|
The first is that on the two issues, Kerry is NOT in step with Obama. This does not mean that he shouldn't speak out - but on torture, he is not in the same place as Obama. He clearly wanted Obama to create a commission and Obama didn't. He also voted against Obama on the Gitmo funding, though it is clear he wants in closed.
On GITMO, I did not see the President or his administration leading the effort to define even principles of how they were going to find placements for the people at GITMO. He has spoken of how they will be processed in military tribunals consistent with law. If Obama had identified prisons and {i]worked with mayors and governors to get support to use those prisons and then made that case to the Congress, he likely would have won. (especially because if state X were the known destination, Senators for most states will have less trouble voting for it.) These people have not been tried, assuming we intend to try them, they will be somewhere under our control for some time - so, if we want GITMO closed very soon, those alternatives are needed.
If that is not the case and the intent is to export the problem, the alternative of sending them to other countries has its own flaws. The other country can err in either direction - releasing people, who should have been tried, which could blow up in our faces or worse, releasing people really guilty of little or nothing, to countries that will continue to hold them without trial or worse. {/i] Where does our responsibility end? While I want to trust Obama, haven't we demanded that Congress do their oversight? While I think this may be knee jerk politics, Obama should have have set out at least principles for a plan and been on TV explaining what our values required us to do BEFORE the vote.
This and whether to have a commision are the PRESIDENT'S policies. Where are his justice and foreign policy people? When Clinton was chosen, it was said to be great that she was a star. She, not Kerry, is in the administration. Why should it be like the general election, where she spoke to cheering crowds of Democrats, while Kerry took the risks of countering McCain? If you want to have someone defending the President, shouldn't his administration be first in line. Where is Holder? Rice? Panetta? (Panetta has the ability to do an internal review - and give summary conclusions of any CIA involvement.)
The second reason is more subtle and that deals with the role Kerry might now want to play. He is in the Senate, but not in the party leadership there. He is the top foreign policy voice from the Senate and, consistent with what he said when he was in the minority, he and Lugar seem to be trying to tone down the partisanship. There are many big issues where that will be needed on foreign policy. John Kerry will be leading the effort on any global warming treaty.
This is a major change. During the last 4 years, he - more than anyone prominent in the Democratic party - has led on nearly every fight, often as the point person. He was incredible as a very classy attack dog - but an attack dog - all the same for Obama in both the primaries and the general election. Though that won him points on the left, there is a cost to that - as can be seen by the non-scientific poll that placed him among the most partisan Democrats. (Durbin as the Democratic whip belongs there as that is consistent with his role.) Yet, what is very clear in all his hearings and in Senate speeches and debates is the respect and willingness to engage politely. We saw him deftly stop Kyl's amendments on the Middle East and Iran - some of which would have passed with super majorities a year ago by calmly laying out in concise Senate speeches the reasons they were not good.
I also thing that what he did in Jordan was more important than anything he could have done on a talk show last week - and I suspect - that the same may be true with China this weekend. What is clear to me is that other than George Mitchell, a brilliant choice, Kerry might well be the person prominently associated with Obama who has reached out to the Arab world and seen and understood their side. That he comments were applauded by the audience and praised by King Abdullah - even as he held them to changes they never really made was great. It is also clear that Gaza trip was a big deal.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
