This posting is a rough translation of an article that I wrote for the Dutch daily Friesch Dagblad.

Four years ago, when American voters were able to choose between four more years with Bush jr. and the unknown alternative which John Kerry offered, I wrote that Kerry’s election would probably be better for Israel and the Palestinians than the re-election of George W. Bush. The main basis for my assumption was the fact that at that moment ( August 2004 ) the deadlock of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict had only one variable which was not hopelessly and rigidly stuck: the American presidency. Since then both Israel and the Palestinians got new leaders, but few people will tell you with a straight face that, leader-wise, compared to four years ago any of the two parties is better off today. No Israeli-Palestinian peace plan can succeed without a minimum of mutual trust and a real intention towards peace on both sides of the conflict. Nevertheless, in order to bring about a true peace process and to make it succeed, an input from outside is crucial. Not unlike four years ago, we should not expect any surprising peace-input from either Russia or the United Nations. The European Union still can play a limited, mediating role, but the EU remains too divided for it to conceive – let alone carry out – a balanced, credible and decisive vision regarding Israel-Palestine. In other words, there is nothing new under the sun. America still is the most important and influential outsider in the region. The foreign policy of the next President of the United States will (continue to) influence and/or determine the lives of Palestinians, Israelis and other nations in the Middle East. (more…)

Michelle Malkin posted a video of one Jason Mattera talking to Senator John Kerry about a new project, initiated by anti-war activists, in which they’ll investigate whether American soldiers committed crimes against humanity during the war in Iraq. That’s not the only thing they talked about, however, Mattera also asked Kerry about some of the things he said back in 1970, about the way US troops behaved in Vietnam. (more…)

This is going to make quite some Democrats very unhappy:

Ralph Nader says he is seriously considering running for president in 2008 because he foresees another Tweedledum-Tweedledee election that offers little real choice to voters.

In an interview Nader told The Politico: “You know the two parties are still converging — they don’t even debate the military budget anymore. I really think there needs to be more competition from outside the two parties.”

When asked about the ’spoiler’ accusation, Nader said: “Democrats have become, over the years, very good at electing very bad Republicans. Democrats always know how to implode, how to be ambiguous, how to waver, how not to be authentic.”

About Hillary Clinton: “She is a political coward. She goes around pandering to powerful interest groups on the one hand and flattering general audiences on the other. She doesn’t even have the minimal political fortitude of her husband.”

Ouch - that has got to hurt.

Chris Lehane, who worked in Bill Clinton’s White House and Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, is quoted by Roger Simon (in return) as saying: “His entry into the race, even to those who voted for him in 2000, would be just another vainglorious effort to promote himself at the expense of the best interests of the public. Ralph Nader is unsafe in any election.”

Now, I am everything but an (American) progressive, let alone that I would ever consider voting for Nader, but the entire “spoiler” accusation is beyond ridiculous. Back in 2000, Gore lost because of Gore. Back in 2004, Kerry lost because of Kerry. It can never be wrong that there are more parties out there, who try to serve the people. Is the American political system broken? I most certainly believe it is. Well, by forcing the two parties to fight for every vote, the system might, perhaps, be fixed or at least improved.

The Boston Globe reports that Senator John Kerry “blasted the leading Republican presidential candidates on foreign policy yesterday,” a speech at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. Kerry said that “‘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.”

Two days ago, Pamela Leavey published the Senator’s entire speech. An excerpt:

Fourth–it is a misconception that torturing prisoners, as we saw at Abu Ghraib, and detaining them indefinitely, as we are now at Guantanamo Bay, are effective ways of fighting terrorism. In fact they define the word “counterproductive.” Just this week, a federal appeals court struck down part of the President’s detainee policy as having —and I’m quoting judges here—“disastrous consequences for the Constitution and the country.” It should disturb all of us that a proposal to double Guantanamo is considered red meat for Republican primary voters. Our military leaders tell us that torture does not yield better intelligence. And as Colin Powell has said, the world is beginning to doubt the moral authority of our fight against terrorism—our most precious asset in winning the war of ideas…

Many of our best thinkers in the private sector and the Pentagon now speak of fighting terrorism as a “global counterinsurgency” The goal of counterinsurgency operations is far more than just killing insurgents. Ultimate success depends on winning over the local population and isolating the extremists. Applied to global terrorism, this leads us to focus on winning a global “information war,” and turning “the street” against Al Qaeda wherever they seek a base of operations.

