Ayad Allawi, Kofi Annan, John Kerry

[Ted]

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
 
Ayad, Kofi and John
September 24, 2004; Page A14

Pessimism about Iraq seems to be in fashion, with leaders such as John Kerry and Kofi Annan implying that the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein had never been toppled. So it's been more than a little refreshing to hear the message of hope, resolve and gratitude delivered by Ayad Allawi during his U.S. visit this week.

Yesterday it was Congress's turn to hear from the interim Iraqi Prime Minister, and he began by thanking them for their "brave vote" in 2002 to authorize American men and women to liberate Iraq: "Your decision to go to war in Iraq was not an easy one but it was the right one."

Mr. Allawi then offered a convincing list of reasons that there is every chance his country will make a successful transition to democracy early next year. True, violence has been rising ahead of the U.S. election this November and the Iraqi poll scheduled for January, and there will be hard fighting ahead. But the Prime Minister pointed out that at this very moment 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces would be calm enough to organize a vote. He noted the recent success of Iraqi forces in re-establishing control of the troublesome Sunni town of Samarra, as well as the Shiite holy city of Najaf. He added a well-deserved jab at our friends in the media, who reported the fighting there but have since "lost interest and left."

As for the political process, Mr. Allawi pointed out that Iraqis have already defied the skeptics several times. They've met their January deadline for writing an interim constitution, the scheduled June sovereignty handover, and the August date for a National Conference: "And I pledge to you today, we'll prove them wrong again over the elections."

That promise was the most important thing we heard the Prime Minister say, since frankly we've been having our own doubts. It's not that we've worried about progress on the Iraqi end. As Mr. Allawi stressed, "Iraqis want elections on time." Rather, it's that the vaunted "international community" has been hinting it may not live up to its promise to organize the vote. Just last week Secretary General Annan -- who pulled out of Iraq entirely after the 2003 bombing on U.N. headquarters in Baghdad -- suggested that security conditions may not be sufficient to send enough employees to do the job.

At an editorial board meeting with us on Wednesday, Mr. Allawi politely suggested that the Secretary General "probably is misinformed" about the real situation on the ground. He added that he hoped the U.N. would respect its own Resolution 1546 and "do whatever it takes to ensure the elections" are held on time. Mr. Allawi also welcomed NATO's recent decision to step up its training of Iraqi security forces. "The resolve and will of the coalition in supporting a free Iraq is vital to our success," he said. "But these doubters risk underestimating our country and they risk fueling the hopes of the terrorists."

Mr. Kerry, for one, must not have been listening too carefully to those remarks, given his ungracious reaction to Mr. Allawi's speech. The Senator accused the Prime Minister of "contradicting his own statement" and of putting the "best face" on the situation.

While Mr. Kerry has every right to criticize U.S. conduct of the war, one would think he'd be wiser than to attack Mr. Allawi for saying it will be possible to hold the same elections that Mr. Kerry said just this Monday were his own exit strategy from Iraq. Or to accuse Iraq's Prime Minister of painting an unrealistic picture about a country the Senator has never visited. Having described the U.S. allies who liberated Iraq as a "coalition of the bribed," Mr. Kerry now insults the Iraqis he'd be working with if he becomes President.

Our one big disagreement with what Mr. Allawi had to say concerns the trials of Saddam and his henchmen. The Prime Minister told us that the trials would start soon, which is good. But he also hinted that they would be rapid and said flat out that they wouldn't be televised. We think this would be a grave mistake. Iraqis and Arabs generally need to see justice done, and a historical record of Saddam's crimes should be produced like that of the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials. If, as we suspect, the quick and quiet approach is part of an Allawi-CIA political strategy not to further upset the Baathists who remain on the loose, it is very shortsighted.

But overall the Prime Minister had the right message, and his reception by Congress suggests that President Bush would have done better by heeding those of his advisers who urged the naming of an interim Iraqi government in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 liberation. We'd add from firsthand experience that Mr. Allawi's positive attitude is shared by the vast majority of Iraqis themselves. With American resolve and a little luck -- inshallah, as Iraqis would say -- there is every reason to believe the country will have a democratically legitimate government come January.
 

[ziggy]

Mr. Kerry, for one, must not have been listening too carefully to those remarks, given his ungracious reaction to Mr. Allawi's speech. The Senator accused the Prime Minister of "contradicting his own statement" and of putting the "best face" on the situation.

While Mr. Kerry has every right to criticize U.S. conduct of the war, one would think he'd be wiser than to attack Mr. Allawi for saying it will be possible to hold the same elections that Mr. Kerry said just this Monday were his own exit strategy from Iraq. Or to accuse Iraq's Prime Minister of painting an unrealistic picture about a country the Senator has never visited. Having described the U.S. allies who liberated Iraq as a "coalition of the bribed," Mr. Kerry now insults the Iraqis he'd be working with if he becomes President.

