So let’s compare and contrast. Exhibit A, our senior Senator. Leading, as elected officials are supposed to do. Exhibit B, our junior Senator. Hedging, mumbling, and following.
Kerry, two weeks ago.
Senator John Kerry yesterday urged the United States and its allies to draw up plans for a no-fly zone over Libya, to be ready to intervene if Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy commands his air force to slaughter his own civilians….
He stressed that the plan should be done in conjunction with allies, and only to stop a civilian crisis.
“I would only consider its implementation if Khadafy himself were using [air power] as a means of terror, as a means of massacring large numbers of civilians,” Kerry said. “And I think it is only then that the global community would begin to say, uh-oh, we’ve got to do something, now is the time you have to do it.”
Very prudent, and, as it turns out, prescient. He wasn’t flying off the handle saying that we should bomb Libya right away. Rather, he was saying that we should be ready in the event that (a) Khadafy starts using his own forces to slaughter civilians, and (b) the global community agrees on a joint response.
And sure enough, both conditions were met. Khadafy has made pretty clear his intention to kill every last member of the opposition to his murderous regime. In response, the Arab League requested a no-fly zone, which encouraged the UN Security Council to authorize a no-fly zone. And, per Kerry’s original assessment, allied forces including the U.S. are acting against the Libyan regime.
In contrast, here’s Scott Brown, the day after Kerry’s original comments.
The United States should wait before creating a no-fly zone over Libya, Senator Scott Brown said today, striking a cautious note that contrasts with the call from Senator John Kerry to lay plans for restricting Libyan airspace…. Brown, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, didn’t rule out the possibility of such a step in the future if the U.S. has “strong and credible information” that Khadafy, for example, is using mercenaries to kill his own citizens.
Brown has never explained the connection between using mercenaries (who are presumably on the ground) and a no-fly zone. Anyway, Brown’s approach, if adopted, would probably have left the U.S. unprepared to participate in the current action. Which, by the way, Brown now supports.
“I support the administration’s involvement at this point. Obviously, it gets to a point where you have to draw a line in the sand, and when innocent civilians are being killed, it’s important for the world community to step forward, and we’re doing it in a coalition manner, and I’m supportive of that.” … “in this instance, it’s clear that (Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy) was using his own forces to kill innocent civilians, and that’s where I draw the line,” Brown said.
Ah, interesting. So, nothing now about mercenaries. Instead, the conditions that now “obviously” allow Brown to support the current action are
(a) Khadafy starts using his own forces to slaughter civilians, and (b) the global community agrees on a joint response.
Exactly what Kerry said two weeks ago. Welcome to the big leagues, Senator Brown. Try to keep up.
“I think about issues of war and peace almost all the time.”
<
p>In Guard Service a Key to Candidate Brown, Boston Globe, January 7, 2010.
So I presume Kerry has an exit strategy. What’s our policy if Khadafi wins despite the tomahawk missles? What’s our policy if the rebels win but the U.S. doesn’t like the new government? What if there is fighting among the rebels?
Are we committed to a similar policy toward Yemen, where the government is slaughtering civilian protesters? A no-fly zone in Yemen should be easy to implement. We would just have to ground our drones.
Well I guess there’s no time to answer such questions now. We’re too busy for that here at BMG–instead let’s focus on the cheapest, most puerile political point we can possibly make, that Kerry was more prepared for this than Scott Brown. Whoopee!
We should be careful about attacking Scott Brown. We might need some Republicans around if this new war doesn’t turn out as neatly as we expect (When has that ever happened?). Then we can say that it was the Republicans who misled us into starting this war.
a calm, rational approach to our involvement. Much better to have the support of the Arab League and the UN instead of marching off alone and antagonizing the rest of the world. It’s time to throw off the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” syndrome that goes with being the number one superpower. If things don’t go our way here, Kerry can be counted on to say that he was “for it before I was against it.”–or was that, “I was against it before I was for it”?
They are already repudiating their support.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
They are saying, “this isn’t what we approved”.
<
p>
in any other way? Were they supposed to say please? Or are we supposed to supposed to just wish anti-aircraft installations away?
<
p>If they didn’t do this, and thus had to stand a few hundred miles off, and were thus unable to actually enforce no flying in the no fly zone, the Arab League would denounce us for that.
<
p>There are several certainties in this life: death, taxes, and that the Arab League will denounce us.
it was clear upfront that this is what was going to happen. I really doubt that the Arab league is actually surprised by what is happening.
I mean, I know you hate Kerry, but Kerry and Obama have been on the same page with this thing pretty much all along. But glad to hear you’re not a fan of the Bush approach.
and maimed American kids–and for what? Obama is getting it from both his own left (demos outside the White House, etc.) and the right, but I think his moderate, rational approach is best. I don’t “hate” Kerry; I have actually met him during one of my translation forays with a group of Russian hockey players back in the eighties. I guess that the class division which is in his voice and mannerisms is just too much for me to take. By the way, did you see the great welcoming reception that Scott Brown got today over in Southie? He, whether you like him or not, can relate to the common guy.
and he voted for the Wicker amendment that would ban the TSA from unionizing?
