A Long Journey

As reported in the Boston Globe, John Kerry’s likely ascension to the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will cap a long journey for the Vietnam veteran who first earned national notoriety before the Committee in 1971.

More than three decades after he first appeared before the panel as a 27-year-old Vietnam veteran-turned-antiwar protester, Senator John F. Kerry will be named chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, giving him enormous influence over President-elect Barack Obama's foreign policy, according to congressional officials.

… Aides to Kerry said he is already laying out a broad agenda for the committee, beginning with new legislation to strengthen the United States' hand against terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan; provide oversight of efforts to end the war in Iraq; and seize what he sees as a new opportunity to curtail the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

…Along with the Judiciary and Finance committees, the Foreign Relations Committee was among the first three Senate panels established, in 1816. It is responsible for vetting international treaties before ratification by the full Senate, and for conducting the confirmation hearings for presidential nominees for the State Department, including all foreign ambassadors.

The committee also oversees the State Department budget and funds foreign aid programs, helps set arms control policy, and authorizes military training for allied nations. Kerry's elevation to chairman, to be announced as early as this week by Senate majority leader Harry Reid, is the culmination of a unique journey. It began when a shaggy-haired Kerry, wearing his military ribbons, testified for nearly two hours before the panel on April 22, 1971, the first Vietnam veteran to do so. Speaking on behalf of fellow veterans, he appealed for an end to US military involvement in Southeast Asia, posing the famous question, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

In what proved to be a highly prescient remark, committee member Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island - a future chairman himself - expressed hope that the young Kerry would one day "be a colleague of ours in this body." Now Kerry is set to take over the committee with an impressive set of credentials. He is the third-ranking Democrat on the committee, behind Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who will remain chairman of the Banking Committee. Kerry has served on the committee for 23 years - including stints as chairman of the Asia and Middle East subcommittees - and has overseen legislation on a wide range of issues, such as human rights and Russia's invasion of Georgia last summer.

He also negotiated the creation of a war crimes tribunal to try the perpetrators of genocide in Cambodia, was instrumental in normalizing US relations with Vietnam in 1994, and attended global climate change negotiations in Indonesia last year. He has been a leading voice in recent years on several of the foremost foreign policy questions. Kerry, who voted in 2002 to authorize the Iraq war that Obama opposed, introduced the first Senate amendment in 2006 to withdraw US combat forces from Iraq. While backed by only 13 senators at the time, his position was later adopted by nearly all his Democratic colleagues, and by some Republicans.

In 2006, he was also among the first in Congress to call for more US troops in Afghanistan, a position that later became a key element of Obama's national security platform. Over the years, Kerry, whose father was a career foreign service officer, has traveled widely to meet with political and military leaders. Earlier this year, he made official trips to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Palestinian territories, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, and Turkey.

To some critics, including Andrew Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran who is a professor of international relations at Boston University, Kerry's career in the Senate has been a disappointment. Kerry has not shown enough leadership, they say, and was wrong about the Iraq war. "Kerry's senatorial career is one of great potential unfulfilled," Bacevich said. As chairman of the committee, "he'll have a chance to redeem himself."

Kerry declined to be interviewed because the announcement is not yet official. But his aides, speaking on the condition that they not be identified, said he already has a priority list as chairman. In addition to running confirmation hearings on Obama's selection for secretary of state and other State Department appointments, Kerry plans to seek quick passage of two bills that failed last year, the aides said. One would be to authorize additional aid to Pakistan to improve the country's relationship with the United States, considered critical in the fight against Al Qaeda. The second would be to provide more resources for Afghanistan's civil institutions.

Other issues on Kerry's agenda are advancing nuclear nonproliferation goals, which Kerry believes enjoy more solid support than ever in both parties. Kerry also plans to use the committee to lay out a blueprint for the new administration on how to deal with global climate change, while addressing the Middle East peace process, Iran, Russia, and other pressing challenges, the aides said.

