News n Notes from the Web

Flip-flopping charge unsupported by facts
Kerry always pushed global cooperation, war as last resort

by Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief, www.sfgate.com
Thursday, September 23, 2004 - Washington

No argument is more central to the Republican attack on Sen. John Kerry than the assertion that the Democrat has flip-flopped on Iraq.

President Bush, seated beside Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said Tuesday: "My opponent has taken so many different positions on Iraq that his statements are hardly credible at all.''

The allegation is the basis of a new Bush campaign TV ad that shows the Democratic senator from Massachusetts windsurfing to the strains of a Strauss waltz as a narrator intones: "Kerry voted for the Iraq war, opposed it, supported it and now opposes it again.''

Yet an examination of Kerry's words in more than 200 speeches and statements, comments during candidate forums and answers to reporters' questions does not support the accusation.

As foreign policy emerged as a dominant issue in the Democratic primaries and later in the general election, Kerry clung to a nuanced, middle-of-the road -- yet largely consistent -- approach to Iraq. Over and over, Kerry enthusiastically supported a confrontation with Saddam Hussein even as he aggressively criticized Bush for the manner in which he did so.

Kerry repeatedly described Hussein as a dangerous menace who must be disarmed or eliminated, demanded that the U.S. build broad international support for any action in Iraq and insisted that the nation had better plan for the post-war peace.

There were times when Kerry's emphasis shifted for what appear to be political reasons, such as the fall of 2003 when former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean surged to the top of Democratic polls based on an anti-war platform and Kerry's criticism of the president grew stronger. There are many instances in which clumsy phrases and tortuously long explanations make Kerry difficult to follow. And there are periods, such as last week, when the sharpness of Kerry's words restating old positions seem to suggest a change.

Yet taken as a whole, Kerry has offered the same message ever since talk of attacking Iraq became a national conversation more than two years ago.

"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm (Hussein) by force, if we ever exhaust ... other options,'' Kerry said 23 months ago on the Senate floor before voting to authorize the force, imploring Bush to take the matter to the United Nations.

"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community," Kerry said, insisting that Bush work with the United Nations. "If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out,'' Kerry said.

Republicans have hit the flip-flop charge hard. The Republican National Committee produced an 11-minute video, widely distributed on the Internet, which features dozens of seemingly inconsistent Kerry statements and the soundtrack to the 1960s television show "Flipper.'' Bush supporters distributed Kerry flip-flop sandals to delegates at the GOP convention last month, the Bush campaign produced a Kerry flip-flop game for its Web site, and the president brings it up almost every day on the campaign trail.

The crux of the flip-flopping charge is based on pitting Kerry's pointed criticism of the war against his October 2002 vote to authorize the use of force, a vote the Democratic senator defends to this day.

Republicans are not the only ones who characterize the vote as an endorsement of war. Many Democrats, including Dean, warned that a vote in favor of the resolution would be tantamount to giving Bush a blank check to go to war. Even today, many Democrats are aghast at Kerry's insistence that, knowing everything he knows now, he would cast the same vote.

Kerry, who was one of 29 Democratic senators to support the resolution, said the vote was appropriate to strengthen the president's hand in negotiations, and he draws a distinction between his vote and an endorsement of the March 2003 attack.

"Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq,'' Kerry said on the eve of the vote. "Nor does it mean we have exhausted all of our peaceful options to achieve this goal.''

Republicans ridicule such distinctions and use Kerry's vote as the basis for their assertion that Kerry once favored the war.

"He voted for it,'' said Republican national chairman Ed Gillespie when asked Wednesday to back the charge that Kerry supported the war. "Look at the coverage at the time, it was pretty clear what was going on.''

Yet in the fall of 2002, several months before the air strikes on Baghdad began, Bush himself insisted the vote was not the same as a declaration of war but instead gave him the hand he needed to negotiate the peace.

"If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force,'' Bush said in September 2002. "It's a chance for Congress to say, 'we support the administration's ability to keep the peace.' That's what this is all about.''

The Bush campaign frequently cites Kerry's seemingly incongruous statement at a West Virginia rally in March as another example of his inconsistency.

