by JAMES TARANTO
Friday, January 30, 2004 3:35 P.M. EST

Kerry: Terror Threat Exaggerated
Tom Brokaw asked John Kerry an excellent question during last night's South Carolina debate:

Robert Kagan, who writes about these issues a great deal from the Carnegie Institute for Peace, has written recently that Europeans believe that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, and the Bush administration believes that the Europeans simply don't get it. Who is right?

The Democratic front-runner's response should give pause to anyone who cares about national security. Here's the exchange that ensued:

Kerry: I think it's somewhere in between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there has been a refocusing--

Brokaw: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?

Kerry: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, No. 1. Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, No. 2. I mean, I--nuclear weapons, No. 3. I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, No. 4.

That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less--it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world--the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.

Let's go through this step by step. Kerry first agrees, at least in part, with the "European" view that America is exaggerating the threat of terrorism. It was left to John Edwards later to state the obvious: "It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th." You'd think Kerry would have more sensitivity on this subject, given that both the planes that the terrorists crashed into the World Trade Center took off from his home state.

An incredulous Brokaw interrupts Kerry to ask for examples. Kerry lists four purported exaggerations of the terror threat, all of which actually have to do with Iraq. Now, we thought the party line was that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror and was just a "distraction."

Kerry then goes on to outline his philosophy about fighting terrorism. The war on terror, in his view, isn't really a war at all; it's chiefly a matter for intelligence and police agencies. Military action is called for only "occasionally"--exactly the view that prevailed before Sept. 11. Kerry, it seems, has learned nothing from that day's attacks.

Finally, Kerry complains that the U.S. has not entered into "an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally." Yet that is precisely what we are now doing in Iraq. And once again, we see Kerry is all over the map on this stuff. In October 2002 he voted in favor of a war he now denounces. And in October 2003 he voted to defund the troops and the reconstruction effort, yet now he demands "an engagement in the Middle East."

Does Kerry have the ability to make a decision and stick by it? Is it possible to be an effective leader without this capacity?

Weathervane Kerry and the Trade Winds
The Washington Post notes that during last night's debate, "in a state where thousands of manufacturing jobs have disappeared and where many blame the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) for the loss, Lieberman was the only defender of that pact, even though Kerry and Dean had given it strong public support. 'It was not a mistake,' Lieberman insisted, saying exports contributed to the growth of 22 million jobs during Bill Clinton's presidency."

In 1993 Lieberman voted in favor of the Nafta Implementation Act. So did one other Democratic candidate: John Kerry. Yet Kerry had not a word to say in defense of one of Bill Clinton's proudest legacies. In fairness, he wasn't directly asked a question about Nafta, but he and the other candidates frequently used their time to respond on issues raised in question to others. By keeping mum on Nafta, Kerry once again showed he isn't exactly a profile in courage.

Dole Redux?
The Washington Times' Greg Pierce picks up an interesting observation from National Journal columnist Chuck Todd (the original column is here but requires a pricey subscription):

The lack of passion at Kerry rallies that we observed over the last two weeks should be troublesome to his aides. It's not Kerry that lacks the passion, but his supporters. His backers are quintessential establishment Democrats: older voters and members of the rank-and-file Democratic groups. Clark, Edwards and Dean all seem to attract more enthusiastic supporters. We know enthusiasm doesn't necessarily translate to support, but it sure can energize folks--and Kerry needs a spark that will make supporters of his foes comfortable and excited in unity.

Well, Kerry is 2 for 2 in nomination contests so far, so it's hard to see where his inability to inspire passion is a problem with the Democratic electorate. But in the general election it could hurt him. Most of those who now support Kerry's foes are likely to go to the polls and cast a vote for Kerry, and they'll be quite passionate--not about Kerry but about President Bush, whom they're itching to eject from office.

But here's the problem: Partisan Democrats alone won't win the election for Kerry. And while we agree with the conventional wisdom that Kerry is more "electable" than Howard Dean or Wesley Clark, that's only because the prospect of one of those two in the White House is terrifying to any half-sane American. But voters who aren't partisan Democrats don't hate President Bush, so Kerry has to give them a reason to vote for him. If he can't pull that off, he'll be another Bob Dole (we're far from the first to make this comparison): a respectable nominee who is unable to win many votes outside of partisans who hate the incumbent.