As we’ve seen in Iraq, this struggle cannot be won by military means alone. Again, it’s the Army’s new counterinsurgency manual that tells us “the more force used, the less effective it is.” Successful counterinsurgency relies on every tool in our national arsenal—economic, political, military - and perhaps most importantly recognizes the power of our ideas.

It’s the Tip O’Neill doctrine applied to a dangerous world – successfully fighting a global counterinsurgency recognizes that, just like politics, all terrorism is local. That means looking beyond catch-all phrases like “Islamo-Fascism” that obscure more than they illuminate. After all, Al Qaeda is, as the theorist David Kilcullen says: “sixty different groups in sixty different countries who all have different objectives.” …

Some policymakers like to say we need to stay on the offensive against the terrorists. They tend to equate “offense” with military force. But we must never forget that we are fighting a battle within Islam for the hearts and minds of Muslims everywhere.

Al Qaeda understands that we are fighting an information war: they quadrupled their output of propaganda videos last year and take advantage of some 4,500 different jihadi websites. And we know that Al Qaeda’s #2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, urged Al Qaeda in Iraq to stop mass-murdering Shia civilians because he worried it would hurt Al Qaeda’s reputation among moderate Sunnis. Today the sobering reality is that, in many quarters, we are losing a public relations battle to a gang of cave-dwelling mass-murderers…

To succeed in this arena, we must regain our moral authority. Our actions matter more than our words: no Madison Avenue PR firm or public diplomacy czar can make the Arab world forget Abu Ghraib. This self-defeating tendency continues today at Guantanamo—which has become a catchphrase in every language for the perceived lawlessness of America’s fight against terrorists. These policies amount to a unilateral disarmament in the war of ideas.

I suggest you read Kerry’s entire speech. It has to be said - it is a good speech, he makes some excellent points. The war against terrorism is more than a military war, it is also an information war, it is also a moral war, it is also an ideological war, it is also a war from the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide, etc.

We, the West, have to be seen as the good guys. Admittedly, it may take us a while to convince Muslims worldwide that we are the good guys, but we must be patience because we cannot afford to lose the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims. We must invest in Muslim countries - in a positive way. I propse a gigantic Marshall plan for Muslim countries that are in need. Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. were able to become so powerful, because they invest in people, in neighborhoods and cities. We must build schools, we must create jobs, we must improve these people’s lives without wanting anything in return (except for moderation and a partner in the war on radical Islam).

H/t Ginny Cotts.

Senator (of Massachusetts) John Kerry published a post at The Democratic Daily (where I’m helping out Pamela) about energy. Be sure to read it. I disagree with Senator Kerry on quite some issues, but energy is not one of them.

Excerpt:

It’s amazing to me that some people still refuse to see the gravity of the situation staring us in the face, with the best science telling us we may only have a decade to act before the climate crisis reaches a dangerous tipping point. But there are the same interests throwing up the same roadblocks. Take CAFE standards – I and many others are demanding that the standards be raised to 35 mpg by the end of the next decade, with light trucks and SUVs included in that and other mandatory requirements for medium and heavy trucks. And we want to close the loopholes that allow automakers to miss even those targets. But the Bush Administration has written to Congress that they are opposed to ANY numerical requirement in the statute. Think about that for a moment … they say they want fuel economy to get better, but they don’t want to put any numeric requirements about what that means. And they want medium and heavy trucks exempted from even that!

