Mark Levin and I debate the debates

Mark Levin at the National Review has some problems with Kerry statements at the debate. I've decided to provide some rebuttal as best I can. His parts are the blockquoted sections that begin "Issue:"

Iran: Kerry made this remarkable statement about how he would have confronted Iran's frenzied efforts to secure nuclear weapons: "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together."

President Bush made the point that sanctions are already in place. But why hasn't Kerry's proposal received any attention, let alone the condemnation it deserves? (At the moment, only the Iranians themselves have given it the time of day, saying it would be "irrational" for them to jeopardize their country's nuclear program by relying on foreign supplies.) In a rare declarative statement, Kerry proposed providing the most active terrorist regime - which harbors al Qaeda terrorists, is sending them into Iraq to attack our forces, and threatens to attack Israel with nuclear weapons - with material that can be used to speed up their nuclear-weapons program. He's offering to do for Iran what Bill Clinton did for North Korea: arm it. This is stunning.

I'm not an expert on this one. Maybe I shouldn't address it at all. I remember reading Kerry's plan for Iran involved a proposal that we would provide them with fuel and remove the waste once it was done, and only with supervision and inspectors throughout the process. Then we would know exactly what was being done inside Iran. Again, if diplomacy failed, we would move to other steps, rather than just forget diplomacy altogether as Bush has done.

Unfortunately, I can't find a link to my analysis, and again, I'm not an expert on this one.

North Korea: Some have pointed out that while Kerry argues a coalition of over 30 nations in Iraq is not a coalition, he calls for bilateral negotiations with North Korea. Another obvious question is what exactly Kerry would tell Kim Jong-Il that, say, Bill Clinton didn't already discuss with him? Moreover, what does Kerry want to offer this tyrant that is so compelling he can only discuss it in a one-on-one negotiation? Does anyone know?

Remember Kerry also said that he wants multilateral talks to continue. Even China has asked us to initiate bilateral talks. The point is, there is no way of knowing what North Korea wants without talking to them. And admitting that you will talk to them does not mean that you will concede to their demands. What Kerry would propose at this point is unknown, mostly because it is unknown what would come out of the one on one talks the current President refuses to have.

Diplomacy does still have a place in the war on terror. If you don't believe it, ask the President about Libya.

"Mistake": Kerry said, "the president made a mistake in invading Iraq." But later, Jim Lehrer asked him, "Are Americans now dying in Iraq for mistake?" Kerry answered, "No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put - that I'm offering." So, the war in Iraq is a mistake, but soldiers who die fighting the war aren't dying for a mistake? What kind of perverse thinking is this?

Let me see if I can explain this once and for all. Bush's war on Iraq was a mistake. The war itself on Iraq? Well, that's a matter of debate, but this President's war was wrong. Now that we are there, we need to make sure the objectives we had before the invasion are met. We need to make sure the outcome of the war is not a mistake, and it will not be if Kerry is elected.

A simplistic example: Going to the gas station because the President misleads you into thinking you are almost out of gas, but when you get there you still have 3/4 tank? That's a mistake. Getting gas while you are there anyway? Not a mistake.

I believe that was Kerry's message during the debate.

Global Test: While numerous conservatives have noted Kerry's astounding comment about a president having to pass "the global test" to "prove to the world that [he took military action] for legitimate reasons," the mainstream media seem to have missed it. Where's the discussion on the editorial and op-ed pages? Where's the "news analysis?"

Here's some analysis:

It's clear from Kerry's first sentence that the "global test" doesn't prevent unilateral action to protect ourselves. But notice what else Kerry says. The test includes convincing "your countrymen" that your reasons are clear and sound. Kerry isn't just talking about satisfying France. He's talking about satisfying Ohio. He's talking about you.

What do you have in common with a Frenchman? Look again at Kerry's words. He says the test is to "prove" that our reasons for attacking were legitimate. In the next sentence, he gives an example of someone failing that test: Colin Powell's February 2003 presentation to the United Nations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What did Powell apologize for? The inaccuracy of our intelligence. Kerry contrasts this with the trust France once placed in American spy photos.

Proof, intelligence, spy photos. The pattern is obvious. The test isn't moral. It's factual. What you and the Frenchman share is the evidence of your senses. The global test is the measurement of the president's assertions against the real world, the world you and I can see.

Or, if you are that confused, ask John Kerry to clear it up for you:

For the first time publicly since the first presidential debate, Senator John Kerry was asked about his "global test" remarks which the Bush-Cheney campaign have pushed as an indication of the Senator's over dependence on multilateral foreign policy.

Speaking at a town hall meeting on stem cell research in Winnacunnet High School in Hampton New Hampshire, Kerry replied, "This is what they do. It's almost sad. It's certainly pathetic. All they can do is grab a little phrase and scare America."

Alluding to the New York Times' Sunday story on Iraq intelligence, the Democratic nominee insisted, "They misled Americans on intelligence."

Then Kerry returned to the question at hand, continuing, "What I said in the preceding sentence was, "I will not cede America's security to another country." No one gets a veto over our security. No one...I'm never going to allow America's security to be outsourced."

Concluding, Kerry clarified once more, "The test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy."

Hope that helps, Mark.

Anyone who wants to further the discussion, by all means leave a comment. Again, foreign policy is not my forte, but I will attempt to continue the debate as best I can.