Overlooked

Best Senate Ads

Earlier this week, The Fix listed its favorite ads from this year’s Senate races.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, "Rocking Chairs": Rarely does a single television ad change the direction of a race. This one did. Run by the DSCC independent expenditure arm in early August, the ad, which features two older men sitting on rocking chairs and debating Dole's lack of effectiveness and support of President Bush, framed Dole as changed and out of touch -- the narrative that ultimately beat her. This, to our mind, was the single most effective ad run in any Senate race in the country.

Freedom's Watch, "Peace Bus": The idea of a Department of Peace has long been a pet project of Congressional liberals but had never been used to such devastating effectiveness before this Freedom's Watch ad slamming Rep. Mark Udall for his vote in favor of it. The aging hippie narrator was a nice touch but the piece de resistance was the smoke-filled "peace van."

Tom Udall, "Humbled": The luxury of being a heavy favorite in an open seat race is that you are freed from hammering your opponent and can instead focus on positive accomplishments. This ad, which is told by a disabled Iraq war vet, is an incredibly powerful testament to Udall's work on behalf of returning veterans.

Norm Coleman, "Angry Al": In a race that started nasty and just went downhill from there, this ad stood out for its stirring use of comedian Al Franken's words against him. Franken spent much of the last two years seeking to put controversial statements he had made in this past behind him -- reassuring voters that he was serious about serving in the Senate. This ad put all those doubts about Franken back on the table in a visually compelling way.



Joe Biden, "Kitchen Table": While the national media focused on Biden's vice presidential bid, his own longtime ad guy -- Joe Slade White -- was crafting this terrific black and white ad centered on Biden's daily train trip to and from Washington. "Each night riding home on the train, seeing the lights in the houses, he knows the conversations mothers and father are having around the kitchen table," says the ad's narrator. Powerful stuff.



Jim Inhofe, "One Man in America": There was a time when national Democrats thought they might be able to knock off Inhofe -- a man who even his allies acknowledge is rough around the edges and, at time, hard to like. But, this ad helped take Inhofe's supposed weaknesses -- being stubborn and hard headed -- and turn them into positives, noting that he had accomplished positive things for the state that many people said couldn't be done. And, by the way, Inhofe won reelection with 57 percent.



John Kerry, "Sean Bannon": This ad, run by Kerry in his non-competitive reelection race, shows how much a gifted media consultant can do in the space of 60 seconds. We are introduced to Sean Bannon, a wounded Iraq war vet, who tells the story of meeting Kerry while recovering and asking to receive his Purple Heart at Fenway Park. Cut to the footage of the day when that wish came to pass. A wonderful example of a positive ad designed to remind voters why they sent Kerry to Washington.

John Kerry on the McCain Campaign

"John McCain has shown a stunning failure of leadership. His campaign, in a time of economic crisis and foreign policy drift, has degenerated into a negative and nasty campaign of smears.

The reports are piling up of ugliness at the campaign rallies of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Audience members hurl insults and racial epithets, call out "Kill Him!" and "Off With His Head," and yell "treason" when Senator Obama's name is mentioned. I strongly condemn language like this which can only be described as hate-filled. According to reports, every ad paid for by the John McCain campaign is now a negative ad -- every single one! McCain allows his running mate to make outrageous charges that only a few years ago would have disqualified someone from serious consideration for national office.

We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. We need to fight back, spread the word about what kind of low campaign he's running, and make sure people know the truth."

A Welcome Verdict

Salon has a great piece today that captures the implications of today's Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush.

For the third time in four summers, the U.S. Supreme Court has slammed the Bush administration's detention policies at Guantánamo Bay - locking up terrorist suspects indefinitely and beyond the law. And this time, some real progress might even come out of it. In a 5-4 decision drafted by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantánamo detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus - that is, to challenge the legal basis for their detention in a federal court.

