91ÆÞÓÑ

Participants:

Lawrence Kaplan, 91ÆÞÓÑ Institute/The New Republic
Professor Leon Fuerth, George Washington University and Dean for President campaign
Rand Beers, Kerry for President campaign
Morton Kondracke, Roll Call and Fox News Channel
Joshua Muravchik, American Enterprise Institute; Jonathan Chait, The New Republic

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Good morning, my name is Lawrence Kaplan and I cover foreign policy for the New Republic Magazine. IÂ’m also a Senior Fellow here at 91ÆÞÓÑ Institute. On behalf of both institutions, I would like to welcome everyone to 91ÆÞÓÑ today. TodayÂ’s panel marks the second in a series of discussions about ideology and foreign policy which is being jointly co-hosted by 91ÆÞÓÑ and TNR. The topic of the day is whether the Democratic Party is moving forward or backward when it comes to foreign policy and to have the answer as to how this question will play out in November. When Ken Weinstein and I first organized the panel, we thought we already had the answer. Howard Dean was sure to be the nominee and McGovern analogies were flying all over the place. Today of course things will look a bit different. The fact remains however that really for the first time since, I think, the 1980s events overseas could tip the balance in presidential election. The question then is how does the Democratic nominee, whoever he may be, erase or at least erode the long-standing advantage that the GOP has traditionally enjoyed on national security and foreign policy issues. More important what sort of principles or critique does he employ when doing so. I suspect that IÂ’m not the only one who is having a tough time discerning exactly what those principles are this year. Hopefully, weÂ’ll get some answers today. To get to the bottom of all of this, we have a distinguished panel with us.

A keynote speaker today will be Leon Fuerth, who is a foreign policy advisor to Governor Howard Dean. He was also, of course, National Security Advisor to Vice President Gore and is now a Professor at the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington University. We also have Rand Beers who is a foreign policy advisor to Senator John Kerry. Rand was also a counter-terrorism specialist at the National Security Council under President George W. Bush and I believe under previous presidents as well. We have my colleague Jonathan Chait here who is a senior editor at TNR and needs no further introduction. Morton Kondracke who, of course is the executive editor and columnist at Role Call, as well as, a contributor to the Fox News Channel. And, finally, we have Joshua Muravchik, who in addition to being the one who got me into this business is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of among other books, Heaven on Earth and the Imperative of American Leadership. I think that I will just ask Leon to introduce us with an opening set of remarks.

LEON FUERTH - Good morning. I noticed that thereÂ’s no sign of the muffin or bagel, cream cheese, and I want to thank the organizers for not exposing me to that kind of temptation. It would only mean another thirty minutes on some horrible machine to work it off. For whatever reason, whether budgetary stringency or general meanness of character to cause you to have us today on an empty stomach, I am personally grateful. YouÂ’ve got a really powerful ventilation system going here. Let me just cut to the chase.

In general, I think that the views of the Democratic candidates are clustered. For obvious reasons, I made it my business to find a web site some place, I think it was the run by the Council on Foreign Relations, which listed everybodyÂ’s position. So, I did my own diagram, a dot here, dot here, and dot there. In my view there are recognizable family resemblances in the positions taking there by the candidates with certain exceptions. IÂ’m going to deal with the exceptions first and then come back to the family resemblances. The obvious exception is in National Security, is the argument over Iraq. That difference really has its polls set in Senator Lieberman that just left the campaign, and in Governor Dean. Lieberman has consistently been taking a position that the war was a good thing to do and he takes that position regardless of shifting justifications and the shifting of a (?) basis for it. Dean has consistently been taking the position that this war, this time, this place, was not the right thing to do. HeÂ’s been consistent about that. The other candidates have been somewhere in the middle and sometimes adjusting positions in the middle zone between these two relatively clear positions. I donÂ’t want to minimize the significance of this. It does go to the question of what is a just war in a democracy. It also goes to questions of judgment and it is emblematic perhaps of the willingness to stand up and take positions that are unpopular. Whether LiebermanÂ’s side is unpopular within the Democratic Party, to forthrightly advocate going to war or in DeanÂ’s position it is unpopular beyond the Democratic Party and in some parts of it, the Democratic Party, to oppose the war. But, the primary point that I am going to be making today is that once we get into the areas where there is a general similarity, within this family, the differences between these candidates are far less significant than the difference between them as a group and the policies and patterns of the present administration. Which is why, when this is all over, there will be a candidate whom the others can in good conscious support to the hilt. Now IÂ’m going to talk about what I think are the cluster values that one finds on this issue. Including a few areas where, who knows, there might even be some possibility of convergence with the present administration. Convergence is a bad thing for politics because it diminishes brand recognition -- but it wouldnÂ’t be such a bad thing for the country if in the next administration there was a little less voltage on certain issues and a little more consensus. The question is whether or not convergence is real or just apparent because of the convenience of the moment. Anyway ...

What are the areas of a basic co-consistency? In my opinion, all of the Democratic candidates accept the necessity for the use of force on occasion to defend the security and the interest of the United States. But they are universally opposed to an approach to force that embraces it as the first resort, rather than the last if time permits some choice between these things. I think that as a group they tend to reject the concept of preemption and the idea of dominance for several reasons. Some of them may have technical and legal arguments about this. But, I have a feeling that in general they regard these things as unnecessary to have said and damaging to the interest of the United States. I mean, every one of them believes that a President of the United States will do what is necessary to protect the country. But, that, in the meantime, it isn’t necessary to shock the rest of the world by creating a doctrine that says we have a perfect right to use military force when and as president sees fit. Nor is it necessary to get the backs of the rest of the world up, by saying our intention is to be so dominant as a matter of policy that nobody will ever dare to raise a hand. Those things I think the Democratic candidates take as __ when on for any president and talking about them is not couth and has hurt us in terms of our material interest in the world. I think that most Democrats, all Democrats, let me amend that, have a view that there is high residual value to the United States in our formal alliances and international organizations. On the other hand, they do not pursue multilateralism as some kind of cult. The saying that was current in the Clinton Administration “with others if possible, and alone if we must,” is still current in my opinion among the Democratic candidates. It distinguishes them from the attitude that one finds in the Administration which is the inverse and that is alone preferably with others if we just absolutely have to. I think that the Democrats as a group believe that one of the major goals of the United States in the world, aside from simply protecting its physical existence, is to help develop an international system based on the concept of international law -- something that animated U.S. presidents going back not only to Wilson, but before. I think that Democrats in general reject the Administration’s theory that the way to run the world is to have essentially a reversion to the concert of powers. You can find this idea showing up in Powell’s speeches and Condi Rice’s statements and it appears to be that all we need to do is to reach an agreement with a couple of other major actors on the scene and we can run things as we please. I don’t think Democrats who want to be president think that is the way in which the world can reliably organized in a way that is comfortable for the interest of the United States.

