A tale of two John Kerrys
What does John Kerry stand for? This is now the political parlor game of the election season upon us. Of course, what doesn’t John Kerry stand for?
There may be something purely comic in the anecdote about the Kerry constituent who, in 1991, received two letters from the Massachusetts senator, nine days apart, the first opposing the Gulf War, the second supporting it. But this anecdote is as good a metaphor as any for Kerry’s stands on significant issues.
In January, for example, he was castigating President Bush for his “exaggeration” of the terrorist threat – a point on which John Edwards, his erstwhile rival, saw fit to take him to task. In February, Kerry was still castigating Bush – but this time for having mustered an inadequate response to the same terrorist threat. “I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the war on terror,” Kerry said. “I believe he’s done too little.”
More amazing than the policy shifts that occur a month or days apart are the shifts that are little more than a jot of punctuation. Last fall, Kerry explained his decision to oppose the president’s plan to fund the post-liberation reconstruction of Iraq: “I voted against that $87 billion in Washington yesterday,” Kerry said. “But let me make it clear, I am for winning the war in Iraq.” Translation: I don’t want to support the stabilization and rebuilding of Iraq, but I want to stabilize and rebuild Iraq.
In the run-up to Super Tuesday – which included a primary in notably Jewish New York – Kerry spoke out of a different side of his mouth. “Israel’s security fence is a legitimate act of self-defense,” he said. “No nation can stand by while its children are blown up at pizza parlors and on buses. While President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians, Israel has a right and duty to defend its citizens. The fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel.”
Kerry would go on to tell the New York Daily News that the old “barrier to peace” routine was “a not very artfully drawn paragraph” that reflected “the rush of the campaign.” Rush of the campaign, sure – from one political audience to another.
Having heard Kerry’s critique of the Bush administration’s Haiti actions, the Daily News also reported that Kerry said his administration would have given the rebels a 48-hour ultimatum to come up with a peaceful agreement. “Otherwise,” Kerry was quoted as saying, “we’re coming in.”
Otherwise we’re coming in? “I would intervene with the international community, and absent an international force, I’d do it unilaterally,” Kerry explained. Maybe it’s that old rush of the campaign again. Or maybe Kerry reserves the right to act unilaterally in all cases outside America’s strategic interests. Meanwhile, in real life, the United Nations has since voted unanimously to send a multinational peace-keeping force to Haiti.
Kerry said on Super Tuesday: “When I first led veterans to the Mall here in Washington to stop the Vietnam War … it was a time when millions of Americans could not trust or believe what their leaders were telling them … Now, today, many Americans are once again wondering if they can trust and believe the leadership of our country.”
Senator Flip-Flop is one to talk.
(Diana West is a columnist for The Washington Times. She can be contacted via [email protected].)