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,'' Kerry said regarding the Bush administration's request for more funding for the Iraq operation.

The line has been used in Bush campaign commercials, and the campaign distributed a memo Tuesday suggesting the vote raises doubts about Kerry's commitment to U.S. troops.

The White House is aware that the statement does not reflect a contradiction but an inelegant way of defending a pair of Senate votes. Kerry voted for a measure that paid for the $87 billion by reducing tax cuts for those who earn more than $300,000. He voted against a measure that paid for the $87 billion by adding to the deficit.

The biggest shifts in Kerry's language seem to appear at the high-water marks of the war -- shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 and after the capture of Hussein the following December -- when he seems less critical of the Bush policy.

Two days after Bush stood before the "Mission Accomplished'' sign and declared major combat over, Kerry participated in a forum with rival Democratic presidential candidates.

ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked the candidates if the war was the right decision at the right time.

"I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity,'' Kerry said, "but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I support him and I support the fact that we did disarm him.''

By contrast, Dean in response to the same question called it the "wrong war at the wrong time,'' using language very similar to what Kerry has said recently.

Perhaps the words that Kerry will have the hardest time explaining today are those he uttered three days after Hussein was captured. Dean, who had emerged as Kerry's strongest challenger for the Democratic nomination, said that while Hussein's capture was good news, it had not "made America any safer.''

Kerry seized on the statement, telling students at Drake University, "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.''

Kerry's enthusiastic words seem to conflict with his statement Monday at New York University.

"Saddam Husein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But ... the satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure,'' Kerry said.

For a candidate who has been in elected office nearly a quarter of a century, Kerry has at times shown a remarkable inability to explain the nuances of his position.

Asked by radio host Don Imus last week to explain how he could be so critical of the war yet stand by his vote to authorize the use of force, Kerry responded with a 324-word answer, including a discussion of no-fly zones and Iraqi tribal separatism.

The response left Imus -- a self-described Kerry supporter -- perplexed.

"I was just back in my office banging my head on the jukebox,'' Imus told listeners when the interview was over. "This is my candidate, and ... I don't know what he's talking about.''
Kerry on Iraq

Oct. 9, 2002
Senate floor speech on Iraq resolution:

"In giving the president this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days -- to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.''

Sept. 9, 2003
Speech announcing presidential campaign, Patriot's Point, S.C.:

"I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations. I believe that was right -- but it was wrong to rush to war without building a true international coalition -- and with no plan to win the peace.''

March 18, 2003
Statement on the eve of the attack on Baghdad:

"Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. ... Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. ... My strong personal preference would have been for the administration ... to have given diplomacy more time.''

Dec. 3, 2003
Speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, New York City:

"Simply put, the Bush administration has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history.''

Sept. 20, 2004
New York University:

"President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq?''
****************

Darfur: more complicated than it seems
by Mark Egerman
src: Carnegie Mellon student paper The Tartan
website: http://www.thetartan.org/article.jsp?id=505

There has been increased interest among Americans in recent months in the ethnic conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan. Following a visit by Colin Powell, millions of Americans who had little previous knowledge of Sudan now recognize the words Janjaweed and Khartoum. Yet there continues to be significant misunderstanding of the nature of the conflict, the U.S. role in the conflict so far, and most importantly, what the correct course of action for the U.S. should be.

Firstly, what is occurring is genocide. Over a million people have been forced from their homes, many herded into refugee camps where they face severe malnutrition. Tens of thousands have been killed. Even with this, the Bush Administration will not refer to it as genocide. In June, the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., closed its main exhibitions to draw attention to Darfur, claiming, “The obligation to prevent genocide is a legal one and a moral one. Too often in the past, as this museum starkly illustrates, warnings have been received and ignored, and the result has been death and suffering on a massive scale.”

Secondly, this is a very complicated genocide, more so than the media are portraying it. This is not a one-sided conflict where a rampaging Janjaweed is running rampant over a docile population. Instead, there are at least two forces, the Janjaweed and the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA), fighting in a situation that is reminiscent of many other conflicts across the world. A state-sponsored militia (the Janjaweed) engages a rebel group (the SLA, as well as the Justice and Equality Movement) with the rural peasant population caught in the crossfire. The people are the true losers in this conflict as is often the case. Yet the media continue to use the term “ethnic cleansing” to describe the situation. While ethnicity may be one of many focal points that the armies are fighting over, it is hardly the only motivation for the conflict. While genocide is occurring, it is occurring because of the actions of both the militia and the rebels.