I think also, that most Democrats, I keep on saying most, but I really think all once I get down to the key figures, believe that the military is due for an overhaul. They also believe that overhaul has not occurred during this Administration. If you look at the military budget of this administration, it really appears to be the Clinton defense budget on steroids. Nothing really other than possibly one weapon system for the Army has disappeared, but everything else is in there. Once again I think that most Democrats looking at the future see a (inaudible) wave of expensive projects that will come due later on for which the United States will be unable to pay. Just as was the case under the Reagan Administration for the same reasons that applied under the Reagan Administration -- namely we are in a financial hole, and sooner or later we will have to curtail our expenditures even for military things. The original premise of the Bush Administration was that it was going to find a way to deeply revolutionize the military. But it lost its way. I think that whether or not they agree with the high-tech philosophy of this administration, Democrats are going to recognize, do recognize, that our projected levels of expenditure on defense are very difficult to visualize continuing and expanding into the future. There is going to be a reckoning of some sort. I think that there are a couple of areas where there has been an interesting blurring of lines. During the Clinton Administration, there was a recognition that the national security interest of the United States included not only a physical or material component, but a moral component as well. And, then, in some balance with our material interests, our moral interests as a country also had to be projected and defended. This equation applied in discussions and decisions relating to Haiti to Bosnia to Kosovo, and so on, in my opinion, distinguished the Clinton approach to national security issues from the then dominant conservative republican approach which was centered on classical definitions of national security namely, a concern only for those things that could physically threaten the security of the United States or its treaty allies. If you go back and look at the literature of the time, Republican writers were constantly castigating Clinton for doing things which this administration is now deeply engaged in doing, such as nation building and so on.

The question is whether there really has been some kind of convergence under the pressure of harsh experience on the issue of a moral component in national security strategy. Here, I think the Democrats will have their doubts about the bona fides of what is occurring. The Administration now talks a lot about human rights. But, the question is whether it talks about the human rights in the clinch when there is a choice to be made between the support of our particular son of a bitch in country a, b, c, or d, and what that particular person is countenancing in governance in his own country. There is also a lot of stuff being said about democracy by this Administration -- except in this Administration, its view of democracy is rather teleological. You look at it and are apparently being a law of history that all of these things will occur. I think that most Democrats, especially the candidates in the field have a little (unclear word) view about this, worry about the consequences of doing it, support it. But, in their memory the approach to a new issue like this is Jimmy CarterÂ’s: which is, it has to be grounded in at every level of your diplomacy. It has to lead to trade offs in which you conduct your relations differently with this new policy than in the past. We havenÂ’t seen that yet in this Administration.
I also think, finally, that as a group the Democratic candidates adhere to a broader concept of what national security comprises than does the Administration. They would accept that the global environment and some of the major disturbances that now appear to be surfacing is capable of being an active in volatile factor in national security. They would maintain that U.S. technology, U.S. manufacturing base is a national security concern. They as a group, I think, would express the sense that globalization and free trade interacting have produced some consequences for the U.S. economy that was not what we all bargained for. There, I think, is a search on for an alternative. The alternative is not protectionism. Everybody knows where protectionism leads but the alternative is some other path which avoids having the economy of the U.S. treat as an open commons by other countries in there trade policies. And finally, I think the Democratic candidates as a group would assert that the fiscal health of the United States is a national security concern. That when you get to a situation where because of deliberate acts of policy the federal government is incurring a half a trillion dollars of debt on an annual basis for the foreseeable future and much of that debt is being purchased by the Peoples Republic of China, weÂ’ve got a national security problem. We have an unbalanced economic relationship in which we are incurring more and more debt which we owe to fewer and fewer people so that we can go deeper and deeper in whole. At some point, something breaks in that system. In any event, the idea that so much of our indebtness is owned by a country that we donÂ’t particularly feel comfortable with, in terms of its long-term objective, is a national security issue.

My last comment has to do with internal security. There we have the question of whether or not Democrats are comfortable with the Patriot Act. There is an array, some of them voted for it, it makes them uncomfortable to think how it has mutated or what it has turned into. But, in general I think the candidates feel that this administration has done things to conceptions about the international rights of prisoners and the constitutional rights of Americans that are in excess of what is reasonably required to provide for the security of the United States against terrorism and that this needs to be revisited and rebalanced. I think that is ten or fifteen minutes so IÂ’d stop right there. Thanks very much.

Oh yeah, and one more point. I almost admitted it and that is if any one of these guys is elected president Israel will not find a better friend in the White House.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Thank you, Leon for that very cogent defense of the commonalities amongst the Democratic candidates, which actually leads me to my first question. Rand, before I feed you to hounds on the panel, I wonder if either in your capacity as Kerry spokesman or as just Rand Beers vs. Leon Fuerth, if you could let us know are there any distinctions that we should know about on foreign policy when it comes to DeanÂ’s critiques of the Bush team versus KerryÂ’s critique? Or has the Dean critique really metastasized to the point where it is indistinguishable from KerryÂ’s critique of the Bush teamÂ’s foreign policy? Are there no significant distinctions among the candidates as Leon asserted? Briefly.

RAND BEERS- I think that is a fair summary. Clearly there is the distinction which Leon laid out at the beginning between Dean, Lieberman, and others falling somewhere in between. I think the rest of it was an excellent summary of the general views of the Democratic Party with which I would have little or no difference. The only thing that I made a note to myself to mention is, IÂ’m not entirely sure that I would have described the issue of defense policy and defense expenditures in quite the same way. But, I think that it is fair to say, one, that the defense budget that currently exists is pretty much an extension of the Clinton budget. That the transformation process hasnÂ’t occurred and that it needs to occur and the form in which occurs is going to be one of the issues that a Democratic president would certainly want to look very carefully at. But, I think that all of the candidates, and certainly my candidate, are committed to the transformation process. The size of the defense budget would be an issue that at least a President Kerry would look at very carefully to one, make sure that they were expenditures that were desirable but would not automatically say that the defense budget would be smaller. It might be different, in fact it would be different, but it might not necessarily be smaller.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - You mentioned the positions of Lieberman on one hand and Dean on the other, if I could draw you out a little further. Would you put Kerry squarely in the middle of the two -- or a little more toward Lieberman? Or a little more toward Dean?