<
p>I have seen Kerry at many rallies and he can relate perfectly well. In addition, the one thing that you should give Kerry credit for is that he has always been willing to answer questions – from people in a a crowd or reporters. Brown has often been unwilling to do either.
The fact is that “the it before I was against it.” was a smear and a distortion. Kerry was speaking of two versions of a funding bill.
<
p>Kerry was for paying for the war supplemental bill by rolling back the Bush tax cuts to the top 1% and he was against the version that just added it to the debt. Bush incidentally said he would veto the version Kerry and the Democrats wanted – so you could say that he to was a flip flopper.
<
p>Now that the evils of deficit spending are the Right Wing’s mantra, I am almost tempted to remind them that it was Kerry and the Democrats who were more fiscally prudent – and as they repeat this nonsense all the time, they might actually remember it.
The western colonial powers want regime change. Codeword = Liberty. Ain’t it all so impressive?
<
p>Does anyone think that should Qadafy go the Libyans are going to see any change in their lives? Take off those rose colored glasses. The western powers are going to insist on their puppet being installed. Same gift, different wrapping. If there is a winner, it will be British Petroleum.
<
p>The politician that makes sense is Dennis Kucinich. The Democrats of today smell like the Republicans of a couple years ago.
<
p>Kerry or Brown? eh…
<
p>“War is a poor chisel to carve out tomorrow.” –Martin Luther King, Jr.
is the double-standard. We are attacking Libya based on the use of force against civilians. But in Bahrain? The home of the US Fifth Fleet has our unflinching support as they bring in troops from Saudi Arabia to kill off the protesters.
<
p>I feel about Kaddafi the way I felt about Sadam Husein – he’s a horrible person who will roast in Hell if such place exists. But he isn’t the worst choice for running the place. And there is no guarantee that the next guy will be better. Remember that Obote was no wonderful person, but Idi Amin was truly a homicidal maniac.
The western colonial powers will not support liberty in a third world that has commodities they need. Control is the name of the game and it is best done through a strongman. You only need look at recent world history.
<
p>The “Allied Powers” don’t support liberty in their own countries. Why would they support it overseas? It will be interesting to see how this story will be manipulated in the West.
<
p>“I think there is a good reason why the propaganda system works that way. It recognizes that the public will not support the actual policies. Therefore it is important to prevent any knowledge or understanding of them.” Noam Chomsky
And now that the Brits have hit Khadafy’s residence with a Tomahawk, they were both right to want UN/international action rather than unilateral.
The BG did try to make it more different – to Brown’s advantage – suggesting incorrectly Kerry was more hawkish.
<
p>The fact is the condition Brown gave was already met – so he was either NOT saying wait or ill informed.
<
p>I agree that both were right to want international sanction – and further, Kerry wanted the Arab League involved.
<
p>To me, Kerry’s comments on Face the Nation, back 3 weeks ago, reminded me of what he spoke of as a “global test” as to when we would go to war. His definition then sounded like a secularized version of what a “just war”is. (His speech on faith as Pepperdine – http://www.pepperdine.edu/pr/r… – made it clear that this was the case.)
<
p>On face the nation, he said:
“But Senator Kerry has a different view. “It’s not a big air force . We are not talking about this gargantuan kind of force that we face. But more importantly, I would only consider it’s implementation if Gadhafi himself were using it as a means of terror, as a means of massacring large numbers of civilians. And I think it is only then that the global community would say, ‘Uh-oh, we’ve got to do something’,” he said”
<
p>Here, Kerry was consistent with what he said in 2004 and he called for the action needed to have the capacity to do the limited thing he was recommending if the stated circumstances arose.
<
p>Brown’s comment a few weeks later, had none of the nuance or thought. It was answering a question with the first thoughts that came to mind.
I was surprised that the Boston Globe did not point out that Gaddafi had already used mercenaries from Chad. They were captured (and some killed) in Benghazie. In addition, as you say, there is no logical link between mercenaries and a no fly zone.
<
p>I also do not know why the Boston Globe seems to feel that they need to mention Senator Brown’s 30 plus years in the National Guard in every article that has a military angle. He never was deployed and has no military experience from that. He does have some background as a very junior member of the Armed Services committee.
<
p>In 2004, it was somewhat annoying that Kerry’s experience was mocked by the Republicans, even though his real experience was his 20 years on the foreign relations committee, working seriously on issues of war and peace, not his nearly 4 years as an active duty junior officer in the Navy.
on the Middle East.
<
p>
<
p>http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
<
p>It was Senator Kerry, who set the right tone on Egypt in his oped and his comments, as well as Libya.