Kerry debates Bush, but loses to himself

The phrase that will probably summarize this campaign for the history books is John Kerry the flip-flopper. It is not enough to say that this has become an issue because the Bush campaign has hammered the theme home; Bush’s campaign would not still be using the term if it did not resonate with the American people.

Kerry defends himself against the charge by saying that issues are often complicated, that there are nuances, and, most importantly, that it is right and proper for his opinions to change as conditions and circumstances change. This is a valid point, but it does not account for the astounding flip-flops that Kerry made just during the first presidential debate last week. To change opinions in the course of a 90-minute debate is, at best, troubling. Maybe Kerry has a very poor memory, has no core convictions to start with, or believes that the American people simply won’t remember what he said. Any one of these explanations is disqualifying for the presidency.

To give the Democratic nominee his due, Kerry was articulate and confident in the debate. He displayed a firm grasp of a lot of factual data. He made an excellent presentation, and outdid President Bush on style. All of which means, should Kerry lose the election, he will have no excuses. He made his case as well as he could.

But his case had some glaring contradictions. Kerry said, “Let me look you in the eye and say to you: I've defended this country as a young man in war and I will defend it as president of the United States.” What “defending” does he mean here? If he’s referring to when he was in Vietnam, then it follows that every other American serviceman in Vietnam was also defending this country. That’s not what Kerry said about U.S. soldiers in Vietnam in 1971, nor is it what he says now. Now, he says, “It is vital for us not to confuse the war, ever, with the warriors. That happened before.” Yes, senator, in your 1971 Senate testimony!

Of course, it is possible that Kerry believed that what HE was doing in Vietnam, defending America, and what OTHERS were doing in Vietnam, raping, cutting off noses, etc. were two different things. This opinion would represent a level of self-glorification and selective amnesia that cries out for professional intervention.

Kerry also failed to take a single position on whether or not America needs to work with others to face threats from terrorists or from enemies with weapons of mass destruction. He repeatedly stressed that President Bush should have waited until he had more allies, especially European allies, to deal with the threat of Saddam Hussein. In fact, Kerry could not even seem to decide whether or not Saddam was a threat. Near the beginning of the debate, he said: “We could have continued those inspections. We had Saddam Hussein trapped.” Minutes later, he said: “I did vote to give the authority because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat.” Three or four minutes after that, he stated that Bush went to war “knowing there was no imminent threat.”

But back to international cooperation. The most troubling statement by Kerry was his insistence that the U.S. go to war only “in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test.” Kerry declined to define what he meant, but in the context of ninety minutes in which he repeatedly criticized Bush for “pushing our allies aside,” there simply is no other conclusion possible except that a President Kerry would subject American security to a veto from France, Germany or the United Nations.

But this shocking statement only led to more contradictions. After insisting that Bush did not have enough global allies to attack Iraq, Kerry insisted, with equal fervor, that Bush was spending too much time gaining international cooperation to deal with crises in North Korea and Sudan. In the case of North Korea, Kerry maintained that he would discontinue the regional effort to confront the crisis, and act alone to force the communist country to give up its weapons of mass destruction. In the case of Sudan, Kerry said that Bush’s plan was not ambitious enough. He concluded: “If it took American forces, to some degree [to stop the genocide], I’d be prepared to do it, because we could never allow another Rwanda. It’s a moral responsibility for us in the world.”

There was a whiff of consistency in the Sudan position, because Kerry prefers to allow African nations to take the lead. It was jarring, therefore, when Kerry later criticized Bush strongly for making use of Afghan forces in Afghanistan.

So, these are the elements of the Kerry Doctrine: Saddam Hussein was a threat, but a trapped, non-imminent threat. We don’t have enough partners in Iraq, but we have too many to deal with North Korea. We should go to war only as a last resort, unless there’s genocide anywhere near Rwanda. We should rely on African forces in Africa, but not rely on Afghan forces in Afghanistan.

The Kerry campaign may wish to rethink its opposition to the word “flip-flopper.” It is, by far, the kindest explanation possible for the way he thinks.