How Kerry's Foreign Policies Leave Him Vulnerable to Republican Attacks

[IrateCitizen]

How Kerry’s Foreign Policies Leave Him Vulnerable to Republican Attacks
by Stephen Zunes

The only people who could possibly be swayed by the unfair and misleading attacks on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry put forward by speakers at the Republican National Convention – particularly Vice-President Dick Cheney and Georgia Senator Zell Miller – would be those with little understanding of contemporary strategic issues and modern diplomatic history.

Unfortunately, that probably includes the majority of eligible American voters.

Whether or not such disingenuous criticism will ultimately cost John Kerry and his running mate John Edwards the election remains to be seen. More immediately, however, it is indicative of the flawed assumption of the Democratic Party that nominating two hawks (whose support for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq put them at odds with 95% of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention) would somehow make them immune from Republican charges of weakness on defense.

Instead, by nominating two supporters of the Bush Doctrine and the neo-conservative agenda, the Democrats have ended up alienating their base without sparing themselves one iota from Republican attacks.

Let’s begin by a critical examination of charges that Senator Kerry is not adequately concerned about the national security of the United States or capable of defending the nation.

READ THE REST HERE

While the article makes some points I may slightly disagree with on nuance, I think its overall thrust is an accurate one. Kerry and Edwards' attempts to demonstrate their hawkishness have STILL not left them immune to Republican attacks, and they have alienated a significant portion of the Democratic base (which tends to not support the actions in Iraq) in the process.

What do you think?

[Frodo]

1. How Kerry's Foreign Policies REALLY leave him vulnerable

He can't HAVE a single foreign policy because the party is so split over Iraq that if he takes a solid stance on one side of the fence or the other he loses the election.

Something like 30-35% of DEMOCRATS still support the war and he NEEDS those votes. Yet there are Nader Lites out there who insist on dogmatic purity on the issue. People who REALLY had an "understanding of contemporary strategic issues and modern diplomatic history" would know where Kerry has been all these years and give him the benefit of the doubt.

[yardwork]

2. I agree

Now that we are involved in the occupation of Iraq, it would be irresponsible for Kerry to call for simplistic solutions. It's become in incredibly complicated situation.

Kerry would never have invaded Iraq in the first place. That is the bottom line.

[unfrigginreal]

3. Oh great, NOW you come to that conclusion

it doesn't make sense to now look at the problems created by nominating "supporters of the Bush Doctrine and the neo-conservative agenda." The candidate is who he is and time would be better spent figuring out a way to overcome his weaknesses than to analyze "flawed assumptions" of the Democratic Party. The time for that is after the election.

Hopefully this writers next article can include more than one paragraph on what he thinks it will take to win and less on the "woulda, shoulda, coulda."