LEON FUERTH - KerryÂ’s concern on the first vote is that while he thought that Saddam Hussein should go and that the information that he had in hand was further indication that he should go, that the President of the United States, in the way in which he went to war got it completely wrong. The President and Colin Powell had promised that there would be war as a last result and that we would seek to have the broadest possible coalition. That we had time to do that. Those assumptions or offers or suggestions or promises simply werenÂ’t held to. And thatÂ’s his concern. You can place him between Dean and Lieberman on that issue.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - I think that I will start from right too left literally and philosophically and ask Josh where exactly he puts Kerry on the spectrum. It occurs to me other than his Vietnam biography, but weÂ’ve heard very little in way of a coherent summary of KerryÂ’s foreign policy views even in the newspapers lately. There has been very little mentioned of his foreign policy views in the Senate. I wonder if you could briefly start with that Josh.

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK – Yes, I believe that Kerry was a very liberal (unclear) Senator who started out with his Vietnam views which were very extreme. That is, he was as a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War, he was what Jeane Kirkpatrick called the “Blame America First” crowd. He was really a part of the “Hate America First” crowd that accused American soldiers of systematic war crimes. In which he said murders and rapes of civilians, which he said were not isolated incidences but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with full awareness of officers at all levels of command. Now this was his starting point. Then he got to the Senate in the eighties as an advocate of nuclear freeze and consistent opposition to all kinds of US military expenditures and weapons systems. The Boston Globe recently summarized that Kerry would have voted to cancel the B-1 bomb or the B-2, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot missile, the F-15, the F-14A, the F-14D, the AV Harrier Jet, the Aegis Air Defense, Cruise, the Trident Missile. He also voted to [cut] expenditures for a series of other weapons systems that he didn’t vote to abolish entirely. Then he’s made his mark in foreign policy in the debates over Central America in which he not only says he’s opposed to the policy of the Reagan Administration -- but, in which he was himself played games with the Nicaraguans Sandinistas in order to foil the U.S. policy in Central America. He visited there for his own private diplomacy with Daniel Ortega and he came back that he explained that quote, “I believe Nicaragua understands beyond any doubt that United States will never tolerate a Soviet or Cuban base here.” This was six years after the Sandinistas have ceased [being in] power. “But, we’ve got to create a climate of trust.” Then he carried back a ceased fire offer that Ortega had offered. Then when we got beyond the Cold War there was not much change. He spoke out in opposition to the Gulf War in 1991 and voted against it, even, when later in the nineties, after the embarrassment episode, when we faced the next major challenge in which there was an issue of some kind of use of American force -- mainly in Bosnia, once again Kerry was among the small minority of doves in the Senate who opposed the Dole-Lieberman efforts to lift the arms embargo on the Bosnians who were being slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands. In short, what we have here is a picture of someone who’s just been consistently on the side of those Democrats who see no evil in the world. With the embarrassment of having been on the wrong side of Gulf War I, we have the much more complicated and impossible to decipher position on Gulf War II.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Rand I think that merits a response but before I come to you, IÂ’m just going to run up and down the line. Mort if I could ...

MORTON KONDRACKE - I would like to hear Rand respond to that because JoshÂ’s run down of the record seems to me to be dead accurate and I would like to hear what Rand has to say about it. I think that itÂ’s dynamite for the candidates and will be killing in the general election.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Actually, before I get to Rand it leads me to a political question and this is why IÂ’m coming to you ... Is I think that regardless of the accuracy or of the depiction and I agree those are all certainly positions and statements that Kerry has taken. Is any of that going to really resonate with the public? Particularly, with the Kerry campaign every time these issues come up and theyÂ’ve only started coming up in the past few weeks. Instantly, itÂ’s Vietnam and my impression at least is that actually persuades the public that is sufficient to meet sort of the national security threshold. Is that not true?

MORTON KONDRACKE - No, itÂ’s not true. The one word that Leon Fuerth never mentioned in his presentation, and which not one single, save one, Democratic candidate mentioned on Tuesday night -- Lieberman was the exception -- was the word war. War on Terrorism. Remember September 11th we were attacked. We are in a State of War. When you are in a State of War and when you can be attacked at anytime I think the public naturally looks to what President is most likely to be the most effectively in dealing with the enemy. If someoneÂ’s record is so consistently against the creation of the weapons that we may need to fight the war, Apache helicopters, Tomahawk missiles, the intelligence service ... No,w Kerry will say that oh, no I was in favor of human intelligence. Not, technical intelligence. Hello, we find where ... we used to find where terrorists are by means of technical intelligence. By means of, you know, SIGINT to some extend reconnaissance aircraft and satellites and stuff like that. That is the stuff that he voted against. I think what the statement that Ed Gillespie made the other day is the way the debate will be framed. We honor John Kerry for his service in Vietnam but his entire record as a Senator has been one which is a danger to American national security. I think that the battle will be waged on his record. As IÂ’ve said, a number of times and written a number of times, he was a wonderful and courageous swift boat commander, but that doesnÂ’t necessarily make him a good command and chief. I think that is the way the battle will be fought. I think that record will be played over and over and over again in the context on a war on terrorism and it will hurt Kerry badly.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - And you donÂ’t just briefly to follow up ... You donÂ’t think that the biography alone is enough to obscure the voting record?

MORTON KONDRACKE - Absolutely not.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN – John, how about you? First, what do you make of Josh’s depiction and (b) what does your make of Mort’s contention that Kerry’s record will penetrate the public imagination?