Let's be clear, the decision doesn't do a number of things. It doesn't shut down Guantánamo. It doesn't order all detainees who have not been charged with an offense to be released. And besides saying that the detainees are entitled to a "prompt habeas hearing," it doesn't even say what factors the courts should consider when deciding whether the U.S. government can hold them. But the decision does achieve things that the Bush administration has been fighting against tooth and nail for years.

First, the court upholds the fundamental right to habeas corpus, which has been part of the common-law tradition for centuries and was held dear by America's Founding Fathers. More than any other protection, habeas corpus means that the executive branch cannot arrest and detain you without a legitimate legal reason. The Bush administration wanted to whittle down that right. The Supreme Court said no.

Second, the court makes clear that Guantánamo can't be a law-free zone. The main reason the administration started sending those apprehended in the "global war on terror" to Guantánamo in 2002 was so that it could hold people without intrusive lawyers and courts getting in the way. The court said no; detainees can challenge their cases before the courts.

Third, the court said that laws enacted by Congress at the administration's urging in response to earlier Supreme Court rulings are no equivalent to the right to habeas. Under the Detainee Treatment Act (2005) and Military Commissions Act (2006), detainees who sought to challenge their being held as "enemy combatants" were entitled to bring their claims in special proceedings before the D.C. Court of Appeals. But the court said that this was no substitute for a regular habeas appearance: To require those who have been held for six years to complete this "before proceeding with habeas actions would be to require additional months, if not years, of delay."

Because the Boumediene decision is rooted in the Constitution and not federal statutes (as well as the political realities of the lame-duck administration), it will be much harder for the Bush administration to railroad through Congress new legislation to keep the courts out of the process.

Finally, the ruling may have important implications for the military commissions recently under way at Guantánamo. The administration seems hell-bent on pushing through the military commission trials of several 9/11 suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, before the November presidential elections. The inability of the military commissions to provide anything resembling a fair trial has long been clear. The Boumediene ruling has no direct effect on the commissions, but they might have difficulty proceeding if the very basis for their jurisdiction - that the defendant is an "unlawful enemy combatant" - is still subject to litigation.

In the end, Boumediene says that the U.S. president cannot be a law unto himself. It says that anyone held in what is de facto U.S. territory - no matter what crimes he may have committed or where he is from - is entitled to challenge his detention. And that's something really worth celebrating.

From Italy, President Bush said Thursday that he disagreed with the ruling but "we will abide by the court's decision" -- as if he believes the administration has a choice in the matter. In the past, the administration has shown an incredible tenacity for seeking to undermine the rule of law. But then again, maybe President Bush will come to realize that his Guantánamo approach hasn't worked. That detaining hundreds of people who were later released without charge causes more harm than good. That trying people before ad hoc military commissions is a doomed process - and that the federal courts can competently prosecute people for acts of terrorism, as they already do regularly. And that making the U.S. safe against acts of terrorism can be achieved with the help of the law, rather than by riding roughshod over it. Don't hold your breath.

And what was the reaction from Congressional Republicans who repeatedly urged the Supreme Court to clarify the matter? Was it finally realization that a conservative-leaning Supreme Court came to a just verdict on the issue after thoroughly deliberating the matter? Of course not. They reacted with predictable disdain for an outcome that completely undermines their political rhetoric and fear-mongering. For these folks, national security consists of nothing less than throwing the Constitution out the window and waving an American flag.

Senator John Kerry: "Today, the Supreme Court affirmed what almost everyone but the administration and their defenders in Congress always knew. The Constitution and the rule of law bind all of us even in extraordinary times of war. No one is above the Constitution."

Senator Joe Biden: "Today's opinion is an important and much-needed check by a coequal branch of government on an administration which has shown utter contempt for the rule of law."

It Was Only a Matter of Time...