Thirdly, the U.S. has played a role in Darfur in the build-up to the genocide. Democratic candidate John Kerry is criticizing the Bush administration for failing to take action, but he is ignoring the fact that the U.S. has been involved for the past few years, even dating back to the Clinton administration. The U.S. had supported rebel groups in Sudan for years, attempting to undermine the Khartoum government with hopes of gaining access to Sudan’s supplies of oil. It is hard to untangle the web of support, but it is known that Madeleine Albright met with John Garang, the head of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army, who funneled support to the SLA. Regardless, we need to recognize that the U.S. has known for years about this situation, has kept a close eye on it, and has a vested interest in the outcome.

Fourthly, it is a mistake to encourage militia groups to avoid local negotiations. A peace treaty for southern Sudan was signed in April, and the atrocities there are abating. Meanwhile, ongoing talks in Darfur offer the same hope for that conflict. The humanitarian crisis needs immediate attention, and there are skirmishes and banditry on both sides. Yet if the U.S., NATO, or the UN sends troops to aid the rebels now, it will send the worst message possible: that local mediation to conflicts will be ignored if world powers don’t like the terms. Quite simply, it will encourage rebel troops to avoid peace talks in the hope of getting a better deal with outside intervention.

The public doesn’t hear about how the Sudan government tried and convicted six Janjaweed “bandits” and sentenced them to gruesome punishments. It doesn’t hear of the crimes of the rebel groups fighting the Janjaweed. If the U.S. gets involved and sides with the SLA, it risks losing the support of the people of Darfur, the true victims of these genocides. All of Sudan might oppose Western intervention based on a long history of being oppressed by the West, from General Charles “Chinese” Gordon to the bombing of the El Shifa pharmaceutical factory. Following the war in Iraq, sending troops to Darfur might seem like an attempt to overthrow another sovereign government with significant oil reserves.

The American people should not allow the rhetoric of altruism to draw them into an unpopular and unnecessary war. Instead of siding with either of the combatants in a conflict without “good guys,” the U.S. should side with the people of Darfur. It should provide humanitarian aid to people who are starving to death in refugee camps: There is a moral obligation to support those threatened by genocide. Furthermore, the U.S. should support the African Union’s decision to supply troops to maintain the peace between the Janjaweed and the rebel groups. Instead of having Western powers get involved in an African conflict, we should encourage the African Union to mediate the situation. It has already taken steps in this direction. Finally, if the U.S. has been supporting the rebel groups, it should immediately terminate this policy.

Mark Egerman (mde@) is a fifth-year scholar studying whatever he feels like. He welcomes all responsible replies as long as they begin “Dear Mr. Executive Officer...”
***

One lesson of the Russian school siege
Mike Hume, Spiked.com, 3 September 2004

At the time of writing, Russian special forces have stormed the school where Chechen terrorists took hundreds of children hostage, and the situation is in chaos. As the death toll mounts, many watching the horrific scenes on television will be asking how those Chechen rebels could have committed such an atrocity.

One answer is that they do it because it works. Their aim is to strike terror into an already fearful Russian society. By hitting just about the softest target imaginable - an ordinary school in a small farming town - the terrorists could prey upon the Russian public's powerful sense that nowhere is safe, and that they are defenceless. The intense feelings of fear and vulnerability in Russia guarantee that, however many of the terrorists have been killed, their gruesome mission has been a success.

These Chechen rebels have more in common with the nihilists of al-Qaeda than with traditional nationalist movements. In the past such groups saw violence as the means to a political end. For today's groups, by contrast, terrorism is an end in itself. They use terror tactics in order to terrorise people.

Islamic terrorists are often described as 'mindless'. But in attacking schoolchildren, the Chechens demonstrated an astute grasp of how to touch the rawest nerve of a society already reduced to a nervous wreck.

