REPORTING FOR DUTY TO WHOM?:

Arrogant Kerry errs in discounting Bush's ideology (GEORGE WILL, 9/09/04, Chicago Sun-Times)

[Kerry] is allowing Bush to have what he wants, a one-issue election. The issue is a conflation of the wars in Iraq and on terror in the single subject ''security.'' Kerry is trying, and failing, to pry apart judgments about the two. But even if he succeeds, he just deepens the incoherence of his still-multiplying positions on Iraq. [...]

The New Republic, which supports him, says his position, which had been ''inscrutable,'' is now ''indefensible.'' He represents a party whose activists detest the war in Iraq, so he dwells on his participation in the Vietnam War, which those activists detested then or have learned to detest through liberalism's catechism. And having made a hash of his thoughts on the most serious subject, his speeches about the outsourcing of jobs appear, grotesquely incongruous, on newspaper pages carrying photographs of the broken bodies from School No. 1.

Almost any good news, about the economy or war, will help Bush. And the most likely bad news, about the war, is apt to hurt Kerry in two ways. It will make his preferred domestic policy issues seem minor, and will reinforce Bush's theme that he is the candidate most focused on and muscular about the world's multiplying dangers.

It seems obvious from the Senator's comments the pasty few days that they recognize the President had turned the war in his own favor so they have to discredit it entirely to have any chance of winning. Unfortunately, while that may help his campaign it will do great harm to the country and to the cause of freedom in the Middle East. You'd think he'd be chastened enough by the damage he did during Vietnam to not want to repeat the exercise, wouldn't you?

MORE:
Unraveling Kerry's Iraq Plan (NY Times, September 9, 2004)

Nobody gets angrier about Senator John Kerry's complicated position on Iraq than his own supporters. The Democratic base would love to see him lashing out at President Bush over the war. But for all of his current tough talk about Mr. Bush's "wrong choices," Mr. Kerry has blurred his message, particularly with his recent statement that he would have voted for the Senate's war resolution even if he had known that Saddam Hussein had no significant cache of weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Kerry also basically agrees with the president that it is now necessary to stay the course - something that will require a continued American military presence in Iraq for years. It's no wonder the issue hasn't provided the Democrats much traction.

Despite our own grave misgivings about the chances of a happy outcome in Iraq, this page has also argued that as long as there is even a modest hope of making things work, the United States and its allies should continue to provide economic support and security. So it's hard for us to criticize Mr. Kerry for his similar stance, especially since this is not his war. People who are unhappy with the way Iraq is going may be frustrated by Mr. Kerry, but they should direct their real anger at Mr. Bush.

Still, voters need a much clearer sense of what Mr. Kerry would do differently. [...]

Although Mr. Kerry's agenda for change in Iraq lacks drama, if he truly believes that many of the problems there are caused by ineptitude in the training of local security forces, he should say so forcefully every day, while there is still a little time to improve the situation before voting begins in January. If he sincerely believes that other nations can be brought into the effort there, he should be much more forthright in explaining how he could do it.

Given the political corner Mr. Kerry has painted himself into, it's not surprising that his advisers are urging him to start concentrating on the economy. But Iraq is still the great crisis confronting the United States. While the temptation to dodge it at this point is natural, Mr. Kerry should resist.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 9, 2004 11:09 AM