April 16, 2004

NUANCE CONFOUNDS LOCALS

John Kerry is at the centre of an Australian political feud:

Mark Latham has dismissed as "hogwash" Prime Minister John Howard's suggestion that the Opposition is now at odds on Iraq policy with both sides of United States politics.

Mr Howard yesterday seized on comments by US Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry, claiming Mark Latham is becoming increasingly isolated with his plan to bring Australian troops home by Christmas.

Mr Howard says Senator Kerry's statements show a Democrat president would not alter the US policy on Iraq troops.

Mr Latham denies Senator Kerry said that.

"(Senator Kerry) described President Bush's policies in Iraq as a failure, and he said this: 'We need to internationalise the effort and put an end to the American occupation'," Mr Latham said.

"Let me just repeat that, 'put an end to the American occupation in Iraq' so let's not have this hogwash from Mr Howard that Senator Kerry's got the same policies as President Bush - he hasn't."

So, who is right -- Howard or Latham? Answer: thanks to John Kerry’s talent for nuance, both of them are! Kerry did indeed call for "an end to the American occupation", but, within 24 hours of those comments, he also announced this:

Americans of all political persuasions are united in our determination to succeed. The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops. Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission.

Kerry truly is all things to all men. No wonder The Guardian’s Timothy Garton Ash thinks that "it's now in the best interests of Britain, Europe and America that senator John Kerry should be the next president of the United States."

(Via contributor J.F. Beck)

Posted by Tim Blair at April 16, 2004 04:42 AM
Comments

Kerry gives us another Jekyll & Hyde moment (one day he's a Democrat, the next he's a Republican).

Posted by: Richard at April 16, 2004 at 04:45 AM

Look will you all stop going on about my serving in Vietnam!

Posted by: John Kerry at April 16, 2004 at 04:49 AM

Kerry the human (?) metronome has also said he wants to send more troops to Iraq, at the same time we should be decreasing operations.

Oh, and he just announced that he will have adverts to define himself to the voters. Should be simple, a shot of a bowl of Jello that has just been slapped and is wobbling back and forth...

Posted by: John Anderson at April 16, 2004 at 04:51 AM

Garton Ash's article is another exemplar of what Samizdata calls a Polytoine (after the UK's version of Margo Kingston, Polly Toynbee). His piece is a mixture of wishful thinking, de haut en bas pontificating and outright nonsense. This is what passes for sophisticated analysis amongst the anti-war Left.

Posted by: David Gillies at April 16, 2004 at 05:03 AM

Kerry also said that he would withdraw forces when Iraq was stable, not when it was democratic.
That seems a substantial difference.

Posted by: Jane at April 16, 2004 at 05:54 AM

How nice that people from other countries feel free to make pronouncements as to who should be the President of the United States; our election laws do not permit of foreign money in the campaign, but our free speech rules permit it. From an American, MB would say this: anyone that is supporting an individual who most strongly resembles a pair of Vietnamese flip-flops really can't be doing any serious thinking.

Posted by: MommaBear at April 16, 2004 at 06:01 AM

"it's now in the best interests of Britain, Europe and America that senator John Kerry should be the next president of the United States."

Just what we need, a big group hug...

Posted by: Roger Bournival at April 16, 2004 at 07:03 AM

John Howard is being interviewed now by Neil Cavuto on FOX

Posted by: Ted at April 16, 2004 at 07:15 AM

The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America

How would they know that? They've already succeeded in dividing Kerry.

JK1 - "Hi, I'm John Kerry, and I think Iraq is a debacle, much like Vietnam, which I fought in."

JK2 - "I, John Kerry, have to respectfully disagree with John Kerry despite John Kerry's brave service in Vietnam. I think we should push on in Iraq rather than capitulating as we did in Vietnam, a war I fought in."

Unison - "Vote for us, we fought in Vietnam."

Only a couple hundred million Americans to go.

Posted by: Matt Moore at April 16, 2004 at 07:50 AM

"it's now in the best interests of Britain, Europe and America that senator John Kerry should be the next president of the United States."