Right or wrong, the parallels between John Kerry and Mitt Romney have been pointed out since the beginning of the presidential campaign. Although one's a Mormon and one's a Catholic, they have come to embody the stereotypical New Engalnd WASP politician for many Americans - the aristocratic man of wealth with the fancy suit and the expensive haircut who tries to appeal to everyday Americans by blowing with the political winds. John McCain is fully aware of the parallels and the gut instinct they generate. His latest ad in Florida:

Diverse Appeal

This week, Barack Obama received a number of Congressional endorsements. What's particularly telling is that they cover such a wide spectrum of individuals - from old-school California liberals to political mavericks to Midwestern moderates - who represent diverse segments of the electorate. The common appeal is represented in their statements.

Rep. George Miller (Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee): "I've watched both campaign and I know both candidates and I believe Obama offers us an opportunity to truly change the way we do business in Washington."

Former Sen. Bill Bradley (Former New Jersey Senator, Presidential Candidate, and NBA Hall of Famer): "Barack Obama is building a broad new coalition that brings together Democrats, independents and Republicans by once again making idealism a central focus of our politics. Because of his enormous appeal to Americans of all ages and backgrounds, Obama is the candidate best positioned to win in November. ... His movement for change could create a new era of American politics — truly a new American story."

Sen. Kent Conrad (Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee): "He is somebody that brings people together. He unites rather than divides, and I think that‘s very important for the country right now... He has the unusual ability to inspire and to lift people to be better. ... That is a rare skill, and I think something that‘s much needed."

Sen. Tim Johnson (Senior Senator from South Dakota): “He is bipartisan and insists on bridging the difference between parties.”

Sen. John Kerry (2004 Democratic Presidential Candidate): "Since the birth of our nation change has been won by young presidents and young leaders who have shown that experience is not defined by time in Washington and years in office it is defined by wisdom and instinct and vision ... The only charge that rings false is the one that tells you not to hope for a better America. Don't let anyone tell you to accept the downsizing of the American dream."

Iraq Commentary

There were a number of interesting op-eds on Iraq in the papers today. While laying out his case for withdrawal, John Murtha takes the fight to the Republican attack-machine. John Kerry does a little Monday morning quarterbacking in an interview with Bob Woodward about how he, if he was President, would have conducted foreign policy between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraqi. Dennis Ross, a scholar and Middle East diplomat under Presidents Bush 41 and Clinton, lays out his plan for Iraq. And Phillip Carter, who recently returned from Iraq after serving with the Army’s 101st Airborne Division, talks about smarter ways to conduct counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq. In doing so, he calls upon the words of T.E. Lawrence: “Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them.”

Seek First to Defame...

Earlier this year, Senator Kerry made a rather poignant statement on the floor of the Senate. Although it was delivered a number of months ago, it raises some timely and legitimate points to consider as we get closer to the upcoming elections.

“Mr. President, yesterday, Jack Murtha, a respected congressman on military matters, and former Marine Drill Sergeant and decorated Vietnam veteran, spoke out on our policy in Iraq. He didn’t come to that moment lightly. He spoke his mind and spoke his heart out of love for his country and support for our troops. I am not going to stand for a swift boat attack strategy against Jack Murtha.

“It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on the uniform of their country venomously turn their guns on a marine who served his country heroically in Vietnam and has been serving heroically in Congress ever since. No matter what J.D. Hayworth says, there is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha’s character and conscience.

“Dennis Hastert - the Speaker of the House who never served - called Jack Murtha a coward and accused him of wanting to cut and run. Well let me tell you, Jack Murtha wasn’t a coward when he put himself in harm’s way for his country in Vietnam and earned two purple hearts - he was a patriot then, and he is a patriot today. Jack Murtha didn’t cut and run when his courage in combat earned him a Bronze Star, and his voice should be heard, not silenced by those who still today cut and run from the truth.