Weasel Watch
"Washington has reacted furiously to Belgian Defence Minster Andre Flahaut's comment that he would vote Democrat if he were an American," Expatica News reports:

US foreign minister [sic] Colin Powell complained to his Belgian opposite number Louis Michel about the remarks, which Flahaut made during an interview with the satirical newspaper Humo.

Acting "at the White House's request," Powell told Michel that Flahaut's remarks represented "unacceptable interference" in US domestic politics.

You'd think the White House would welcome support for the Dems from the biggest kit in the axis of weasels--especially if the Dems end up with a haughty, French-looking nominee.

Who by the Way Served in Vietnam
"When John Kerry describes himself, he first notes that he's a veteran. Speaking after his New Hampshire primary victory, the four-term Massachusetts senator and candidate for president said he and his Vietnam-era buddies are 'still fighting for their country.' "--Lowell (Mass.) Sun, Jan. 29

Sabotaging Kerry's Campaign
It's been said that most Massachusetts Democrats secretly dislike John Kerry, though of course they're obliged to support him in public. Today's Boston Globe has some evidence for this claim:

Massachusetts Democratic Party leaders last night backed a resolution advocating unambiguous support for gay civil marriage. . . . State Party Chairman Philip Johnston said the vote sends a clear message to the nation that "we support protecting the rights of these individuals, and I think most of the rest of the state will support us."

Kerry has said he opposes same-sex marriage, but the actions of his fellow Massachusetts Democrats (along with his vote against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act) could come back to haunt him in the fall campaign, should he be the nominee.

Someone, Call the ASPCA!
"Kerry Slams Republican 'Attack Dogs'; Vows Fight"--headline, Reuters, Jan. 30

Howard Dean, Mediocre Dishwasher
The Denver Post goes to Aspen, Colo., to investigate Howard Dean's youth as a ski bum. It's a damning exposé:

Armed with their Ivy League degrees, Dean and [pal Greg] Wylde cleaned dishes at the famed Golden Horn restaurant, said former owner Trudy Erhard.

"He was a very mediocre person when he worked for us," Erhard said from her home in Stowe, Vt. "I remember him well. He was just a loser. He was a totally lost kid. But lots of kids in Aspen in the late '60s and early '70s were totally lost."

No wonder Dean is so keen to become president. If he loses, he has nothing to fall back on. Not even a career as a dishwasher.

Soros Wastes His Money
The New Republic's blogger Noam Scheiber jumped on a pair of quotes that purport to put the White House and the liberation of Iraq in a bad light:

"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.' Those were not words we used."--White House spokesman Scott McClellan, Jan. 27, 2004

"This is about imminent threat."--McClellan, Feb. 10, 2003

Scheiber gives credit where due: "Special thanks to the good folks at the Center for American Progress." That would be the left-wing propaganda shop that is funded by crackpot billionaire George Soros and employs such left-liberal leading lights as Eric Alterman.

Scheiber was later forced to append this "update": "Shame on me for not checking this out more thoroughly. It turns out that the second McClellan quote was taken way out of context. He's refering [sic] to the threat Turkey would face after we invaded Iraq, not the threat Iraq posed to the United States prior to the war. Apologies to McClellan and the White House."

Looks as though THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS LIED!!!!

Meanwhile, reader Carl Hernstein raises a good question about the continuing kerfuffle over prewar intelligence errors:

With all the inquiries going on with regard to the truth of government intelligence about Iraq, I have not noticed any press coverage about the truth of the allegations made about the effect of the prewar economic sanctions.

As I recall, for a few years prior to the war, there was escalating criticism of the U.N. sanctions (which, of course, were said to be due largely to U.S. pressure), on the theory that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were suffering from lack of food, medicine and other necessities. My memory is that religious and other groups claimed that significant numbers of children had died due to the sanctions.

This criticism was putting any humane government in a double bind--continue sanctions and hurt the innocent people or lift the sanctions and allow the wrongdoer to go undeterred. Of course, the way out of this bind was to remove the wrongdoer, which required a war with all the attendant horrors.

Now, my questions:

Do we know if the claims of tremendous suffering and many children dying from the sanctions was true? If it wasn't, why were these groups so wrong?

If it was true, wasn't a war, as horrible as war is, with perhaps 5,000 noncombatant Iraqi casualties (again, I could be wrong about that number) a more humane solution than either (1) continuation of the sanctions hurting many times that number, or (2) stopping the sanctions and allowing an evil government to continue to kill and oppress at will?