JONATHAN CHAIT - First of all, I think that Josh’s depiction is ... There is a lot of truth to it. Everything he says is true. I think as the full picture of Kerry’s foreign policy world view it leaves a little bit to be desired. I’ll let Rand provide his counterpoint and I think maybe he’ll be ... he may be just as slighted pro-Kerry as Josh was against because he is working for him and that’s his job. I do think that it is true that John Kerry ... his views of foreign policy were forged in the crucible of Vietnam and that seems to be the paradigm through which he kind of views all foreign policy questions that come up. However, there is the reality of September 11th and that has changed a lot of people’s thinking. I think that there is some evidence that changed John Kerry’s thinking too. John Kerry got to the right of the Bush Administration on an important point which was that the Bush Administration refused to use ground troops in Tora Bora at the end of the Afghanistan campaign when we knew that we had Osama Bin Laden and his top command surrounded. This wasn’t just hindsight. At the time, that this was happening a lot of us were saying, “what the heck are they doing? Why won’t they use ground troops? Why are they relying on these poorly paid, questionable loyalty Afghan proxies to do it?” And, of course, the Afghan proxies failed. Kerry spoke out quite forcibly on that. That is a very interesting data counterpoint there: where you think that John Kerry might be of the view, “Oh, we can’t risk our soldiers. We can’t send them off to die, when we can get proxies to do it for us.” That in fact was the view of Tommy Franks and that was the view the Bush Administration endorsed. It wasn’t John Kerry’s view. I think that is a very good counterpoint. The question of where Kerry is now after this kind of history I think was substantially portrayed by Josh ... substantially accurately portrayed but may have changed. A think that is a little bit more of an open question. Number two, what will the effect of it be? Can Kerry’s biography overcome all of this kind of damning votes in his record and his intellectual history? I somewhat disagree with Mort on this. I think that there is a lot of history that voters aren’t terribly sophisticated at looking at these questions. They don’t really look at policies. They tend to make snap judgments and look at the man. Look at what George W. Bush did in the 2000 debates. Every time he was accused of having a conservative position on domestic policy that was unpopular and there were a lot of them he said, “don’t judge my heart. Are you saying that I’m a bad person? Are you saying that I’m the kind of guy who would help the rich and hurt the poor? And transfer money?” No, of course I’m not. And people believed that and that worked. It was totally false, as it is, I think there would be a lot of falseness about Kerry saying that “how can you say that I’m a dove? I fought in the jungles of Vietnam.” I think there would be a lot of falseness to that too. But, that tends to work. So, I think that it’s ... it would be nice, it would be tempting. There is a temptation for a lot of us to say good policy is always good politics. But, I don’t think they are always the same thing.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Rand, now IÂ’m going to have you now weigh in.

RAND BEERS - With respect to the notations of the various votes, I think that they are ... (unclear)Â… accurately portrayed for the individual votes that were involved. But, they donÂ’t, in any way, suggest the entire record the campaign has laid out, the things that John Kerry has stood for and the things that he has voted for. Let me just indicate on the intel question, he voted for all the intel authorization bills. The questions that came up here were questions of a time of budget stringency when people were looking at things to cut. They were at the time that, as Arlen Specter had said the intelligence community having discovered forward funding in the reconnaissance satellite business had promised to fix that in 1992 and it still wasnÂ’t fixed by the time that John Kerry looked at it. This was an open debate that was going on at the time. Those of you who recall the cost of the NRO facility out in Chantilly, and the huge scandal that this caused, this was all going on at the time the votes were cited. But, the records in terms of the votes on the bills both in the Senate and Committee indicate the John did support those with respect to the weapons systems. We can list as many weapons systems that heÂ’s supported. I donÂ’t find that particularly a useful way to define a candidate as opposed to what his general policies are.

So, let me come back and talk for a minute about the global war on terrorism. Because, I do think that is a critical issue that really needs to be discussed here. The global war on terrorism as portrayed and undertaken by this Administration is one that has focused almost entirely on an offensive of overseas missions despite the rhetorical devices that have been put forward to explain an overall and much more comprehensive foreign policy in the global war on terrorism. I think that is where John Kerry has come back at this Administration and says quite frankly that itÂ’s an incomplete strategy. That one, there is no question that we have to go overseas, and do whatever is necessary working with friends and allies and not alone in order to take on this task. That it will involve the use of force. That it will involve the involvement of the American military -- preferably not alone. Preferably with a much broader coalition than currently exists. But, at the same time, it also involves another aspect which the Administration has only come to talk about recently. Which is dealing with the issue of what is happening in the broader Islamic world in terms of individuals view of terrorism and itÂ’s legitimacy individual views of the United States, and opportunities for young men and women to have the prospect of a reasonable life that doesnÂ’t necessarily have to retreat into Islamic fundamentalism or in particular into terrorism. In addition, John Kerry also says that we canÂ’t simply treat homeland security as a slogan. It has to be a program. It has to have a serious budget. It has to be dealt with on a day-to-day basis and not just in the headlines. He would say the same thing about intelligence. There are a number of questions that have come up one that we are facing right now and the question of WMD in Iraq. But, it is a much broader issue in terms of ensuring that we have the best quality intelligence. That it is analyzed in the best possible fashion and that it is useful to policymakers in a way that allows them to make appropriate decisions and not to run off in directions that inimical in the long-term to the United States. I would say that Leon got it right -- which is that, Democrats as a whole and John Kerry in particular are not interested in walking away from America. Far from it, they are very much committed to the defense of the United States and doing what is necessary. But, they are not committed to the knee jerk use of force. They are not committed to using force indiscriminately. They are interested in doing it appropriately and at the right time and with the broadest possible coalition. But, if itÂ’s necessary they will do and John Kerry will do what is necessary to defend the United States and its national interest.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Josh, if I could just ask you ... Rand, and correct me if IÂ’m wrong in how I characterize your words but, I believe one of the grounds that you faulted the Bush team on was that they were too narrowly focused on the offensive mission, the offensive aspect of the war on terror. Is that an argument you have a retort to?

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK - To narrow the focus on the ...

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - That they are too narrowly focused on taking the offensive, the military aspect of the war on terror neglecting the alliances and so on.

