fact. What's your solution Mr Kerry? How bout telling us (for once) what should be done differently.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry...


Typical armchair QB'ing from Kerry. Always condemning Bush without offering any alternative. Just like during the campaign.

Anyone can criticize after the fact. What's your solution Mr Kerry? How bout telling us (for once) what should be done differently.

He did. He said we should deal with Hezbollah :lol Like I said, I could be wrong, but I think Israel is doing that by proxy.

I guess he'd rather our troops be the ones getting killed, then he could be whining about our troops getting killed in something that doesn't directly involve us, like Vietnam or some BS rationale like that.

[DarkReign]

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry...


Typical armchair QB'ing from Kerry. Always condemning Bush without offering any alternative. Just like during the campaign.

Anyone can criticize after the fact. What's your solution Mr Kerry? How bout telling us (for once) what should be done differently.

Thus the reason he lost the election. Thus the reason Republicans wont lose their majority in November either.

Democrats are reeeeal good at pointing out fault. Not so good on the alternative solution front.

[ObiwanGinobili]

hahahaha.

maybe if more democratic canidates had well established alcohol dependancy and freebase cocaine habits they would get elected more.
Ted Kennedy is a pioneer.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I just want to hear a solution from someone in the democratic party. It's the same crap we heard in 2004. "See the way Bush is doing it, that's wrong. If I was president, I wouldn't do it that way. I don't really know what way I would do it, so don't ask. I just know I would do it different."

Thanks for the insight there Johnny boy.

[spurster]

That's a stupid statement by Kerry.

I don't have a solution. Both Israel and Arabs have to come to terms. The US can't force them to be peaceful. Our experience in Afghanistan and Iraq (and before that Vietnam) should make us realize that much.

I think the least unreasonable goal is that the Palestinians get Gaza and West Bank and Israel keeps Jerusalem. All candidates for any election on each side must swear to the terms of the treaty, especially the right of Israel to exist and the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. I don't think either side is willing to compromise to this point or anywhere close for quite a while.

If something like that is your goal, that the US needs to provide incentives toward it, such as stopping any support of Israel's settlements and giving Syria a kick or two.

[Condemned 2 HelLA]

hahahaha.

maybe if more democratic canidates had well established alcohol dependancy and freebase cocaine habits they would get elected more.
Ted Kennedy is a pioneer.

Dubya must've been inspired by ol' Teddy!!!!!

[bendmz]

"term Limits"!!!!!! That Will Shut Up These God Damn Maggots Who Do Nothing But Draw A Paycheck For 10, 15, 20 Plus Years And Not Do A Damn Thing........... Term Limits For All The Suckers....

[jochhejaam]

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry...
Braggadicio over the unprovable. How noble.

He lost the Presidency because his "plan" for America amounted to a "litany of complaints", and he continues to stand out among his peers by continuing in that vein. I applaud his consistency.

I expect the infamous flip-flopper to come out soon with a statement saying "I actually said this would have happened if I were the President before I said that it wouldn't have.

[clambake]

Kerry has no answer, so he keeps his mouth shut after knocking the pres.

Bush has no answer, so he sends Rice. She carrys no weight to the table. Listening to her speak is like watching a 3rd grader struggle through a book report.

[Spurminator]

Listening to her speak is like watching a 3rd grader struggle through a book report.


If she's 3rd Grade, then the Prez is still a couple years from Kindergarten.

[clambake]

I wish I could argue with that, spurminator.

[jochhejaam]

The weekly column in The Blade by Jack Kelly


The limits of diplomacy


THE Israeli-Hezbollah war wouldn't have happened if John Kerry were president, John Kerry told the Detroit News last Sunday.

President Bush hasn't devoted the attention to the Middle East that he would have, Senator Kerry told reporter Valerie Olander.

Mr. Kerry didn't explain how his personal attention would have prevented Hezbollah's abduction of two Israeli soldiers, or its firing of rockets into Israeli cities, and Ms. Olander didn't ask.

Mr. Kerry has misplaced confidence in his own persuasive powers, and in what can be accomplished by diplomacy.

President Clinton hoped a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would be the crowning foreign policy achievement of his presidency. He lavished attention on PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, who was a guest at the White House more often than any other foreign leader. The upshot of all this attention was the intifada.

Wars typically start because people have irreconcilable goals. This conflict arose because Hezbollah wants to destroy Israel, and Israel doesn't want to be destroyed.

It's hard to see how it can be resolved by negotiation. Hezbollah wants to kill all the Jews. What's the middle ground? Should we let Hezbollah kill half the Jews? Or whack an arm or a leg off all of them?

And why should western diplomacy focus, as it so often does these days, on (so far futile) efforts to placate the unreasonable demands of unlovely people?

Advocates of a "diplomatic solution" whatever the circumstances tend to believe (a) that nothing is worse than war; (b) that everybody agrees with (a), and (c) that there is no problem that can't be solved if people talk about it long enough.

But most people who aren't liberals think submission to tyranny is worse than war, and tyrants tend not to bargain in good faith for part of what they want if they think they can get it all by force.

When acts of aggression are met with gestures of appeasement, the aggressors (not unreasonably) assume the appeasers are afraid of them. And since it was bad behavior that brought forth the gestures of appeasement, the aggressors are encouraged to behave worse, not better. Diplomacy based on hubris and cowardice inevitably leads to failure.

But that's a lesson some people never learn. Advocates of a "diplomatic solution" are pushing for two destructive steps: a cease-fire that would preserve Hezbollah from destruction and direct negotiations with Hezbollah's string pullers, Syria and Iran.

But the Bush Administration understands that in war, diplomacy can succeed only when it is an adjunct to force, or the threat of it, not a substitute for it.

A condition precedent for a satisfactory peace deal is that Hezbollah be degraded sufficiently so that it is no longer (much of) a threat to Israel or to the fledgling Lebanese government. That's why President Bush has opposed calls for a premature cease-fire.

The goal of U.S. policy is to split Syria off from its alliance with Iran. Iran is the driving force behind Hezbollah, but - thanks to geography - the terror group can be effectively supported only from Syria.

The odds of this occurring are slim. But the payoff for success would be huge. And there is a precedent.

Libya was one the most active terror supporting states. But in 2003 Libya abandoned its weapons of mass destruction, including an advanced nuclear program.

Libyan dictator Muammar Kaddafi responded in part to carrots offered by the United States and Britain. But his change of heart occurred within days of U.S. troops pulling Saddam Hussein from his spider hole in Iraq. Silvio Berlusconi, prime minister of Italy at the time, said Kaddafi phoned him at the time and said: "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."

The President realizes Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, like Kaddafi, is more likely to be motivated by fear of consequences than by hope of reward. That's why Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been playing hard to get. She's refused to go to Damascus, or to permit Syria and Iran to participate in multinational talks on Lebanon.

In the past, the world came to Syria's door, and an arrogant Syria gained much and offered little in return. Now Ms. Rice is forcing Syria to beg to get in the club. She knows Bashar Assad is more likely to be forthcoming if he fears international isolation (or worse).

It's still a long shot. But because it's grounded in reality rather than liberal illusions, the Bush Administration's diplomacy may succeed where President Clinton's failed.

Jack Kelly is national security writer for The Blade and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060729/COLUMNIST14/607290359