Castro Imitates Saddam

"Saddam Hussein has in recent days spoken on television of his intention to die in Iraq and to die fighting if necessary."--Newsday (Long Island, N.Y.), March 18, 2003

"Castro: 'I Will Die Fighting' if U.S. Invades Cuba"--headline, Reuters, Jan. 30, 2004

Of course we all know what happened to Saddam, and even if Castro turned out not to be bluffing as the Iraqi dictator was, his death would be a nice consolation. So can we invade Cuba? Pretty please?

Metaphor Alert
From Janet Maslin's review of Debra Dickerson's "The End of Blackness" in yesterday's New York Times:

And as for academic curriculum, she insists, "The goal should be to expand the base of cultural literacy, one sinew of a strong nation, not to play a zero-sum game in which one nugget of Western civilization must be jettisoned for every multicultural nugget included."

The controversial core of this book is her assumption that American culture already is multicultural, even if black history is full of events and individuals that whites still ignore. "Blacks have access to the director's cut," she writes, about this more panoramic view of the past.

No Fowl, No Harm
"China Killing Birds to Curb Spread of Flu"--headline, New York Times, Jan. 29

Why Can't Experts Read?
"Experts Find Drug Ad Warnings Unreadable"--headline, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Jan. 29

What Would the Patriots Do Without Brady?
"Brady Says Patriots Must Target End Zone"--headline, Reuters, Jan. 28

Who Says Violence Never Solved Anything?
"Clubs Help Women Cope With Money Problems"--headline, Poughkeepsie (N.Y.) Journal, Jan. 25

Everyone's a Critic
"Man Critical After Being Shot by Officer"--headline, Las Vegas Sun, Jan. 30

Legal Perversion
"A German who confessed to killing, dismembering and eating another man who allegedly agreed to the arrangement over the Internet was convicted Friday of manslaughter and sentenced to 8 1/2 years in prison," the Associated Press reports from Kassel, Germany:

A state court ruled that Armin Meiwes, a 42-year-old computer expert, had no "base motives" in the crime--sparing him a murder conviction.

One wonders what it would take to convince a German court that a defendant had "base motives." But before you start feeling too superior to those kooky Germans--at least if you live in the Western U.S., consider this report from Reuters:

A San Diego policeman who sold videos of himself masturbating after removing a police uniform was wrongly dismissed from the force, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday.

An officer named in court documents only as John Roe sold the videos on the Internet vendor eBay Inc. . . . The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Roe that his dismissal by the San Diego Police Department in 2001 was unjust because his off-duty actions were protected by First Amendment rights to free speech.

"We hold that when the employee's speech is not about his government employer or employment, is directed to a segment of the general public and occurs outside the workplace, that speech satisfies the public concern test," the court found.

The decision in favor of the self-abusing San Diegan was written by Judge Raymond Fisher, who, it won't surprise you to learn, was appointed to the bench by President Clinton. If Judge Fisher's expansive notion of free speech had been around six years ago, it might have made Clinton's sex-scandal defense easier: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. We were only talking.

(Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Michael Segal, Ethel Fenig, William Katz, Rob Coleman, Brian Azman, Barak Moore, Raghu Desikan, Steve Roberts, Wayne Clements, Michael Kingsley, Paul Sisco, Tom Linehan, Alexander Vacca, Thomas Dillon, Bill Mann, Edward Schulze, Henry Hanks, Dan O'Shea, Joe Deltoro, John Williamson, S.E. Brenner, C.E. Dobkin, Chris Fountain, Jim Tucker, Chris Sundlund, Sam Lambert, L.J. O'Neale, Rosanne Klass, Mark Schulze, Scott Offen, Gretchen Chellson, Terry Young, Jim Orheim, David Carrier and Nathan Wirtschafter. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: A conservative revolt over runaway spending.
• Daniel Henninger: Consumers march to the walls of the health-care castle.

And on the Taste page:

• Review & Outlook: For sitcom singles, marriage is in the script.
• Tony & Tacky: Super Bowl rings get gaudier; the fake bullet hole craze.
• Tunku Varadarajan: He thinks he's an "artist," and his political views are very, very important.
• Steven Zeitchik: There's something quaint about Super Bowl commercials.
• Dave Shiflett: A student senate tries to imitate the one in Washington. The ACLU is outraged.