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK - I would say two things. Actually, the strategy that they have set forth is much more ambitious on the nonmilitary side than the military side and is radical and far seen. Namely, the idea that you have to try to change the atmosphere that gives rise to terrorism by trying to bring democracy to the Middle East. I thought that I heard Rand say something about Kerry believing that we had to alleviate by implication of poverty or whatever that leads to Muslim youngsters to become terrorists which is the Kofi Anan view of terrorism which has been refuted by all relevant research and there is research about what generates terrorists. The one thing that is clearly ruled out is poverty as a source of generating terrorism. But, where the terrorism comes from is the poisonous political climate of the Middle East. I give the Bush Administration very high marks for proposing to take that on directly. I do not give the Bush Administration high marks for executing this policy. I think they rhetorically have got a wonderful idea about promoting democracy in the Middle East. I donÂ’t think that theyÂ’ve gotten to square one other than trying to make Iraq some kind of model. I donÂ’t think that theyÂ’ve gotten to square one in implementing it. I think, if I can just add as a flip to that, I noted a speech by Kerry to the Council on Foreign Relations a month ago in which he proposed warmer relations with the government of Iran-- which seems, to me, to be the worst possible thing that we could do in terms of the war against terrorism on the political front, since this is the worldÂ’s leading state sponsors of terrorism.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Jon, you wanted to jump in.

JOHN CHAIT - Yes, I think that there is more to it on the side of economics and terrorism. It’s not just, yes, poverty doesn’t cause terrorism. But, let me give you an example of that. It was two thousand two or two thousand three Musharraf asked us to give him a break on textile imports, textiles’ being the important part of the Pakistani economy. Here’s a guy whose ally in the war of terrorism, we are hunting for Osama Bin Laden, in part in his country, and there are militants that want to overthrow him and give militant Muslims a nuclear weapon. A question of absolute utmost primary importance for America and the war on terrorism, Bush said, “no.” Bush said, “no” because there were a couple of congressional districts in the Carolinas where they wanted to have textile imports. He was afraid that it might make some marginal difference. This was in 2002 when the 2002 congressional race. So, when faced with ... make a marginal difference in Republican control of congress or make a marginal difference in Musharraf’s in secular control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons he went with Republican control of Congress. That is a point now about Bush’s foreign policy not about the Democrats foreign policy. We don’t want to go into that tangent. The point is there is a relationship between economics and security on the war on terrorism that is more complicated than simply saying poverty breeds terrorism. When Democrats like Kerry talk about using America’s economic power and shaping the world economy that is conducive to the war on terror. It is more complicated than that. So, to dismiss it as a “poverty causes terrorism” caricature it doesn’t do justice to the fact that there are some real ideas there that really matter.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Mort, on that note, poll after poll shows that some of the Democratic talking points, namely that we have to work more closely with allies and so on and so forth do resonate with the public. Do you really think that all of that stuff is going to fall flat, the anti-unilateral critique and so on, and the excessive reliance on hard power, will that have no residence with the voting public?

MORTON KONDRACKE - I think that the public is troubled by the facts that there are so many former allies out there and especially their populations who quote unquote hate us. I think that Americans want to get along with the rest of the world and want to be liked by the populations of other countries. They want to use the United Nations and they’re troubled by the fact that Bush seems dismissive of all of that and in some cases to go out of his way or some of his subordinates to go out of their way to dismiss other countries. I would say that this election conceivably could turn on the success of the big endeavor, the way it goes in Iraq, and whether the democratization experiment seems to be working or not. It is a radical experiment. It is a departure from traditional American foreign policy. It is beyond Wilsonianism. It’s brand new. The consequences are troubling to a lot of people. It’s one of those things, where you’ve got to the extend that if there is any swing vote in the United States it is part of what will decide their votes. Whether Bush is successful in the endeavor and if he is not successful then I think that the Democrats have an argument as to why it was not successful and how they would do it better by being better diplomats. If it is successful or it appears to be successful or it’s going along sort of the way it’s going now, I think Bush gets the benefit of the doubt. Largely because what the Democrats seem to be doing is ... they’re almost desperate to nuzzle into the warm embrace of world opinion and to get along. When Rand says that John Kerry thought that Saddam Hussein would go, what was his plan to ease Saddam Hussein out? We had 100,000 troops there sitting in Kuwait, clearly, and we were going to have to bring them all home, right. We couldn’t just let them sit out there in the desert. What we would have had then is an endless investigation of whether he had weapons of mass destruction and of course, the inspectors would have found nothing -- because apparently there was nothing to find. So, then the next step would have been, O.K., then the French and the Russians, our allies, would have said, “now wait we are starving these poor Iraqi people to death.” Lie. Because we’ve kept these sanctions on, we must lift the sanctions. You know, by the end of this, right about now presumably, we would have been going through a big debate about whether to lift sanctions on Saddam Hussein. He would have said to his generals, “well, we won.” You know. Saddam Hussein would still be in power. I don’t think that it’s credible that John Kerry or any of the Democrats had any plan to get rid of Saddam Hussein by any means through the allies. I think it was punting it down the road.

The last point, this is where their untrustworthiness on defense issues comes. 1991, Saddam Hussein had unmistakably invaded a foreign country and almost the entire Democratic Party, save Al Gore narrowly, and Joe Lieberman robustly, voted against the war which was unquestionably a just war. I think that it speaks to the general atmosphere of force aversion that surrounds the Democratic Party, and as Josh has made clear, John KerryÂ’s right in the middle of it.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - On the topic of force aversion, Rand, I think even you conceded that the Democrats in general may be a little more force averse than the Republicans and a little more weary to resort to force. I was wondering, particularly, on the question of Iraq -- IÂ’m now not just speaking for Kerry but for more ambitiously for Democrats at large, I wonder if you could offer us a cogent brief defense of -- I think at least what to the layman appears to be some confusion in the Democratic Party on Iraq that continues to this day, particularly, as exemplified by the two big votes.

RAND BEERS - The two votes in the current environment on Iraq?

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Right.

RAND BEERS - The use of force in the eighty –seven…

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Right. Actually, if I could pin you down, whether it really does boil down to sort of the particulars of each situation or if the confusion tells us something more broadly about the Democrats and foreign policy.

