From: “Seward, Jeff”
Date: October 1, 2004 4:53:52 PM CDT
To: “john seward”
Kerry doesn’t have a specific plan about what he is going to get from “allies.” In fairness, he can’t know in advance. Fundamentally, he is saying this should have been a much more international operation from the get-go, but Bush botched that and has never recovered. We are now in a mess from which Bush has no realistic plan to extract us (if Kerry is vague about his four-point plan, what are the specifics of Bush’s plan to accomplish our mission and get out?). Somehow, we have to change the framework of the problem. That means reestablishing serious links with allies and together figuring out new approaches that leave responsibility less unilaterally resting on US shoulders. This is not just a “poor us–we’re bearing all the burden” argument. It’s not working for this to appear to Iraqis and the Muslim world as an essentially US operation. So Kerry is essentially suggesting that we have to share the responsibility with other countries that have a stake in the outcome and, to do that, we have to share a lot of decision-making power. What form will that take? Who knows? I don’t think Kerry could realistically be specific about that even if he were inclined to be. I thought Kerry’s strongest moment in the debate was when he compared his “four-point” plan to Bush’s “four-word” plan: “more of the same.” That is essentially what Bush is suggesting. Kerry is simply making the point that “more of the same” will produce more of the same; we need a major shift in direction; that shift involves some form of internationalizing the task; and that internationalization will not happen until we have a new president who actually believes in working with other interested parties. I don’t see that Kerry is being any more vague than Bush is on this issue, and it is clear that Kerry would move in a much less unilateralist direction than Bush has or will. That’s a pretty clearly articulated difference whether or not you think it’s a good idea.
On the North Korea thing, both Bush and Kerry made hash out of that. There is no contradiction between our dealing directly with N. Korea and the five-power talks. The Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and South Koreans have been asking us to talk directly to the North Koreans. Doing so doesn’t undercut their involvement in the problem at all. Joe Biden laid this out very clearly on one post-debate show I saw last night. This is another place where Bush made a mess in his first two years and is now struggling to fix. No serious analyst of any political persuasion is making the case that the Bush administration has done a good job on North Korea. I thought Bush was much more convincing on this point last night, but that was only because he completely misrepresented the reality of the situation and the real issue about bilateral talks with North Korea. He was only convincing because the public is completely ignorant about what has happened and what they are doing.
From: john seward
Date: October 1, 2004 8:05:34 PM CDT
To: “Seward, Jeff”
The idea that the French Foreign Legion, the Bundeswehr, and the remnants of the Red Army are going to take our place in Iraq is just a bizarre fantasy. I’m sure Kerry doesn’t believe it for a nanosecond. The fact that you apparently do, despite your vast knowledge of history and present day reality, is either disingenuous or a sign of political desperation. Bush’s plan may or may not work, but it is very clear. Continue fighting the “insurgents”, hold elections in the areas where it is possible, and recreate the Iraqi military. There is no other “framework”. As Bush kept repeating, “It’s hard work.”
We are pursuing the international, UN, diplomatic route in Sudan. How is that going?
North Korea broke their agreement and began developing nukes while Clinton was still president. There is no easy, quick fix to this problem. Requiring NK to deal with China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea instead of forging another phony agreement with the U.S. is the best we can do now.
Kerry is an appeaser. He is our Neville Chamberlain. Churchill wanted to preemptively attack Hitler’s Germany, but the voters overruled him. Millions of people died as a result. This is another similar occasion.