In the West we are familiar with the culture of fear. Our anxious, insecure societies offer easy targets for terrorists who can prey on our nightmares, often causing consternation simply by issuing vague threats. From government offices downwards, many have become so fearful and cautious that it often seems as if we are doing the terrorists' work for them. People have become so cynical about the authorities that any attempt to reassure the public seems sure to backfire.

It might be hard to imagine that a major nation could be more mistrustful and on edge than America or Britain. But Russia is. In the post-Soviet era, there is an ongoing crisis of authority in Moscow. Mistrust of government agencies that are seen as corrupt and unrepresentative is not confined to Chechnya; it is almost all-pervasive across Russian society. Few believe that President Putin can or will protect them.

The depth of public fear, mistrust and cynicism helps to explain why, if anything, Russia has been even more traumatised by terrorism than post-11 September America. Since the terrible end of the terrorist siege at a Moscow theatre in 2002, which left more than 100 dead, life in Russia has often appeared haunted. Relatively small attacks by Chechen rebels, such as the female suicide bomber who killed herself and 10 others outside a Moscow station this week, can seemingly paralyse a city. Such is the sense of insecurity that some Muscovites will now cross the road at the sight of a woman wearing a veil.

In a revealing article entitled 'In my Russia, the terrorists are winning', a Russian journalist this week described how she felt when she realised that, had she not stayed home from work that day, she would have driven past the site of the latest Moscow suicide bombing. Even before she heard news of the school siege, she had become entirely preoccupied with calculating the threat that terrorism might pose to her children. It provides an instructive insight into the desperate mindset of middle-class Muscovites:

'We have moved out of the city - good. Vova will be going to school outside the city - also good. But that means a daily drive on the crowded beltway - bad (lots of people, good terrorist target). If we move back to our city place, we'll hardly have to drive or use public transportation - good. But we'll be right in the centre of town, where there are lots of crowds and traffic jams - bad. What's the point? How in the world can one devise an escape when I could simply have been driving home from work today? I can't keep up.' (1)

The same note of helpless desperation was evident in much of the Russian press comment after the school was seized. The resigned acceptance that 'the terrorists are winning' can only encourage them to commit further outrages.

One other thing seems certain. When the smoke clears over the school after the special forces raid, the Russian government will get much of the blame. Public mistrust of the authorities is such that, even when Putin tries to take decisive action against terrorists, he is heavily criticised. It is unclear exactly how else the Russians were supposed to deal with apparent suicide bombers holding hundreds of children hostage. But the anti-government reactions will have little to do with the specifics of the school siege, or of Putin's policy towards Chechnya. They are more a reflection of the Russian public's general mood of cynicism and fear - a mood that is music to terrorist ears.

In the West, many have watched this week's reports from Russia in uncomprehending horror. But there are important lessons for us in all of this, too. We often hear official and unofficial warnings about how terrorists could be planning to attack nuclear installations, government buildings or other strategic targets in Western capitals. Yet the Russian school siege should remind us that the terrorists' main target is always our fears. What they aim to strike above all is terror into our hearts. And we in the West have done more than the Russians to educate any would-be terrorist that our greatest fears now centre on our children. Our paranoid expressions of concern about child safety in everyday life send out a powerful signal to anybody looking for an easy way to traumatise our society.

If you doubt it, cast your mind back to the Washington sniper killings of 2002. After the snipers began randomly shooting people in the Washington area, a police chief issued a statement designed to reassure residents that 'Our schools are safe. Our children are safe at this point'. At that point, no child had been shot at and there had been no suggestion that the snipers would target schools. But once the police chief's statement had alerted them how best to terrorise the city, the snipers changed tack. They shot a 13-year-old boy outside a school and then issued a statement of their own: 'Your children are not safe anywhere, at any time.' The resulting panic brought America's capital to a virtual standstill. It did not require 40 suicide bombers seizing a school to turn the Washington public's fears for their children into a powerful weapon.

As we recoil in horror from what has been happening in Russia, let us try to remember that the corrosive culture of fear poses the greatest threat to our own and our children's future in a free society.

Mick Hume is editor of spiked. **********************************