RAND BEERS - The first thing that I would say is, if youÂ’ve got to make a decision whether itÂ’s to commit troops to combat or to vote, it is a decision thatÂ’s obviously specific to the situation. To try to make a broader generalization from that may be useful to some or in some situations, but in the end the individual who has to make the decisionÂ…ItÂ’s based on what that individual knows and understands to be the facts at the point in time that itÂ’s made. With respect to MortÂ’s projection of where the Democrats or John Kerry would have gone, with concern about seeking a broader coalition, and taking the time diplomatically, to do that being a result that ends up with Saddam not being removed from power or not having force used. IÂ’m not sure that is something that we can say because I think that the situation would have had to have evolved under the circumstances at the time and not as the projection which Mort made. With respect to the issue of the votes I still come back to the point that I think the Democrats as a general proposition with exception of Joe Lieberman really did feel and do feel that the issues in Iraq were such that we would have been far better off recreating the coalition of the first Gulf War and moving forward in that fashion to either remove Saddam from power or to remove his weapons from Iraq and how that would have worked out we donÂ’t know. His view is very clearly that he did not stand up and tell the President of the United States that he objected to the way in which the President had implemented the policy -- that he wasnÂ’t being true to the critique that he made of the PresidentÂ’s policy leading up to that particular point in time. While I suspect that some will try to point that out as a failure to find the truth, it is clearly not that and anyone who has any appreciation for ways in which Congress and the Executive adapt to situations in which votes either are obvious or have taken place. There would have been further negotiations and would have had a policy and John Kerry would have supported a policy in Iraq that in fact conform to the ideas that he laid out.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Jon, I’ve had this argument with you before but I think that you more or less agree with Rand’s assessment that really the vote on Iraq had to do more with the particulars of Iraq than with the broader crisis of ideas if you will in Democratic foreign policy circles. Why is it wrong to read into those votes? Why is it wrong to harken back to contemporary history to the eighties and seventies and say, “Well, actually these were ideological votes they weren’t political votes?

RAND BEERS - ItÂ’s not wrong to harken back to those in the seventies and the eighties. ItÂ’s not wrong to take into account the Iraq votes either. Where I disagree is with the notion that the war on Iraq is the model for how you view the war on terror. That the war on terror is going to be a war like the one Iraq just replicated in the future. So, if you were against the war in Iraq, you are a dove in the war on terror. I donÂ’t see it that way at all. Republicans have really mocked Democrats for being for demilitarization. Saying, weÂ’ll were for intelligence gathering and all kinds of covert options, it may be using Delta Force but weÂ’re not really for using armies the way you need to. What wars are we going to be fighting in the war on terror that resemble Iraq? What regimes are we going to be overthrowing through large-scale land invasions? I donÂ’t see it. Is there any serious person who thinks that we need to go into Iran next or Syria or any other state? I havenÂ’t heard any discussion to that fact. I think that you have to conclude that the war against Iraq is in many ways an outlier. In fact, I supported the war on Iraq but I donÂ’t think that it was particularly related to the war on terror. Yes, you can find terrorists with some relation to Iraq but that doesnÂ’t mean that you go into a war on Iraq because it is a war on terror. If you say weÂ’re going to launch a war on poverty and then the first thing we are going to do is weÂ’re going to pump a lot of money into Greenwich, Connecticut, you could say this has nothing to do with the war on poverty. And someone could say no look there are poor people in Greenwich, Connecticut. There are lots of them. Well, sure but thatÂ’s not what you would do if you were launching a war on poverty. Just as going into Iraq is not what you would do as part of a war on terror. I support it for other reasons I think was unrelated to the war on terror. It was a whole over the problem from the 1990s that needed to be resolved. Nonetheless, if you look at what is the future of the war on terror is going to look like, itÂ’s not going to look like that. So, I donÂ’t think that you have to look at that vote as a model for candidates using the wrong term.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - John, before I cut to Mort -- more than a model, IÂ’m just wondering why itÂ’s not legitimate to use the votes on Iraq as a measure for Democratic foreign policy preferences or inclinations regardless of whether itÂ’s going to happen again. Why canÂ’t I use that as a barometer for how Democrats feel about the use of force?

JONATHAN CHAIT - It is a measure. It does tell you something. I think you can overstate it. HereÂ’s a complicated argument. I hope to make an article kind of laying this out some time in the next few months. Briefly, I think it understates the degree in which partisanship is driving the partiesÂ’ views on foreign policy and therefore they will reverse themselves if the Democrats take power. In the 1990s, the Republicans were making all sort of anti-intervention as arguments when Clinton was in power and basically was driven by the fact that Republicans didnÂ’t trust a Democratic President. They hated to use force. They wanted to constrain him. So, they wanted to say well we canÂ’t do nation building or we have to be humble. These were all things that were intended to constrain Bill Clinton from using force. Democrats are doing the same thing with multilaterism. ItÂ’s because they donÂ’t trust Bush and they want him to be multilateral. They want something to constrain his power. But, when they get into the White House -- and that may not be for a very long time -- then it will all of a sudden be their problem and they will start to see if differently. ThatÂ’s why parties constantly reverse themselves on foreign policy even if they donÂ’t on domestic policy. Domestic platforms they tend to carry through. The out party is always tough on China. The in party is always soft on China. That was true when Bush I was in office and then Clinton ran being tough on China and then he flipped, then Bush ran being tough on China and then he flipped. I think there are a lot of examples with, also again, a good part of the DemocratsÂ’ opposition to war on terror is driven, in my opinion, by partisanship.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Mort, briefly.

MORTON KONDRACKE - I agree with that. The performance of Tom DeLay on the issue of Bosnia and Kosovo was despicable and was almost entirely partisan. On the other hand, I think that ClintonÂ’s use of force followed in the pattern of the Democrats in general. I mean that he was very reluctant to use force and when he did he used token force. When he finally, as in Iraq using firing Tomahawk missiles at empty intelligence headquarters and stuff like that ... When he finally went to war in the case of Serbia it was entirely from the air. We used no ground troops at all. So, I think that the tendency of force aversion applies in his case as well. I would just say in response to something that Rand said, John Kerry has actually said within the last week or so that the war on terrorism is mainly an intelligence and police function -- as though we can somehow handle it without resorting to the military and we can just sort of snatch people and not have to ever bomb them.