Bullshit. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: JeffS at April 16, 2004 at 07:50 AM

'We need to internationalise the effort and put an end to the American occupation'

What the hell does this mean? Firstly, the effort is pretty international already. Secondly, does "end the American occupation" mean withdrawing all American troops or what?

Is Latham talking out of his arse, or is it just me?

Posted by: Quentin George at April 16, 2004 at 08:13 AM

Just keep in mind that at every opportunity, John Kerry has dismissed out of hand any contribution made by British, Australian, Italian, Spanish, Ukranian, Polish, Dutch, Japanese, Korean, etc. etc. etc. troops and organizations.

At best he ignores our allies. At worst he considers them fraudulent.

That's how attuned he is to the international community.

Posted by: Steve in Houston at April 16, 2004 at 09:42 AM

Ah've said it before and ah'll say it again _ John Kerry's deeply held convictions have swung more ways than George Michael in a public restroom...

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at April 16, 2004 at 10:51 AM

Any Presidential candidate who would be in Europe's best interests has lost my vote.

Europe, after all, proclaimed it's mission to become our rival.

Posted by: Aaron at April 16, 2004 at 02:58 PM

Kerry also said that he would withdraw forces when Iraq was stable, not when it was democratic.
That seems a substantial difference.

It depends what you mean by democratic. If you mean it in a literal sense, as in having had real elections, then that'll be a few months yet, but if you mean by it having free speech, freedom of religion, the main threat to these freedoms now is the violence in Iraq.

Posted by: Andjam at April 16, 2004 at 03:36 PM

Hey, if you Aussies ever manage to figure out Kerry's position on Iraq would you mind letting us Americans know what the hell it is? Thanks mates.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at April 16, 2004 at 05:00 PM

Why not tell Mark Latham that the violence in Iraq is being coordinated by the Baghdad Taxi Drivers Association?, then he'll be sure to keep Australia's troops in.

Posted by: Ross at April 17, 2004 at 02:24 AM

Nuance means knowing when "is" means "is" and when it doesn't.
It also helps if you're schizophrenic.

Posted by: Bob at April 17, 2004 at 03:05 AM

There has to be meaning to have nuance. Nuance is more like: Iraq is in violation of it cease-fire and disclosure agreements and might have weapons of mass destruction, so we're going to go in and free the people, show our enemies what we're capable of, give them the opportunities which the lack of drives people to support terrorism, and show them how the people are capable of running their own goverment, right in the middle of a region occupied by oppressive regimes.

Or, "homosexuality is a sin". "I'm for states rights" and "individual rights". "It's not for the courts to decide public policy". Government officials violate their own laws for political means and advocate policy in courts, as a response call for a shocking constituational amendment which makes a loud statement against them, but has no chance of passing. Or IOW, while you personlly disagree with the "homosexual lifestyle", but you highly value individual's and state's rights, create a law that violates your, widely held, high values to uphold your personal belief to keep the support of the large base that agrees with you personal belief, but cannot be enacted because it violates people's more highly held values.

Posted by: aaron at April 17, 2004 at 08:34 AM

States rights was decided pretty firmly back in the 60's. The eighteen sixties.
By another great republican President, who wasn't appreciated nearly enough until a liberal put a bullet through his head.
I'm sick of States rights. States rights make it legal to only serve darkies out the back door at the restaurant.

Sucking dick is a sin for everybody.

Kerry said that there is no United States Senator who would deny funds for our troops in Iraq, just a month before he voted against the $ 87 billion funding package.

Latham is undoubtedly right about Kerry. He will revert to type if elected.

You can count on me, and my vote that Kerry will never get the chance.

Posted by: Papertiger at April 17, 2004 at 01:37 PM

off-the-cuff, laid-back kind of way, free direct tv I was able to come at it without my defenses directv up, without being as critical or judgemental. free dish network It didnt have to be sublime - it was free satellite tv fun. It didn't have to be profound - digital satellite tv it was social.
I bring this up because direct tv over the last several months, I've written dishsinologiesa something like seven songs straight now free directv where the music is complete and finished dish network

Posted by: direct tv at April 21, 2004 at 01:12 PM