Endorsements

It's endorsement time and I've read some very cogent endorsements of Bush. Here's one from the LA Times by the editor of The New Republic who argues that Bush is the better pro-Israel candidate. (hat tip once again: Judge Mac)

This muddled foolishness reflects Kerry's sense of politics as desperate theater. Another simply showy idea he proposed (to Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press") was to insert U.S. troops between Israel and the territories, as part "of some kind of very neutral international effort that began to allow Israel itself to disengage and withdraw."

A summary of the editorial would be that Kerry is completely clueless about the realistic effects his brand of diplomacy will have on the problems of Israel. A similar argument of Kerry's naivete is skillfully presented by The Belgravia Dispatch which argues that Kerry just doesn't understand the stakes of the war on terror. To wit:

Kerry also suffers from something of a Vietnam syndrome. I, like Robert Kagan has written, believe that Kerry has a deep distrust and suspicion regarding exerting American power overseas. He voted against Gulf War I, for pete's sake (Saudi oil supplies likely to be controlled by Iraq!?! Hey, who cares!). His disregard for such a vital strategic interest has been replicated when confronted by humanitarian tragedies too. See his vote against 'lift and strike' in Bosnia (Laura Rozen would like you to forget it). Kerry says he would never send our boys into war unless it is absoutely necessary. Well, what is absolutely necessary Senator? Really, what? Too little, in Kerry's worldview, I'm afraid.

The whole thing is really worth reading.

I've had similar doubts about Kerry, but I think he understands the stakes more fully than that article gives him credit for. Not only that, but it is politically impossible for him not to. Concern about terrorism is not going to go away in four years because terrorism is not going to go away in four years. Voters are going to be concerned about terrorism in four years and if Republicans can credibly claim that the Democrats have not been fighting terrorism effectively, then the Reps will win in landslides across the board. Democrats are not stupid and know this. For that political reason alone they have to 'get it.' The difference is that I think the Democrats are going to be worlds better at actually getting the job done in Iraq compared with Bush. That post in the Belgravia Dispatch also includes this second-hand paragraph from Andrew Sullivan:

We must shock them more than they have shocked us. We must do so with a force not yet seen in human history. Then we can begin to build a future of greater deterrence. I repeat: we are not responding to terrorism any more. We are at war. And war requires no restraint, simply massive and unanswerable force until the enemy is not simply defeated but unconditionally destroyed. To hesitate for fear of reprisal is to have capitulated before we have even begun. I don't believe Americans want to capitulate to anyone. The only question is whether we will get the leadership now to deal with this or whether we will have to endure even worse atrocities before a real leader emerges.

What I fear has happened during the occupation of Iraq is that we have not been effective enough. I think the mistakes made in Iraq have encouraged terrorism, not in the sense so popular on the left that we have inflamed them (although I do not completely dismiss this consideration as irrelevant) but in the sense that we have appeared weak after the fall of Baghdad.

I think John Kerry will fight a more effective war on terrorism. I agree that some of his pronouncements about the sanctity of the UN have been less than reassuring, but the pressures of the Oval Office will necessarily mold him into a more pragmatic leader than his candidacy has shown. John Kerry shamefully voted against the first Gulf War, but George W. Bush claimed he wasn't into nation building. Things have changed. I am confident that Kerry's ideas shifted appropriately on 9-11 so that he understands what is at stake. He wouldn't have invaded Iraq. I think history will prove that the invasion was good, but only if it is completed effectively and Kerry will do that. With one starting a necessary job, but lacking the competence to finish it and the other lacking the perception of that job as initially necessary, but understanding that the job has to be completed Bush-Kerry may in the end serve as a very effective tag team against terrorism.