I would just make one last point, I think that at a kind of emblematic position of the Democrats in general, and I believe Kerry in particular. But, IÂ’m not sure about KerryÂ’s position on this, is the attitude toward North Korea. We need a military in case we have to fight in North Korea and we need a better military than weÂ’ve got in order to fight in North Korea potentially. Now what is the Democratic attitude toward North Korea? Unilateral talks. The North Koreans want unilateral talks, letÂ’s give them unilateral talks. LetÂ’s sign a piece of paper they can promise again that they wonÂ’t develop nuclear weapons. They can promise that they will get rid of their nuclear weapons and weÂ’ll say fine. You know. Bush has a different point of view. Bush got a multilateral gang together to try lean on the North Koreans. I donÂ’t know if itÂ’ll work. I donÂ’t even know if itÂ’s serious. But, at least it is an effort to get something done instead of just tapering it over.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Josh, I wonder if briefly I could just cut back to this question of partisanship versus deeply felt preferences. John made the case that really a lot of what the Iraq stuff is about, and a lot of what the more broad critiques of the Bush policy is about, is really partisanship and Bush bashing -- just as Republicans became, many of them at least, became quasi-isolationists during the Kosovo war. How much of this is just, do you think sort of reflects of partisanship and how much reflects any sort of lingering inclinations on the part of the Democratic Party?

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK - Well, I certainly donÂ’t disagree that the partisanship factor is there. The question is when will the Democrats, particularly the John Kerry type Democrats, be tough on anything? We had the only example of the last thirty years is Clinton vis-a-vis Kosovo and even that was a kind of qualified toughness that is without ground troops and it followed on the heels of and really grew out of the terrible humiliation over the refusal to use force in Bosnia until it became an election issue -- until a quarter of a million Bosnians had died. ThatÂ’s also why when I listen to these discussions that the Democrats had a different strategy for how to deal with Saddam Hussein, of course they did not. That is, you donÂ’t just say you are against something. IÂ’m against this but IÂ’m for that. When I talked about the weapons systems that Kerry had voted against throughout the decade or so after Vietnam, these votes on weapons systems became the symbol and the means of expressing a certain view about U.S. foreign policy: that we were too militaristic a nation and in order to express that view there was this fight against weaponsÂ’ system. But, the Democrats would never say, the Democrats doves who supported these votes as Kerry did, would never say weÂ’re against all weapons systems. They always say weÂ’re against this weapons system, but weÂ’re for some other weapons system. But, actually one of the great Democratic congressional authorities on defense finally owned up to. This was Les Aspin, who said once we liberals seem always to support whatever weapons systems are far off in the future, and oppose whatever ones are available today. I think the same thing applies to the strategy on the war on terrorism. That is, the Democrats oppose this particular war but they certainly would be for some other strategy to get rid of Saddam Hussein some other way. It would have been so easy for Democrats to be convincing on this. I agree with JohnÂ’s point that weÂ’re not likely to have, and I donÂ’t think that we need to have or ought to have another war like Iraq war as part of the war on terrorism. ItÂ’s probably something that having done once would be difficult to do it a second time and probably wonÂ’t need to be done a second time. It canÂ’t be ruled out. But, if some Democrats had come forward and said I donÂ’t think Iraq is the right next front after Afghanistan, instead we should go and clear the Syrians out of Lebanon and clean up the Bekaa Valley, or instead we should go after Iran which is the worldÂ’s leading supporter of terrorism, that would have been a serious argument and they might have been right. Iraq might have been the wrong choice. One couldÂ’ve debated that. But, if these people were at all serious about carrying on this war thatÂ’s the kind of stuff they would have put on the table. Instead they put on the table: well, we need to recreate the coalition that we had in 1991. Well, sure we donÂ’t accept we canÂ’t. There is like that old World War II joke of someone who figured out the problem early on how to accomplish the invasion of a continent. Drain the Atlantic and just march our troops across. How are you going to drain the Atlantic? Well thatÂ’s a detail to be left to the logistics people. So, I think that the Democrats just arenÂ’t serious about the war on terrorism just as they werenÂ’t serious about defense and have since Vietnam and since the Democratic Party got the Vietnam syndrome thereÂ’s just an incurable, it seems, unwillingness to face up to the hard realities of the dangers that we face.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Jon, do you want to quickly reply to that?

JONATHAN CHAIT - Yes, well they do have a proposal for where we should fight harder. Afghanistan. I mean that is where Al Qaeda actually is. All the Democratic candidates have said we need to be putting more troops and resources into rebuilding Afghanistan and hunting down Al Qaeda and they are making the argument that we diverted troops from Iraq to do so and thatÂ’s one of the reasons that Osama Bin Laden is still at large. That is a serious argument. You may not disagree with it but there it is right there. If you havenÂ’t heard that one, you just havenÂ’t been paying attention.

PANELIST (?) - And they did vote, all of them, to go into Afghanistan. That is a war that everybody voted for.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN – Mort, you had a brief point, before we cut to audience questions, but I also want to ask you the final question which is at least according to the latest polls the one that I was seeing after the race in South Carolina, at least among Democrats, and I think that you are beginning to see this more broadly national security, unlike in the 2002 elections was really barely registering, as an issue, certainly declining importance to voters. To the extent that Bush is running a national security-based campaign isn’t there a chance that he’s making the same mistake that Dean did? It seems to me at least looking at all of these polls in particular a recent Pew survey that the public has more concern with domestic issues and that Kerry when he and his former campaign manager, Chris Lane said, “listen you have to meet a national security threshold but that’s just to get to the real, sort of, bread and butter issues.” Isn’t it possible that actually none of this is going to matter much come November?

MORTON KONDRACKE - Well, the Bush Administration will do its best to make it a front and center item. The advertising blitz from the Bush campaign hasn’t taken place yet. It will remind us about 9/11 over and over and over again. You know you are constantly having terror alerts and stuff like that. I mean the terrorist threat is still out there and people are still nervous about it and planes are still being grounded. It’s something that is part of the world ... the 1992 election was an election about the economy with ostensibly the Cold War was over, we had no national security threats anymore, the Iraq war was over and done with and everybody forgot about it, this is a continuing fact of national life that cannot be forgotten about and will not be forgotten about. The polls also show at the moment that Bush’s standing on national security issues is not great and I think that is a result of the Kay report and the debate about it. I think that the Democrats have a point in saying, “Hey, if there were no weapons of mass destruction there and you said that weapon of mass destruction was the key issue, what in Gods name were we doing fighting this war? I mean, I think that is a perfectly legitimate argument for them to make. Why didn’t we concentrate on Afghanistan and so on? I think that they can make that argument. I still think, that however when it comes down to it, the issue of who will keep this country secure. Who is more likely to keep this country safe? Who will make a credible Commander-in-Chief? It’s traditionally all been in the Republican’s direction, and when the record that Josh cites get played out, [it] will definitely play into this? Now, last point is that yes the economy is going to be a big issue. If Bush can’t produce jobs, he’s going to be in some trouble.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - IÂ’d like to open up the panel to audience questions. Before I do, actually, two rules and one admonition, the rules are merely that the questioner state their name and affiliation and if they would like to narrow down the question to one panel member or another, please do so. Second, please no speech of kind because we are on a tight time schedule. The front row.

