Point, Kerry

So, I have to say, I read something (and in the Wall Street Journal of all places) about John Kerry that made me think he wasn't half-bad.

Essentially, there was an op-ed piece last Friday that chastized Kerry for his ties to "left-wing" political leaders in Latin America. The most dwelled-upon and thereby supposedly damning were the Sandinistas of Nicaragua. In April 1985, just after first winning election to the U.S. Senate, Kerry went to Nicaragua and met with members of the Sandinista junta. (For dramatic emphasis the Journal ran a picture of Kerry shaking hands with Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega, because they normally run photos on the op-ed page, you know.)

The particularly incriminating gem was how, shortly after returning from Managua, Kerry introduced an amendment to an authorization bill to fund CIA aid to "anti-Sandinista forces" (ever hear of the "Contras"?) in Nicaragua. Kerry's amendment sought to restrict the money to humanitarian efforts, and he said: "If it's strictly humanitarian assistance, then it's OK for the CIA to do it. But if the CIA moves off to tangential activities, that would be a violation."

Letting pass momentarily the absurdity of sending the CIA to provide "humanitarian assistance," this amendment sounds like a real friggin' good idea. Lest anyone forget (like the writer of this piece), the Contras were pretty brutal. Exceedingly brutal. Kidnappings, torture and murder of unarmed civilians were all favorite tactics, or so says the human rights group Americas Watch. Needless to say, it wasn't very wise to give the Contras money and/for arms. (Iran-Contra was just another proof of this theory.) And then there was that little matter of the Contras being a spectacularly ineffectual military force. (By 1984, the Contras and I controlled exactly the same number of villages in Nicaragua. It took $150 million in U.S. aid for the Contras to enjoy that success, whereas I was but an infant operating exclusively out of my California nursery with only childproof toys and limited motor skills.)

But, no, says the author. She says that this "for anyone who doesn't already get it, helps explain why the CIA has become increasingly ineffectual over the past 20 years." Of course, she only said that Kerry introduced this amendment. Nowhere does she indicate whether it passed muster and became part of the final authorization bill. Nor could I find this out from Googling. And that seems kinda important to know. Because if you want to go blaming John Kerry for undermining the CIA on this, it might be good to know if he actually accomplished what he set out to do. For example, if his amendment had died, then it really didn't impair the CIA at all. Details, details.

There's a lot more to pick apart in this column, and I would've loved to have done so, though it would've mainly read like a primer on modern Nicaraguan history, and a lot like a primer on modern Nicaraguan history written by Walter LaFeber.

To come full circle, I was pleasantly surprised to read about Kerry taking such an evidently principled stand, and to learn that he at least didn't give blanket condemnation to the Sandinistas. It's almost enough to make me want to vote for him, but then, I doubt that he's really so principled today, or gives a damn about human rights in other countries like he ostensibly did then. (Plus, I'm still not sure I fully trust the Journal's reporting on this, but I digress.) For everyone's enjoyment, I'll post the full text of the letter I did fire off to the editor in a separate post, if only to preserve it for posterity (since I'm sure it'll never make it to print).