|
Edited on Tue Sep-08-09 08:14 AM by karynnj
comprehend that Kerry in hs NYU speech articulated an approach designed to internationalize and even more important empower the Iraqis to take over their own country. Kerry, not Dean, raised the issue and declared no permanent bases - Kerry also cautioned against an occupation, which Dean didn't do. They, in their hurt and unhappiness, helped the Republicans in spreading the argument that Kerry was little different than Bush going forward. The fact is even the MSM recognized the recommendations of the ISG to be what Kerry had proposed --- and definitely NOT what Bush did.
Part of this is that Dean in February 2004, as he imploding, like Clinton in 2008, said things that were never true. They were the same garbage that Trippi had Edwards say in 2008 about his opponents. That they were bought by the corporations and lobbyists etc. (In Kerry's case, this was less true of him than of Dean - though it would be to neither. The fact is that Kerry lad out a more detailed plan of what he would do going forward in Iraq than Dean did. (Deaniacs ignore that in 2006, Kerry was for getting out in 6 months (compromised to 1 year - to also agree with Iraqi plans, while Dean was for the longer term Korb plan. Dean is also now more aggressive on Afghanstan, where Kerry is calling for caution. The sad truth is that Kerry, out of all the 2004 (and 2008) viable candidates was the most likely to get us out quickly and in the best way possible. The degree of hurt from 2004 blinded many former Deaniacs to the degree that by 2005, they saw Edwards as anti-war, but not Kerry, even as he led on sensible plans to get out.
I disagree that he would have done the "surge" earlier. He said that as soon as he won he would initiate a regional summit to deal with the political issues, which are STILL not settled. It is hard to believe he would not have done that - both from his history and the fact that it was something he very specifically and often said he would do immediately. He also would have brought in other countries to very quickly train the Iraqis. After he lost, on his trips, he got commitments from Jordan, Eqypt, Germany and France to train them in their countries. (If he wanted to call it that, there might have been a 6 month or less surge period when the coalition was maintaining order while all these people would be training, but I would guess that it would not have been US soldiers, but troops from the region.)
I think Kerry's comment in 2004 that some troops would come home in 2005 likely would have happened. I also think that the type of real hearts and minds actions, now proposed for Pakistan, would have been used there and in Afghanistan when that country still was happy with us. We lost that window of opportunity. We also lost the window of opportunity in the Middle East when Arafat died and Abbas came in.
I agree with half of what one person said who argued that Kerry would have been better for the country, but worse for the Democrats. That poster pointed out that we would not know the baseline. That second term resulted in Bush being seen as responsible for negligence on Katrina, the economic crisis, and the wars - though the right will spin an exit in 2011 as what Bush agreed to and even here the surge is given credit. The fact is Kerry would have inherited a mess where the magnitude of the problems were not known. Though the poster, implicitly assumes that Kerry would have done many right things, he/she assumes that he would have gotten little credit and much blame. I am more positive that Kerry could have been seen as leading well and might have won re-election for the same reason Bush actually did in 2004 - except the trust would have been merited.
Kerry would have cleaned up the foreign policy messes - but likely would be blamed for "losing" Iraq, when it was seen not to be a western democracy. I suspect that most Americans would simply be happy it was over. Kerry would have had foreign policy successes because they were there to be had - and he would have been a very likely Nobel Prize winner - something that would have helped a little at home.
Katrina would have been a major crisis. I am sure he would have led a more capable team and been personally involved. Kerry spoke in one interview when Katrina was happening of as President moving right outside the area so people would know the government was working to help. But, as that poster said, this would be seen as average - as government was suppose to work. I do think that many might then have had there first real look at John and Teresa Kerry. The reason Kerry did as well as he did in 2004 was that he did convince many people that he was a leader, who cared about those he was leading and that he was capable. I think what hurt Bush the most was not the rank incompetence, but the fact that it looked like he completely did not care - something that would never have happened with Kerry. In addition, Kerry was instrumental at Bali to getting agreement as Senator. Imagine how much he could have done as President. Katrina could have been seen as the point where the US turned on really acting on global warming.
Katrina and the housing bust, both difficult to deal with, were also opportunities to lead. On the housing bubble, it is true that all the pieces were in place before 2004. Kerry might have been able to mitigate some of the problem by appointing someone to the SEC who could have regulated. Imagine if he put Spritzer there or as Attorney General, assuming he would give up the governorship. Kerry was one of the first publicly demanding action on the foreclosure crisis as Senator. But, the problem was really all the speculation happening with the derivatives that caused the problem. Only unnaturally never having any downturn ever in the housing market could have kept that afloat. There was going to be economic pain and the Republicans would have their standard solution - tax cuts.
I believe that Kerry would have had the inner FDR (after all he IS a distant relative) to have told the truth to the country in 2007 about the financial problems and presented solutions. The combination of fear of economic collapse and a strong leader speaking with directness and honesty - and the calm, serious, explanations of his proposals could have been enough that people would prefer leaving him in charge. His connections to Europe would suddenly be positives, as he would have been seen leading the world's efforts.
So, I would bet he would have faced horrendous problems and that he would often have received no praise for outstanding work, but he has done that before and just kept working as well as he could. In the end, people would likely have seen that he did an amazing job - though it might have been like Truman, where only after decades out of office would he be seen for the good he did.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
