Fair use policy applies
http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/040722105723.70hw1b40.html
Senator John Kerry wastes no chance to lambaste President George W. Bush's foreign policies, but his claim to leadership of the world's superpower appears based more on differences of tone than substance.
The Democratic candidate for the White House pledges to reverse the Republican's "arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological" approach to world affairs and repair alliances left in tatters by the invasion of Iraq.
But stung by Republican charges he is too weak to lead the country through its post-September 11 trauma, Kerry has toughened his stance and all but matched Bush's readiness for unilateral, pre-emptive military action.
"As president, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake," the decorated Vietnam War veteran said earlier this year, echoing Bush's famous pledge never to seek a "permission slip" from US allies.
Kerry, 60, has also left little daylight between him and Bush on a range of other issues, from the war in Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict to the potential nuclear threat posed by Iran and North Korea.
And the veteran lawmaker raised some eyebrows when he suggested to the Washington Post in May that global security concerns might have to take precedence over human rights issues in some countries.
"Sometimes we are dealt a set of cards that don't allow us to do everything we want to do at once," he said.
When Kerry formally accepts the Democratic nomination next week in Boston, he will be seeking to sharpen policy views that polls suggest are still fuzzy to much of the US public despite his 20 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Indeed the subtleties of Kerry's thinking have defied easy explanation even by close advisers such as Richard Holbrooke, former ambassador to the United Nations and now touted as a potential secretary of state.
"He has stood for a committed internationalist foreign policy," Holbrooke told the New Yorker magazine. "He believes in American values passionately, and he also believes in the limits of military power, and in its application when necessary."
Kerry draws his greatest contrast with Bush with vows to cultivate international alliances instead of a Republican administration that "bullied when they should have persuaded ... (and) gone it alone when they should have assembled a team."
The argument thins when it comes to specifics. Both men have sworn to "stay the course" in Iraq while seeking more help from the United Nations, NATO and the world community; both have badgered NATO to boost its presence in Afghanistan.
Kerry has gone marginally farther on the humanitarian crisis in the western Sudan region of Darfur, calling it government-sponsored "genocide" and urging concerted action to prevent the further loss of life.
But the Democrat has followed Bush down the line on Israel, backing the Jewish state's right to hold on to some lands annexed in 1967 as well as its controversial move to build a security barrier against would-be suicide bombers.
He has also moved closer to the Republicans on how to deal with the suspected nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, two of the three members of Bush's famous "axis of evil."
Kerry has consistently pushed for direct talks with Pyongyang on a full-range of issues, but has recently added a call to maintain the current six-party discussions that also involve China, Japan, South Korea and Russia.
On Iran, Kerry has muted his earlier appeal for exploratory talks that he once suggested could help normalise relations, and now states flatly that "a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable.
"An America, whose interest and allies could be on the target list, must no longer sit on the sidelines. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve those issues," he said in a speech last month.
Kerry and Bush do have clear differences in some areas, however, including the Democrat's call for "confronting the role of Saudi Arabia in financing and providing ideological support of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups."
The challenger has also staked out a much firmer pro-environmental stance, pledging to rejoin international efforts to combat problems such as the depleted ozone layer and global warming.
http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/040722105723.70hw1b40.html
Senator John Kerry wastes no chance to lambaste President George W. Bush's foreign policies, but his claim to leadership of the world's superpower appears based more on differences of tone than substance.
The Democratic candidate for the White House pledges to reverse the Republican's "arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological" approach to world affairs and repair alliances left in tatters by the invasion of Iraq.
But stung by Republican charges he is too weak to lead the country through its post-September 11 trauma, Kerry has toughened his stance and all but matched Bush's readiness for unilateral, pre-emptive military action.
"As president, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake," the decorated Vietnam War veteran said earlier this year, echoing Bush's famous pledge never to seek a "permission slip" from US allies.
Kerry, 60, has also left little daylight between him and Bush on a range of other issues, from the war in Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict to the potential nuclear threat posed by Iran and North Korea.
And the veteran lawmaker raised some eyebrows when he suggested to the Washington Post in May that global security concerns might have to take precedence over human rights issues in some countries.
"Sometimes we are dealt a set of cards that don't allow us to do everything we want to do at once," he said.
When Kerry formally accepts the Democratic nomination next week in Boston, he will be seeking to sharpen policy views that polls suggest are still fuzzy to much of the US public despite his 20 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Indeed the subtleties of Kerry's thinking have defied easy explanation even by close advisers such as Richard Holbrooke, former ambassador to the United Nations and now touted as a potential secretary of state.
"He has stood for a committed internationalist foreign policy," Holbrooke told the New Yorker magazine. "He believes in American values passionately, and he also believes in the limits of military power, and in its application when necessary."
Kerry draws his greatest contrast with Bush with vows to cultivate international alliances instead of a Republican administration that "bullied when they should have persuaded ... (and) gone it alone when they should have assembled a team."
The argument thins when it comes to specifics. Both men have sworn to "stay the course" in Iraq while seeking more help from the United Nations, NATO and the world community; both have badgered NATO to boost its presence in Afghanistan.
Kerry has gone marginally farther on the humanitarian crisis in the western Sudan region of Darfur, calling it government-sponsored "genocide" and urging concerted action to prevent the further loss of life.
But the Democrat has followed Bush down the line on Israel, backing the Jewish state's right to hold on to some lands annexed in 1967 as well as its controversial move to build a security barrier against would-be suicide bombers.
He has also moved closer to the Republicans on how to deal with the suspected nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, two of the three members of Bush's famous "axis of evil."
Kerry has consistently pushed for direct talks with Pyongyang on a full-range of issues, but has recently added a call to maintain the current six-party discussions that also involve China, Japan, South Korea and Russia.
On Iran, Kerry has muted his earlier appeal for exploratory talks that he once suggested could help normalise relations, and now states flatly that "a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable.
"An America, whose interest and allies could be on the target list, must no longer sit on the sidelines. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve those issues," he said in a speech last month.
Kerry and Bush do have clear differences in some areas, however, including the Democrat's call for "confronting the role of Saudi Arabia in financing and providing ideological support of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups."
The challenger has also staked out a much firmer pro-environmental stance, pledging to rejoin international efforts to combat problems such as the depleted ozone layer and global warming.