John Kerry on Imus this morning re Iraq:
"Now it's obviously, with the situation on the ground, much more complicated; I have to acknowledge that. It is more complicated. But I would immediately call a summit meeting of the European community. They haven't lived up to the obligations of their own resolution that they passed at the U.N."
What piffle, this is the sort of people we're dealing with in Europe.
Imus pressed Kerry to name his advisors or perhaps a cabinet appointment or two.
IMUS: Well, just give us one name.KERRY: No, I was just going to say to you, I'm not going to start appointing people to positions, and I think that's completely irresponsible and not appropriate, but...
IMUS: Either give us a name or we won't vote for you.
KERRY: But there are people who are advising me and who are very respected in the community.
IMUS: Holbrooke?
KERRY: He is one who is advising me. I have Joe Biden is advising me. There are -- Madeleine Albright obviously you know.
IMUS: That's a mistake.
KERRY: There are a number of -- General McPeak, General Clark. There are a group of about 10 or 12 admirals and generals.
IMUS: OK.
KERRY: I mean, there's a very solid group of people waiting. You have people like Sam Nunn and George Mitchell, and really extraordinary group of capable people.
IMUS: Those are pretty good names.
KERRY: Beg your pardon?
IMUS: Those are pretty good names. Madeleine Albright is a huge mistake. I mean, come on.
KERRY: No, she gives advice. She gives good advice. And I think she gives good advice, frankly. And she has a very, very strong sense of that region and of other regions and would have made much smarter decisions than this group has.
Albright's "good advice" in the Balkans fractured our relationship with Russia and Europe and her North Korea policy was a fraud of CBS proportions. That he would even consider Albright tells you all you need to know about John Kerry's plan to defend and protect the US; Clinton retreads, failed policy and appeasement. Kerry has so bungled his opportunity that he is now little more than a Clinton hand puppet.
(Hat tip to Michele for the Barcepundit link)
Posted by feste at September 15, 2004 01:47 PM | TrackBackWhat is the difference between Albright's North Korea policy fraud and what we are doing now under Bush exactly?
Posted by: Rick DeMent at September 15, 2004 03:02 PM"a fraud of CBS proportions"
Now why am I thinking I'll be hearing that expression a lot in the coming weeks?
Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at September 15, 2004 04:00 PMRick: come on, you're either blinded by partisanship or are just jerking my chain. Albright's treaty with N Korea agreement was a bribe/sham.
We (as in all of us, not the Dems or the GOP) are now faced with an even more dangerous and unstable N Korea because Clinton & Albright papered over the problem.
Albright and Holbrooke were a disaster, they screwed around with Serbia while Putin consolidated his power base and the ogliarchs & Russian mafia gutted the billions of dollars in US aid poured into Russia. Oh, by the way you do remember who the "go-to" guy on Russia was, don't you?
I know the party line is that Clinton's foreign policy was a brillant 8 years of peace, well except for the genocide in Africa, bombing Serbia into the stone age and violence in the MidEast and terror attacks on our embassies, the WTC and the USS Cole part, but in reality it was unfocused, and feckless, allowing N Korea, Putin and OBL et al to consolidate.
9/11 changed everything, we cannot return to the Albright/Holbrooke bribery/appeasement mode for as we see in N Korea it doesn't work.
Bribe? Sure and guess what, Bush will do the exact same thing. What other options does he have? We bribe countries all the time to get them to capitulate. If you honestly think that Bush will take military action against North Korea when he can simply buy them off with a few million barrels of heating oil then I guess I understand your point. But from where I’m sitting he can’t do much more, he won’t escalate the situation militarily because he can’t and in the end he will do exactly what Clinton did more or less.
I mean what is it that Bush is really doing different other then not sending administration officials over to talk with them directly and getting all multi-lateral on their asses [grin]. Look I’m not saying that the deals Clinton worked out were master strokes; nothing of the kind they we designed to be a first step. They knew there was a lot more work to be done. But if you think that I'm putting the Clinton deal up as a brillant foreign policy, i'm not.
But frankly the idea that the treaty with North Korea was an unqualified “disaster” is highly arguable the assertion that it was a “disaster” is opinion not really fact. It wasn’t the greatest idea in hindsight but then again hindsight is 20/20, and you have to be either blinded by partisanship or are just jerking my chain to think anything else. [double grin].
But perhaps you can tell me specifically what Bush has done to date that is substantially different other then the afore mentioned not sending administration officials over to talk with them directly?
As for Bush, what has changed in the last 4 years? genocide in Africa, still there and more.
Violence in the MidEast and terror attacks everywhere, the Taliban is making a comeback in Afganistan and we still seem to be allowing N Korea, Putin and OBL et al to consolidate. Nothing has changed, Bush is just as unfocused but spending a lot more to do it.
Ah...the circular arguement gambit. Carry on you don't really need me.
Posted by: feste at September 16, 2004 04:47 PM