CAROL GIACOMO WITH REUTERS - I would be interested in anybodyÂ’s comments, particularly yours, about how the candidates would proceed with the issue of non-proliferation, specifically in Pakistan and Iran.

RAND BEERS - John Kerry has said clearly that he regards the issue of proliferation as one of the most significant issues of national security in the time ahead of us, in particular, and the nexus between proliferation and terrorism so that it would be a significant issue in terms of his agenda and he would want to work with a broad range of countries in order to try to control the movement of materials to places where it might be put into the form of nuclear chemical or biological weapons. That would be harmful to the international regime. With respect to Iran and Pakistan those are clearly two areas of major concern. I think that all of the Democratic candidates have talked about needing to come and to deal with issue. That we are going to have to look at the international regimes that currently exist and probably go through some revisions of those regimes in order to find a way to appropriately address this problem.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Next question, sir.

BILL JONES FROM THE IR NEWS SERVICE - My question is to Rand Beers concerning the economic situation. Leon Fuerth mentioned that the fiscal issue was important for Democrats but a few days ago there was a meeting at the house of the U.S. Ambassador in Brussels with European Finance Ministers to discuss the question of how to prevent Parmalat from bringing down the entire financial system. The failure of ParmalatÂ…which is very big. This is the kind of world that we are living in. We are facing a major financial crisis. ItÂ’s a bubble crisis. ItÂ’s a bubble economy. If a crash does not occur on the Bush watch, it says it be on the watch of the next President. Now, if John Kerry is President heÂ’s going to have to deal with this. My question is two folds. Does John Kerry realize that we are facing that we are facing a major financial blow out? Secondly, if it does occur, what measures would he be prepared to take in order to deal with that?

RAND BEERS - Firstly, yes John Kerry is certainly aware that this is also a dangerous world economically. These kinds of situations could occur. What specific measures he would take in a particular situation, IÂ’m not in the position to say. I would point however to the way the Clinton Administration Bob Rubin chose to deal with international economic crisis in the past, as a general framework in which John Kerry president would operate.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Before I ... IÂ’m just going to give Rand a break for a minute.

RAND BEERS - Please.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Is there anyone who has a question for the panel more broadly, not just Rand Beers? The front row.

JOHN SAWYER, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH - Senator Kerry is not talking about much of these issues at all on the campaign trail but in every speech and in every appearance heÂ’s talking about veteransÂ’ benefits and the Bush Administration treatment of veterans. He seems to be using that as a proxy somehow about where Bush is on national security type of issues. I wonder if people could address how that works. Secondly, people around Kerry ... heÂ’s danced around it himself but this issue of BushÂ’s own service, the Texas Air National Guard, Max Cleland and others are saying quite directly that they intend to make that an issue. Is that something that can answer the questions about KerryÂ’s own national security record?

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Mort, do you want to tackle it?

MORTON KONDRACKE - The issue of BushÂ’s service is murky. He served in the Texas National Guard, flew airplanes and stuff like that and then was detailed to the Alabama National Guard. There is one person who has been quoted, and I donÂ’t know who it is, saying that he didnÂ’t show up for meetings. There are no records. I donÂ’t know where the records are or if they existed or not. Other people say that he did show up for meetings and he was honorable discharged from the, I guess, from the Texas National Guard. Out of this, starting with Michael Moore, this has grown into an urban legend that Bush is a quote unquote deserter or went quote unquote AWOL. There is so far as I know, there is no proof of this one way or the other. The idea that he was honorably discharged and was never charged with anything there is no paper on this. I think suggests that the issue will be may be played but I donÂ’t see that it goes anywhere. I mean itÂ’s got to die out by November.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - John you wanted to ...

JOHN CHAIT - Yeah, there is a little bit more to it. Look you canÂ’t prove the negative, so you canÂ’t prove he didnÂ’t do it, because you canÂ’t whatever. You canÂ’t prove that I didnÂ’t serve in the Texas National Guard either.

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Yes, I can. (Laughter)

JOHN CHAIT - ThereÂ’s an absence of evidence that he did. There is a real absence of evidence. Also, the fact that there is very clear favoritism getting in theyÂ’re in the first place points to the fact that he being honorably discharged may not answer all of the questions surrounding this. I donÂ’t think your giving a full weight to all the reporting that has been done and there hasnÂ’t been enough reporting. But, there has been plenty of reporting raising plenty of questions. ItÂ’s more than just a word of one guy that thinks maybe he didnÂ’t see Bush there. ThereÂ’s a whole lack of a paper trail thatÂ’s fairly suspicious.

PANELIST - The most definitive article that I know of on the subject is Walter Robinson in the Boston Globe. I donÂ’t know when it was but it went through it exhaustively.

Jon Chait - Right, I think that there is more in there than you summed up.

QUESTIONER - My question is wider than Kerry campaign pushing decisions so far to this point. ItÂ’s the (canÂ’t hear).

PANELIST (RAND BEERS?) - Do I have to answer the question?

LAWRENCE KAPLAN - Do you want to? You donÂ’t have to.

PANELIST (RAND BEERS?) - First of all, for those of you who have never served under the uniform code of military justice, someone who is AWOL is not a deserter. A deserter is someone who leaves duty with the intention never to return. Someone who is absent without leave is absent at a time in which that person was supposed to be on duty. But, who comes back and then is charged with absence without leave. So part of the discussion about Mr. MooreÂ’s comments I think is appropriate regardless of what the actual circumstances are with respect to Presidents BushÂ’s service. He was not a deserter. That shouldnÂ’t be a real part of any of this discussion. John Kerry cer