This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C47C0E.745FAC70
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
by Terence P. Jeffrey
Posted Aug 4, 2004
One of the most dramatic segments in John Kerry's speech at the =
Democratic National Convention seemed at first listening to be a ringing =
re-affirmation of a traditional American principle.
But listen carefully to how Kerry answered the question of when America =
ought to go to war and you will discover he wasn't echoing George =
Washington so much as doing a Clintonesque takeoff on Woodrow Wilson.
Said Kerry: "And as President, I will bring back this nation's =
time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war =
because we want to, we only go to war because we have to."
Thus far, he resembled Washington, who studiously kept America out of a =
conflict between England and France, and who counseled non-intervention =
and deterrent military strength. But a moment later, Kerry resembled =
Woodrow Wilson, who converted World War I into an un-winnable crusade =
"for a universal dominion of right."
While expressing a Wilsonian view, however, Kerry used carefully parsed =
Clintonian language.
According to the text of his speech posted on his campaign website, =
Kerry said: "Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a =
parent in the eye and truthfully say: 'I tried everything possible to =
avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no =
choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American =
values from a threat that was real and imminent.' So lesson one, this is =
the only justification for going to war."
Now look at these 18 words again: "We had to protect the American =
people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and =
imminent."
Is Kerry giving "only" one justification for war, or two?
He appears to be offering Washington's and Wilson's at the same time: He =
would send your son or daughter to war 1) to protect "the American =
people" (Washingtonian realism), or 2) to protect "American values" =
(Wilsonian ideology).
Is this too picky a textual analysis? An alternative interpretation is =
that on the most significant issue, in his most important speech, Kerry =
was inadvertently imprecise in his choice of words.
There's undeniable power--and jeopardy--in a campaign promise =
unambiguously stated. President Bush's father coined a classic: "Read my =
lips: No new taxes." Kerry might have said 18 words that went like this: =
"Read my lips: No wars unless they are necessary to protect Americans =
from a real and imminent threat." But he didn't. He said those other 18 =
words.
Kerry has been called a flip-flopper. But give him credit here for a =
veiled consistency. He has indeed alternately supported wars he deemed =
necessary to protect "American people" and "values."
Mirroring President Bush's argument that it was necessary to protect =
Americans, Kerry voted for war in Iraq. "Iraq has some lethal and =
incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing =
[sic] of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a =
range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert =
operatives which could bring them to the United States itself," Kerry =
said in the Senate before the war vote.
Arguing it was necessary to protect "international principles of =
decency," Kerry supported Clinton's intervention in Serbia's civil war. =
Appearing on CNN in 1999, Kerry said of the Kosovo war: "I believe in =
the stand we're taking here. This is not on the side of one combatant or =
another, this is on the side of international principles of decency and =
of the appropriate behavior that civilized nations should live by at the =
end of this century and the beginning of the next."
Kerry insisted the U.S. must be ready to risk ground troops for this =
cause. "I don't think it necessarily requires troops," he said, "though =
I have been very clear that they should not be taken off the table."
On CNBC that year, Newsweek's Howard Fineman pressed Kerry to explain =
why his argument for intervening in Serbia did not also apply to =
war-torn Rwanda. Kerry's 130-word answer started by conceding, "That's a =
very fair question . . ." and included, "maybe that's something that =
needs to be thought about in the future."
No, it's not.
If America fought foreign wars to protect "values" or "international =
standards of decency" even when the freedom and security of Americans =
were not threatened, there would be no end to the places Presidents =
could send American sons and daughters into harm's way--and in none =
would it be necessary for Americans to die.
