GlennReynolds.com

• May 31, 2004 | 8:20 PM ET

GOOD AND BAD FOR KERRY

John Kerry's campaign has revolved around obfuscation and straddles where the current war is concerned, coupled with constant mentions of his service in Vietnam. He may be wondering if his strategists have gotten it backward.

Story continues below ↓

In a speech in Seattle last week, Kerry was talking tough on terror:

"This country is united in its determination to destroy you," said Kerry of the terrorists, in the first of a series of foreign-policy speeches timed to coincide with Memorial Day and President Bush's trip to Europe for D-Day ceremonies.
"As commander in chief, I will bring the full force of our nation's power to bear on finding and crushing your networks. We will use every available resource to destroy you," Kerry said in Seattle.

Some observers suggested that Kerry's tougher tone was based on internal polls that indicated that many swing voters want to hear tough talk. This may well be right. I certainly applaud Kerry's statement, and I hope we'll hear more like this, not least because such statements, if they are believed, are likely to deter a Madrid-type terrorist attack designed to affect American elections. If both candidates promise to be tough on terror, there's no point in the terrorists trying to get one or the other elected.

Unfortunately for Kerry, while he's doing better with the current war the Vietnam angle seems to be hurting him. I've mentioned various other veterans' groups that have come out against his candidacy, but the Washington Post reports yet another; the Rolling Thunder motorcycle group, made up of Vietnam Vets, endorsed President Bush:

Rolling Thunder, which claims 82 chapters in the United States and abroad, has endorsed Bush over the presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), and the Bush campaign turned out to capitalize on that endorsement. Two members of Bush's Cabinet joined the Rolling Thunder parade: Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi and Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G. Thompson, who showed up for his sixth Rolling Thunder ride decked out in black jeans, a black vest and black sunglasses.
Although Bush never saw combat and Kerry is a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, many in the Rolling Thunder crowd demonstrated little affection for their brother-in-arms. As they rolled across the Memorial Bridge, around the Lincoln Memorial and down Constitution Avenue, bikers displayed signs reading "Stop Kerry" and "Vietnam Vets against Kerry." . . .
Bob Nowak, 52, a retired Navy man from Aroda, Va., who did two tours in Vietnam, said veterans such as himself despise Kerry for his decision to protest the war in the early 1970s.
Nowak remembers returning from Vietnam in 1973 aboard an aircraft carrier loaded with thousands of sailors in their dress whites. "As we passed under the Golden Gate Bridge, there were people waiting for us. And they threw garbage on us," Nowak recalled. "That was about the time Kerry was throwing his [ribbons] away. It's kind of hard to forget either of them."

I'm no marketing genius, but I know a little bit about "branding," and I don't think that "the Vietnam President" is a good brand. I think that Kerry would be well advised to talk more about the war on terror, and getting tough on terrorists, than about Vietnam. And my guess is that he's wishing that had been his strategy all along.

• May 25, 2004 | 10:51 PM ET

WHAT IRAQIS THINK

We often hear news reports telling us what Iraqis think about various events. But usually those reports don't feature actual Iraqis. There have been a few polls, but not many. And while hundreds of new Iraqi newspapers and television stations have sprung up, most are in Arabic, and most aren't available in America.

You can, however, read Iraqi Weblogs. Iraqi blogger Omar is posting photos of Baghdad and talking about the construction boom there. Iraqi dental student Zeyad is reporting on events in Basrah. And over at Hammorabi Arab leaders come under attack for their disinterest in democracy.

An American blog called SoundFury is now posting weekly roundups of posts from Iraqi Weblogs. If you're interested, my advice is to go there and follow the links. It's not all good news, by any means, but it's a perspective that you won't get from Western media. Not only do Western news organizations have their own agendas, but their coverage is spotty. As John Burns of the New York Times noted recently, most Western reporters don't leave the security of the Green Zone to mingle with ordinary Iraqis. Which means that if you want to hear what Iraqis think, you might be better off eliminating the middleman.

Of course, the Iraqis who write Weblogs aren't a random sample -- they're literate in English, and they have Internet access. But then, the Iraqis -- or, for that matter, the Americans -- that reporters interview for their stories aren't a random sample either. (Just ask this guy!) And there's no more guarantee that they're telling the truth than anyone else. But they've already broken some important stories that Western journalists missed, and you can learn things from these blogs you'll be hard pressed to find out otherwise.

You'll also pick up an appreciation for what life is like in Iraq, delivered in the first-person way that blogs are known for, that you're unlikely to get any other way. Take a few minutes and read what some of these Iraqi bloggers have written and I think you'll find yourself going back for more.

• May 25, 2004 | 1:38 PM ET

WE'D ALL LOVE TO SEE THE PLAN

President Bush gave a speech on Iraq last night (the text is here) to mixed reviews. But as David Adesnik notes:

Either way, it is a strategy, and a strategy that distinguishes the President from those such as John Kerry who have begun to suggest that the people of Iraq cannot expect the United States to give them freedom, but instead only stability.

But as Ron Brownstein notes in the Los Angeles Times, this puts more pressure on Kerry to come up with a strategy of his own.

What will that be? Getting the United Nations to "take over" is a non- starter. We may get some help from the U.N., but it can't take over because (1) it doesn't have the troops; and (2) Iraqis don't trust it because of its connections with Saddam.

What's more, the U.N. has its own problems, and its own baggage, reaching far beyond Iraq. Not only the oil-for-food scandal in Iraq, mentioned here before, but also the sex-for-food scandal involving U.N. troops in The Congo:

Teenage rape victims fleeing war in the Democratic Republic of Congo are being sexually exploited by the United Nations peace-keeping troops sent to the stop their suffering.
The Independent has found that mothers as young as 13 - the victims of multiple rape by militiamen - can only secure enough food to survive in the sprawling refugee camp by routinely sleeping with UN peace-keepers. . . .
The trade, which according to one victim results in a banana or a cake to feed to her infant son, is taking place despite a pledge by the UN to adopt a "zero tolerance" attitude to cases of sexual misconduct by those representing the organisation.

That's just one of many such scandals involving U.N. peacekeepers. The United Nations may be useful as an entity that Arab governements would rather deal with than the United States, or at least be seen to deal with in place of the United States. But its record of failure, well, all over the world, suggests that it's not up to the job in Iraq. Which means that Kerry's going to have to come up with more if wants to get anywhere on this subject.

Rate this story

Low

High

• View Top Rated stories

Print this

Email this

IM this