Another area where I’m pushing is to require that at least 20% of our electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. This has been a part of my energy plan since 2002, and I mentioned this over and over (and over) during the campaign in 2004. There has been significant support for this change now in Congress, but there are still the powerful interests arrayed against it.

Dogmatic refusal to consider new approaches to this crisis can have such enormous consequences, it boggles the mind how people can do it.

It is quite interesting to note that with a different Republican President, Kerry might accomplish quite some of his goals: Rudy Giuliani, for instance, has already said that he wants to do something about global warming (and related problems / issues) and wants to make America energy independent (as have quite some other candidates of course). It seems to me that, over time, the two parties will grow towards each other on this issue (it will be quite problematic if they don’t).

I am wondering what Senator Kerry’s thoughts are about that.

As I said, I agree with Kerry on this issue: it is about time that something is done about it.

UPDATE
Senator Kerry answered my question:

Michael

I welcome all efforts to fight global warming from anyone. My bill is a bipartisan bill (with Olympia Snowe), so I know there are some Republicans who believe in action on this, in fact Newt Gingrich seems to be moving in that direction, but they’re vast outnumbered by the flat-earth caucus on this issue.

Trust me, I’ve debated Jim Inhofe on this – the widespread denial of the science hasn’t abated. I’ll wait to see some action before I comment any further.

Even George Bush has said some things about dealing with global climate change, but then his Administration turns around and promises to veto anything that would move us forward.

A big thank you to the Senator for the (rapid) response. Let me just say: very true, some of them talk the talk every now and then, it’s time for those people to walk the walk as well.

9News reports that Senator John Kerry “reopened the door to a possible 2008 presidential campaign during a book signing in Denver and then again, in an interview with 9NEWS.”

This is seldom a good sign:

Colorado’s leading Republican chuckled at the news Kerry may embark on another presidential run.

The progressive blog Brilliant at Breakfast responds: “Oh, God, please no” and “part of We Do Not Want You do you not understand?”

First of all: if Kerry, whenever, decides to run, he’ll have no chance winning the nomination. Secondly, even if he would win the nomination he would not win the general elections.

If it were legal, Republicans would probably be paying Democratic voters to support Kerry.

More at The Democratic Daily (Pamela is pro-Kerry), Red State (California Yankee points out that Kerry “continues to be consistent in his inconsistency”) and Betsy’s Page (describing Kerry as “delusional”).

The Hill reports that John F. Kerry and Newt Gingrich “are set to square off on climate change next week, their staffs announced Thursday.

The debate, hosted by New York University’s John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress, will take place next Tuesday, April 10, at 10 a.m. in the Russell Senate Office Building.”

Debate is - of course - almost always good.

However, I do find it a shame that global warming has become a partisan matter in America. This way, it seems impossible for America to truly unite on this issue and do something (worthwhile and effective).

More at CNN’s Political Ticker, The Democratic Daily and Blogs for Bush.

H/t Memeorandum

Seriously, how many blows can Senator John McCain overcome?

John Kerry says that John McCain’s people approached him in 04 “to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as Vice President.”

It is amazing that McCain is still at 16% in the latest Rasmussen poll.

Meanwhile, McCain denies it. According to him, Kerry contacted him.

Well, whether it’s true or not, the damage is done. McCain can adjust his campaign as much as he wants, but I don’t think he’ll be able to make some grand comeback.

This ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court won’t make the White House happy:

“Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant’ we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles,” the court ruled.

Led by Massachusetts, a dozen states along with several US cities and environmental groups went to the courts to determine whether the agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide emissions.

“The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized,” said judge John Paul Stevens as the ruling was carried by five votes in favor to four against.

The Democratic Daily has John Kerry’s reaction to this ruling. In short: he’s delighted, as are, of course, many environmentalists and not just in America.

Quite an important ruling for all concerned about this matter.

H/t my good friend and personal editor, Holly.