Does John Kerry really have any answers?
The would-be “Kerry Doctrine” took a major blow last week when the Duelfer Report confirmed what we already knew: the true “coalition of the bribed” is not the U.S. and its allies but rather the UN Security Council; Saddam had but to wait out sanctions (if you call the corrupt cash cow that was the Oil-for-Food program sanctions) before he could reconstitute his WMD program, within months.
To add insult to injury, Kerry was forced this week to admit a major setback to his so-called multilateral approach. Both Germany and France released clearly worded policy positions that explicitly ruled out any armed involvement in Iraq. While Kerry continues to blame this on Bush, the Duelfer Report tells a different story. In reality, Russia, France and Germany would never have followed through on UN Resolution 1441, that is, unless we somehow found a way to pay them more than Saddam had…in Euros, of course.
Furthermore, the Duelfer Report, as did the 9/11 Commission Report, undermines much of the force behind Kerry and Edwards’ ongoing campaign to convince the public that Bush & Co. lied their way into Iraq. Just as the 9/11 Commission Report settled the question of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 (there was none), it also detailed and codified the longstanding ties to terror within Saddam’s regime from the contacts to al-Qaeda, rewards for Palestinian suicide bombers, to the secret negotiations with North Korea in an attempt to trade nuclear material for missile technology.
The Duelfer Report makes sure, once and for all, that those paying attention to the issues in Iraq know that the UN was powerless, Saddam was a waiting, and increasingly unstable, threat and that action was a viable option. Yet this might not be a deathblow to Kerry because multilateralism was never a principle true to his heart. I am not referring to his remarks or Edwards’ casting Iraq as the “biggest” threat to the U.S., although those comments (as recent as 2002-03) are telling. No, I am referring to North Korea.
Just as Kerry would have us not disrupt Iraq and North Korea’s dreams of proliferation, doing so would make us swallow a decision that goes against decades of U.S. policy. It has been our position that direct talks with North Korea are always out of the question. Whereas Bush has shown an ability to deal with Iran, North Korea, Libya and the like in different and appropriate ways, Kerry would have the U.S. throw away its approach to North Korea and discard the key participation of the Chinese by directly addressing Lil’ Kim.
If multilateralism were really a part of Kerry’s outlook, his views on North Korea would be very damaging. In fact, his “multilateralism” is just a tool to be used for opportunist attacks on the President’s policies; the substance of Kerry’s platform has really never been what was driving his candidacy. This fact is emphasized by the inability of Kerry supporters to acknowledge the destruction of his platform by the Duelfer Report last week. A vote for Kerry is not really for him or his unrealistic phantom foreign policy, but rather a vote against Bush. Just as those of us that support Bush have been saying for four years, “Anybody but Bush” is a dangerous mindset, and hardly a winning proposition.