 

I listened to Kerry's comments and I must say they were disgraceful.  Kerry prattles on and on about how he will get the international community and organizations like the UN, as well as our European "allies" to join us in the fight.  This is the same UN headed by Kofi Annan who called the Iraq war illegal, and has done everything he can to ubstruct the investigation into the UN administered Oil for Food Program.  France has already come out and stated unequivically that they will not do anything to help us in Iraq.
At the same time Kerry insults and belittles our allies on a daily basis.  He calls them the Coaltion of the Bribed and Coerced, as if the ONLY reason they joined us was because they were bribed not because they believe in the cause of fighting terror.  His sister has gone to Australia in an attempt to influence elections there, and to peel Australia off as an ally, by stating that being our ally puts Australians at risk.  Kerry insults and accuses Prime Minister Allawi of being untruthful.  He accuses him of lying about the potential of elections in Iraq, when that is one of the 4 main points of Kerry "Grand Strategy".
It is nothing less than disgraceful.

[ziggy]

Disgraceful
From the October 4, 2004 issue: The disgraceful behavior of John Kerry and his team is sufficient grounds for concern about his fitness to be president
by William Kristol
10/04/2004, Volume 010, Issue 04

WE REALLY DON'T KNOW what a President John Kerry would do about Iraq. His flip-flops about the war, his inconsistencies, the ambiguity of his current position (win or withdraw?)--all of these mean we can only guess about a Kerry presidency. He would probably be inclined to get out of Iraq as soon as possible; it might be the case, however, that as president he would nonetheless find himself staying and fighting. Who knows?

What we do know is this: Kerry and his advisers have behaved disgracefully this past week. That behavior is sufficient grounds for concern about his fitness to be president.

On Tuesday, President Bush spoke to the United Nations General Assembly. Senator Kerry decided not to say anything supportive of the president as he made the American case to the "international community." Nor did he simply campaign that day on other issues. No. Less than an hour after President Bush finished speaking in New York, Kerry was criticizing his remarks in Jacksonville, Florida: "At the United Nations today, the president failed to level with the world's leaders. Moments after Kofi Annan, the secretary general, talked about the difficulties in Iraq, the president of the United States stood before a stony-faced body and barely talked about the realities at all of Iraq. . . . He does not have the credibility to lead the world."

So Kerry credits Kofi Annan--who a few days before had condemned the "illegal" American war in Iraq--as a more accurate source of information on the subject than the president of the United States. Kerry also seems to think it significant that the General Assembly sat "stony-faced" while the president spoke. Would the applause of delegates from China, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and, yes, France, have made the president's speech more praiseworthy in Kerry's eyes?

Then Kerry was asked about Kofi Annan's description of the war in Iraq as an "illegal" invasion. Kerry answered: "I don't know what the law, the legalities are that he's referring to. I don't know." So the U.S. government is accused of breaking international law, and Kerry chooses not to defend his country against the charge, or to label it ridiculous or offensive. He is agnostic.

Then Kerry continued: "Well, let me say this to all of you: That underscores what I am saying. If the leader of the United Nations is at odds with the legality, and we're not working at getting over that hurdle and bringing people to the table, as I said in my speech yesterday, it's imperative to be able to build international cooperation." It's our fault that the U.N. is doing almost nothing to help in Iraq. After all, according to Kerry, "Kofi Annan offered the help of the United Nations months ago. This president chose to go the other way."

Leave aside the rewriting of history going on here. The president of the United States had just appealed for help from the United Nations and its member states to ensure that elections go forward in Iraq. Kerry could have reinforced that appeal for help with his own, thereby making it a bipartisan request. He chose instead to give the U.N., France, Germany, and everyone else an excuse to do nothing over these next crucial five weeks, with voter registration scheduled to begin November 1. If other nations prefer not to help the United States, the Democratic presidential candidate has given them his blessing
 
 Two days later, Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi spoke to a joint meeting of Congress. Sen. Kerry could not be troubled to attend, as a gesture of solidarity and respect. Instead, Kerry said in Ohio that Allawi was here simply to put the "best face on the policy." So much for an impressive speech by perhaps America's single most important ally in the war on terror, the courageous and internationally recognized leader of a nation struggling to achieve democracy against terrorist opposition.

But Kerry's rudeness paled beside the comment of his senior adviser, Joe Lockhart, to the Los Angeles Times: "The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."

Is Kerry proud that his senior adviser's derisive comment about the leader of free Iraq will now be quoted by terrorists and by enemies of the United States, in Iraq and throughout the Middle East? Is the concept of a loyalty to American interests that transcends partisan politics now beyond the imagination of the Kerry campaign?

John Kerry has decided to pursue a scorched-earth strategy in this campaign. He is prepared to insult allies, hearten enemies, and denigrate efforts to succeed in Iraq. His behavior is deeply irresponsible--and not even in his own best interest.

There is some chance, after all, that John Kerry will be president in four months. If so, what kind of situation will he have created for himself? France will
 
smile on him, but provide no troops. Those allies that have provided troops, from Britain and Poland and Australia and Japan and elsewhere, will likely recall how Kerry sneered at them, calling them "the coerced and the bribed." The leader of the government in Iraq, upon whom the success of John Kerry's Iraq policy will depend, will have been weakened before his enemies and ours--and will also remember the insult. Is this really how Kerry wants to go down in history: Willing to say anything to try to get elected, no matter what the damage to the people of Iraq, to American interests, and even to himself?