“Just a day after Dick Cheney, who had 5 deferments from Vietnam, accused Democrats of being unpatriotic -the White House accused Jack Murtha of surrendering. Jack Murtha served 37 years in the Marine Corps. He doesn’t know how to surrender - not to enemy combatants, and not to politicians in Washington who say speaking his conscience is unpatriotic.

“Robert Kennedy once said, ‘The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country.’ Chuck Hagel showed he hasn’t forgotten that when he said, ‘The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them.’ But too many in the Republican Party forgot that long ago. They forgot that asking tough questions isn’t pessimism; it’s patriotism.

“We’ve seen the politics of fear and smear too many times. Whenever challenged, Republican leaders engage in the politics of personal destruction rather than debate the issues. It doesn’t matter who you are. When they did it to John McCain, we saw it doesn’t matter what political party you’re in. When they did it to Max Cleland, we saw it doesn’t matter if your service put you in a wheelchair. And when they did it to Jack Murtha yesterday, perhaps the most respected voice on military matters in all of Congress, we saw that this administration will go to any lengths to crush any
dissent.

“Once again, they’re engaged in the lowest form of smear and fear politics because they’re afraid of actually debating a senior congressman who has advised presidents of both parties on how to best defend our country. They’re afraid to debate a decorated veteran who lives and breathes the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor. They’re terrified of actually leveling with the American people about the way they misled America into war, and admitting they have no clear plan to finish the job and get our troops home. Whether you agree with Jack Murtha’s policy or not is irrelevant.

“The truth is there is a better course for our troops and for America in Iraq and I am going to keep fighting until we take that course for the good of our country.

“American families who have lost, or who fear the loss, of their loved ones deserve to know the truth about what we have asked them to do, what we are doing to complete the mission, and what we are doing to prevent our forces from being trapped in an endless quagmire. Our military families understand that open debate about what’s going on in Iraq doesn’t put our troops at risk; it’s the only way to get it right in Iraq so we can get their sons and daughters home.

“I think all of us should be mindful, as the White House yet again engages in character assassination to prevent Americans from listening to the words of military experts, of the consequences we have already endured from the failure to listen.

“When the administration could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. When they could have learned from George Herbert Walker Bush and built a genuine global coalition, they chose not to. When they could have implemented a detailed State Department plan for reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq, they chose not to.

“When they could have protected American forces by guarding Saddam Hussein’s ammo dumps where there were weapons of individual destruction, they exposed our young men and women to the ammo that now maims and kills them because they chose not to act. When they could have imposed immediate order and structure in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam, Rumsfeld shrugged his shoulders, said Baghdad was safer than Washington, D.C. and chose not to act. When the Administration could have kept an Iraqi army selectively intact, they chose not to. When they could have kept an entire civil structure functioning to deliver basic services to Iraqi citizens, they chose not to.

“When they could have accepted the offers of the United Nations and individual countries to provide on the ground peacekeepers and reconstruction assistance, they chose not to. When they should have leveled with the American people that the insurgency had grown, they chose not to. Vice President Cheney even absurdly claimed that the ‘insurgency was in its last throes.’

“And now, after all these mistakes, who is the administration to accuse anyone of wanting to cut and run. We are in trouble today precisely because of a policy of cut and run. This administration made the wrong choice to cut and run from sound intelligence and good diplomacy; to cut and run from the best military advice; to cut and run from sensible war time planning; to cut and run from their responsibility to properly arm and protect our troops; to cut and run from history’s lessons about the Middle East; to cut and run from common sense. That is the debate they are afraid to have in our country. Shame on them.

“Instead of letting his cronies run their mouths, the President should finally find the courage to debate the real issue instead of destroying anyone who speaks truth to power as they see it. It’s time for Americans to stand up, fight back, and make it clear it’s unacceptable to do this to any leader of any party anywhere in our country.

“And I hope my colleagues will come down to this floor and debate the issue on its merits, instead of attacking the character of a man like Jack Murtha, because believe me - that’s a fight nobody’s going to win in our America.”