Eric Umansky

Hey, Kerry: Don't run away

I'm not a big fan of Thomas Friedman. But that's for another time, because he does make a good point in today's column:

John Kerry's most important challenge in this election campaign is to connect up with that gut fear in the American soul and pass a simple threshold test: "Does this man understand that we have real enemies?" Mr. Kerry, wrongly in my view, tried to use his heroic Vietnam War record to pass that test by implication. He did not make the sale.

In the debates, he tried to both criticize the Iraq war and to look voters in the eye and say: I know we have enemies and I will confront them, albeit in a different and wiser manner than George Bush has.

How did that go over? I believe that Mr. Kerry presented himself as an articulate, informed and credible commander in chief - but did he make the sale to the great American center? Not clear. My own free advice to Mr. Kerry is if he is unsure about this, he should drop everything else - health care, deficits and middle-class tax cuts - and focus on this issue. Everything else is secondary.

TNR's Noam Scheiber has made the same point, and I agree too. Unfortunately, the geniuses at the Kerry campaign are in charge. From today's Post:

Kerry adviser Michael McCurry said Wednesday's speech was probably the Massachusetts senator's last on foreign policy before the election.

Focusing on domestic issues, sends an implicit message: "Can we please not talk about national security issues? It's not my strength." That's a message, psychologically speaking, of weakness--exactly the trait many swing voters say they're afraid Kerry holds.

Good for Kerry

After being needled by the Post's editorial page for mum on his (non-)position enemy combatants, the Kerry campaign has released a statement: "A Kerry administration will apply the Geneva Conventions to all battlefield combatants captured in the war on terror. We will abide by a principle long enshrined in our military manuals: That America does not treat prisoners in ways we would consider immoral and illegal if perpetrated by the enemy on Americans."

And btw, if you're among those who think the Post's editorial page are full of admini-suck-ups, here's what they said today:

The result is an important new distinction between the presidential candidates. In our view, Mr. Bush's decision in February 2002 to set aside the Geneva Conventions was one of the most damaging mistakes of his presidency. It led directly to the imprisonment of hundreds of foreigners at Guantanamo Bay without any legal process, until the Supreme Court intervened earlier this year. Mr. Bush's decision also led to the sanction by senior administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, of harsh interrogation techniques that are illegal under the Geneva Conventions. As several official investigations have found, these techniques soon "migrated" from Guantanamo to U.S. field units in Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to hundreds of cases of torture, homicide and other abuse, and a shameful stain on the international reputation of the United States.

Without any change in policy, there is every reason to expect that a second Bush term would produce more scandals like Abu Ghraib. As the history of the past three years demonstrates, such abuses result when the rule of law is set aside."

P.S. And it delivers a smackdown to the Pentagon's main spokesman, who wrote a misleading letter published (literally) across the page.

Kerry's stance on 'ghost detainees' and other tough tactics

What is it?

An editorial in today's Post dings Kerry for not saying:

The record of prisoner abuse stands as a principal count in any indictment of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq and the war on terrorism. Yet Mr. Kerry, who has devoted much of his campaign in the past month to criticizing how Mr. Bush has handled the war, has barely mentioned Abu Ghraib. A couple of months ago the Democrat said he felt "revulsion" over the prisoner abuses (Mr. Bush has said the same) and called for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation. What he hasn't said is whether he accepts or rejects the policy decisions that led to it -- most importantly, Mr. Bush's contention that some detainees captured abroad should not be treated according to the standards of the Geneva Conventions but instead can and should be subjected to harsh treatments long rejected by the U.S. military. Whether that policy is to be perpetuated in spite of the harm it has caused ought to be something about which both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush speak clearly; their answers ought to help inform voters' decisions.

As Human Rights Watch has documented, the U.S. has "disappeared" about a dozen al-Qaida suspects. Does Kerry plan on changing that policy? And how about tribunals and reviews at Gitmo, which most outside observers have said are deeply unfair (for instance, no right to counsel and no witnesses)?

Yes, I understand: We're two weeks away, and Kerry can't afford to look like a sissy. But as Annie Bardach has said, Kerry is "as cautious a politician as they come." And I wonder--honestly--what stance he'll take if he makes it into office.

Count me in for #3!

On advice of a reader, I have now more carefully calibrated my position on Kerry. From Poorman:

3. John Kerry Is A Douchebag But I'm Voting For Him Anyway - For people who understand that while there are many, many douche-y things about John Kerry, he just isn't in the same industrial strength FDNY-approved hydro-blasting douche-geyser category as George W. Bush ("the 'W' stands for 'Douche'"). RESPECT YOURSELF IN THE MORNING!
Typical member: People who think joining is lame; former Kerry-bashers who don't want to seem like big hypocrites; honest people.
Bush-hatred: Capable of burning holes in granite with flaming eye beams of pure hate.

Choose your level of Kerry comfort.

Kerry's policy for Afghanistan?

Bubkes.

I just watched John Edwards on Meet the Press. When asked about Afghanistan, Edwards mouthed "don't hem me in" B.S. He never mentioned massively increasing aid (as Bush promised and never delivered). Nor does Kerry's "plan" for Afghanistan. And asked about whether a Kerry administration would even consider adding U.S. troops, Edwards punted. He insisted NATO troops could do the job. That may be good politics, earth to Kerry: NATO doesn't want to put more troops in. And I'm guessing that saying "you guys can do it alone!" won't exactly convince them otherwise.

This fits with a pattern: Kerry seems to be lacking the vision or just guts to call for hard choices in the world. More on this later. And yes, I'm applying for provisional membership.