--William Kristol

 

[ziggy]

Sister Kerry
From the October 4, 2004 issue: The candidate's sibling causes a stir overseas--and at home.
by Katherine Mangu-Ward
10/04/2004,

EVERY MAN with presidential aspirations has a black sheep in the family. Heck, George W. Bush has been the black sheep in his family from time to time. John Kerry is no exception. After decades of living abroad--most recently in Indonesia--Diana Kerry, John's younger sister, has returned to the fold. And last week she put her foot squarely in John Kerry's mouth.

As the head of Americans Overseas for Kerry, Diana Kerry is a campaign official. And she was speaking in that capacity when, in reference to the invasion of Iraq, she said, "Australia has kept faith with the U.S., and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels."

The Weekend Australian's Roy Eccleston, who broke the story, added: "Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms. Kerry said: 'The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta--I would have to say that.'" She also mentioned the October 2002 bombing of two Bali nightclubs, in which many of the victims were young Australians.

Alert readers, including Amanda Sokolski on this magazine's website, quickly picked up on errors in Ms. Kerry's timeline. The Bali bombing took place long before Australia got mixed up with those nasty Americans and their "wanton disregard for international law." And the September 9 attack on the Australian embassy was perpetrated by Jemaah Islamiyah, al Qaeda's Southeast Asia franchise, which has considered Australia a target since well  
before the Iraq war. Evidently, the details of this timeline were blurry for Ms. Kerry, who has been busy shuttling around the globe on her brother's behalf for the last several months.

So who is Diana Kerry? A lifelong expat drama instructor and translator, she's now in charge of scooping up as many votes as possible from the more than 4 million Americans living abroad--including 100,000 in Australia. As part of this effort, she has recently tried her hand at blogging. A post on the official campaign blog introduces Diana and explains her project: "Nothing is more important to me than international understanding," she says. Bolstering her credentials, Ms. Kerry reminisces about "a State Dinner in Hanoi at which I joined John some years ago--one of only three women present. The affection and regard that the Vietnamese held for him in his work to restore diplomatic relations was very moving."

On the Americans Overseas for Kerry blog, one finds a long thread accusing the Pentagon of deliberately blocking voter registration overseas. Writes Ms. Kerry: "I was outraged to read that the Bush Administration has chosen to block access to [the] Federal Voter Assistance Program website for U.S. citizens residing in at least 25 countries around the world. . . . The Pentagon has been engaged in a growing practice of denying vital voter registration information to U.S. voters over the past several months."

The charges against the Pentagon are repeated on another (unofficial) blog aimed at overseas Democrats--in fact, such complaints are a staple of the bulletin boards and official notices on such sites. Luke Robinson, a London-based website designer, lightly floats Ms. Kerry's conspiracy theory over at the site he moderates, ExpatsAgainstBush.org: "I wonder if this could be due to any perceived Democratic bias in the expat voting population this year? No, that would be too far into tinfoil hat territory."

Perhaps interested in the goings-on of one of their own, bloggers have been following the story of Diana Kerry's fearmongering and her role in the campaign generally with interest. The commentary falls somewhat short of the avalanche of information and reporting that many blogs were rightly lauded for when they broke Rathergate. But the passion the commenters bring to the subject suggests that if John Kerry reaches the White House, Diana is the blogosphere's leading candidate among the three Kerry siblings to play the Billy Carter role.

After the Command Post blog noted the Weekend Australian article, the comments section featured these reflections: "Dianna [sic] Kerry and John Kerry represent the Deaniac Demoncrat [sic] wing of the Islamofascist al-Queda [sic] party. . . . That is the Flip side! On the Flop side Diana and John Kerry represent the Michael Moore Muslim Moonbat brigades."

On the Rabble.ca chatboard, "Screaming Lord Byron" posted this insightful note after seeing Ms. Kerry speak earlier in the summer: "Had I seen her around town yesterday, I'd have thought 'What is Senator Kerry doing walking around Calgary dressed as a middle-aged businesswoman? That can't go down well with the swing voters.'"

On a more serious note, "Captain Ed" of the Captain's Quarters blog wrote: "Diana Kerry acts on orders from her brother John to undermine the Australian alliance."

For the second time in as many weeks, blogger conspiracy theorists may be onto something. There has been no discernible fallout from Ms. Kerry's comments at the campaign headquarters. Perhaps this is because  
she could plausibly offer the "just following orders" defense. After all, she was speaking about a nation that her brother has called part of the "coalition of the coerced and the bribed."

Blood, they say, is thicker than water, so perhaps Kerry has forgiven his little sister for causing a stir. But another cliché might also be fruitfully applied to the Kerry campaign's situation: With friends like these, who needs enemies?


Katherine Mangu-Ward