Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
kerry's proposal for bilateral talks with NK was his achille's heel, but the president didn't jump at the opportunity. of course neither candidate sets the pace and questions for the debate... but i would have gone for the jugular on that as much as the format would allow.
|
I don't see it as an achilles heel - atleast no more than it is for Bush as well.
The positions of each candidate are in opposition to each other - and in opposition to their respective viewpoints on Iraq. Bush is looking for a coalition, so to speak, in dealing with NK and Kerry is looking to deal directly with NK. In contrast, Bush's position on Iraq was essentially to deal with it directly with a coalition being a nice, but unecessary bonus and Kerry's position was essentially to work harder to attain a coalition.
The reason their respective positions are equally Achilles heels is because the non-direct approach to NK means working with China. Bush is essentially saying, to use his oft repeated assertion of John Kerry, that he is going to allow China to dictate America's foreign policy.
And so now that I've thought about this - it seems to me that Bush's position is the more divergent from expectations: he's suggesting a group effort to deal with NK - but his group does not even consist of allies to the U.S. - it is contingent on China.