Kerry rips 2008 GOP field over foreign policy, while artfully defending entire Dem field

From sidelines, Kerry rips GOP field over foreign policy

Criticizes rhetoric as 'scare tactics'


Senator John F. Kerry blasted the leading Republican presidential candidates on foreign policy yesterday, saying "it should disturb all of us" that the GOP contenders are taking increasingly hawkish stances on national security issues like Iran and the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

In a speech at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, Kerry delivered a stinging commentary on what he described as the belligerent tone of recent Republican primary debates.

"Most of the Republican candidates seemed almost eager to use nuclear weapons preemptively" against Iran, Kerry said.

...

Without mentioning him by name, Kerry also criticized former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for insisting he would double the size of the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, in which terrorist suspects and enemy fighters are detained.

Kerry said he was disturbed that the proposal "is considered red meat for Republican primary voters." A spokeswoman confirmed that the criticism was directed at Romney.

A Romney campaign spokesman did not respond to requests for comment on Kerry's remarks.

The debate over America’s security has focused on a single question: “Are we safer now, today than we were on 9-11?”

This is a classic campaign over-simplification. It’s the wrong question to ask because 1) it’s subject to different interpretations and 2) it tells you nothing about the future.

Some can answer “yes of course we’re safer” because of increased airport security, a revamped FBI, and improved intelligence coordination. Others will say “no” and point to an increase in nuclear weapons, failing states, jihadists, and violent anti-Americanism.

And you know what? They’re all right.

Are we individually safer? In certain situations, yes. But are we collectively, as a country, more secure? Profoundly not. But the question that we ought to be debating, the question that America needs us to wrestle with, is not “are we safer than we were the day the Twin Towers fell?” The real question is: nearly six years after 9-11, are we as safe as we should be? And what must the next president do to get us there?

This much is clear: We are not yet doing all that we should be. We are clearly losing ground in the fight against terrorists worldwide. We have created more terrorists than we have killed. We are more isolated internationally. We are more divided domestically. And more than at any time in modern history, our forces are stretched to the breaking point.