To be sure, Bush has voiced Wilsonianisms, too, albeit without Kerry's =
Clintonesque obfuscation. But if there is one American tradition =
Republicans and Democrats ought to agree to restore now, it is the one =
given us by our first President: We will fight no war unless it is =
necessary to defend the American people.=20
------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C47C0E.745FAC70
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<P>by Terence P. Jeffrey<BR>Posted Aug 4, 2004</P>One of the most =
dramatic=20
segments in John Kerry's speech at the Democratic National Convention =
seemed at=20
first listening to be a ringing re-affirmation of a traditional American =
principle.<BR><BR>But listen carefully to how Kerry answered the =
question of=20
when America ought to go to war and you will discover he wasn't echoing =
George=20
Washington so much as doing a Clintonesque takeoff on Woodrow=20
Wilson.<BR><BR>Said Kerry: "And as President, I will bring back this =
nation's=20
time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war =
because=20
we want to, we only go to war because we have to."<BR><BR>Thus far, he =
resembled=20
Washington, who studiously kept America out of a conflict between =
England and=20
France, and who counseled non-intervention and deterrent military =
strength. But=20
a moment later, Kerry resembled Woodrow Wilson, who converted World War =
I into=20
an un-winnable crusade "for a universal dominion of right."<BR><BR>While =
expressing a Wilsonian view, however, Kerry used carefully parsed =
Clintonian=20
language.<BR><BR>According to the text of his speech posted on his =
campaign=20
website, Kerry said: "Before you go to battle, you have to be able to =
look a=20
parent in the eye and truthfully say: 'I tried everything possible to =
avoid=20
sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no choice. We =
had to=20
protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat =
that was=20
real and imminent.' So lesson one, this is the only justification for =
going to=20
war."<BR><BR>Now look at these 18 words again: "We had to protect the =
American=20
people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and=20
imminent."<BR><BR>Is Kerry giving "only" one justification for war, or=20
two?<BR><BR>He appears to be offering Washington's and Wilson's at the =
same=20
time: He would send your son or daughter to war 1) to protect "the =
American=20
people" (Washingtonian realism), or 2) to protect "American values" =
(Wilsonian=20
ideology).<BR><BR>Is this too picky a textual analysis? An alternative=20
interpretation is that on the most significant issue, in his most =
important=20
speech, Kerry was inadvertently imprecise in his choice of =
words.<BR><BR>There's=20
undeniable power--and jeopardy--in a campaign promise unambiguously =
stated.=20
President Bush's father coined a classic: "Read my lips: No new taxes." =
Kerry=20
might have said 18 words that went like this: "Read my lips: No wars =
unless they=20
are necessary to protect Americans from a real and imminent threat." But =
he=20
didn't. He said those other 18 words.<BR><BR>Kerry has been called a=20
flip-flopper. But give him credit here for a veiled consistency. He has =
indeed=20
alternately supported wars he deemed necessary to protect "American =
people" and=20
"values."<BR><BR>Mirroring President Bush's argument that it was =
necessary to=20
protect Americans, Kerry voted for war in Iraq. "Iraq has some lethal =
and=20
incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing =
[sic] of a=20
variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of =
vehicles,=20
such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which =
could bring=20
them to the United States itself," Kerry said in the Senate before the =
war=20
vote.<BR><BR>Arguing it was necessary to protect "international =
principles of=20
decency," Kerry supported Clinton's intervention in Serbia's civil war.=20
Appearing on CNN in 1999, Kerry said of the Kosovo war: "I believe in =
the stand=20
we're taking here. This is not on the side of one combatant or another, =
this is=20
on the side of international principles of decency and of the =
appropriate=20
behavior that civilized nations should live by at the end of this =
century and=20
the beginning of the next."<BR><BR>Kerry insisted the U.S. must be ready =
to risk=20
ground troops for this cause. "I don't think it necessarily requires =
troops," he=20
said, "though I have been very clear that they should not be taken off =
the=20
table."<BR><BR>On CNBC that year, <EM>Newsweek</EM>'s Howard Fineman =
pressed=20
Kerry to explain why his argument for intervening in Serbia did not also =
apply=20
to war-torn Rwanda. Kerry's 130-word answer started by conceding, =
"That's a very=20
fair question . . ." and included, "maybe that's something that needs to =
be=20
thought about in the future."<BR><BR>No, it's not.<BR><BR>If America =
fought=20
foreign wars to protect "values" or "international standards of decency" =
even=20
when the freedom and security of Americans were not threatened, there =
would be=20
no end to the places Presidents could send American sons and daughters =
into=20
harm's way--and in none would it be necessary for Americans to =
die.<BR><BR>To be=20
sure, Bush has voiced Wilsonianisms, too, albeit without Kerry's =
Clintonesque=20
obfuscation. But if there is one American tradition Republicans and =
Democrats=20
ought to agree to restore now, it is the one given us by our first =
President: We=20
will fight no war unless it is necessary to defend the American people. =
<BR=20
clear=3Dall></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C47C0E.745FAC70--
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
