A Genuine Discussion

Come On Dan admit it.

Kerry shellacked Bush.

I still wich Wesley Clark was running. 🙁

I think Kerry came off well, but his own differing positions on Iraq are really troubling. A month or two ago he said he would have gone into Iraq knowing that they had no WMD. Then a few days ago Diane Sawyer interviewed him and he had another position (would not have gone.) In this same interview, he also said, “it depends on the outcome.” What a screwball!

It may seem funny to watch him switch positions on TV, but even if you disagree with Bush, you know where he stands.

In the debate, Kerry also used the term “global test” for when to use force. This is very dangerous. Why would we want someone as President who would give veto power to others for our security? (For those who say he doesn’t mean “veto power”, then what does he mean?) In any situation as serious as war-like actions, we should not defer one iota of our decision process to others. As soon as we give an inch, they’ll take a mile. Kerry may think this will make the world safer somehow, but of course it will have the opposite effect.

Heh, it was like the superbowl–one boob exposed.

Al, on your flip-flopper meme–it struck me just how weak an attack it is. It’s a McAttack, what you accuse a politician of when you’ve got nothing else. Can’t you find something substantive (and real) to go after Kerry with?

To: Proud Conservative
Fm: Delta 1 team command

Dear PC

Good news.
It was just a low battery condition in our leader’s implant.

The coin toss giving first closing statement to K gave us time to recharge the leader’s head implant.

Here’s some of the telemetry play back:

Leader: It’s eh Hard Work, hard work
oo( My head is hurting )ooo
Wrong time,
Wrong place,
oo( Wrong podium height) ooo
Wrong war,
What kinda leadership is that?
oo( I’m slouching, He’s standing tall) ooo
You can’t do that and be a leader !!
oo( Higher Father, why is thy voice so much like Uncle Dick’s?) ooo
oo( Gotta repeat mantra: Mixed Messages. Miixed Messages. I’m mixed up.) ooooo

[Note: See. Critical thinking was kicking in here as the batteries on the Manchurian implant ran low. But look what happened after we recharged during K’s long close:]

I BELIEVE ………. !!!
I BELIEVE ………. !!!
I BELIEVE ………. !!!

I have climbed that tall mountain
I see the valley below

[Next time we won’t strain the leader’s implant with long duration debates. New rule book will limit it to 60 minutes not 90]

Keep the faith

/s/ Delta 1 command

“In the debate, Kerry also used the term ‘global test’ for when to use force. This is very dangerous. Why would we want someone as President who would give veto power to others for our security? (For those who say he doesn’t mean ‘veto power’, then what does he mean?)”

You’re either being paid to spin or you didn’t listen. Kerry specifically said that NO country will have ANY type of veto power over our right to take pre-emptive action. And he clearly indicated what he meant by “global test”: We live in a global society, and you don’t just invade a country on a whim (say, like Iraq did to Kuwait) if you want the invasion — and especially the period after the invasion — to be successful. You need to be able to justify that decision to the rest of the world and get them on board. If the country is clearly a threat, that won’t be difficult.

Republican spinners know this but after last night’s performance, they’re feeling a bit desperate, so they’re trying to take Kerry’s comments out of context (there’s a surprise) and frame them as “giving UN veto power over the U.S.”

Foreign policy is not a black/white issue and, contrary to Bush/Cheney, it involves diplomacy. We need someone in office who understands this.

Seeing how I am from outside the US, I prefer someone understands diplomacy.

The subtlety of the process would help introduce reality in place of jingoism.

Besides, you’re the biggest debtor in the world. If others started using diplomacy against you, they could put real pressure on.

Not only was Kerry “diplomatic”,
he was “dignified.”
He refused to lower himself into the character assasination cesspool where the SwiftButt Vets swim.

When was the last time America had a dignified and diplomatic president who can interact on an intellectual basis with other leaders of the world?

The awe and shucks (awe & shock) approach to dealing with international disputes is the wrong way to go in this era of increased nuclear proliferation. Bush is a collosal flop on this issue and Kerry is our chance to flip
ourselves around and join the civilized, thinking part of the international community. Right now, we are no better than any other country where the rulers use a scapegoat or scare tactic to explain away their failed economy. The polar caps are melting. Oil is peaking. And jobs are draining into the slave camp enclaves. We desparately need someone with brains, rather than one with clueless brawn and the swagger of a Cowboy grin on his face.

Regretfully, Nader is right. Kerry is probably only slightly less horrible than Bush. But maybe if elected, he will surprise us and set our corrupt society back on the right course.

Kerry is a good closer and is clearly superior to the walking disaster area that is shrub. Also the handover will give us the precious time we need to finish off the pentagon.
Hang on enslaved peoples of turtle island – help is on the way.

Great Debate. The pouting, scowling buffoon finally got to hear what many Americans think of him.

Me and the wife have a new thing now. Whenever anyone of us forgets something the other one says “don’t forget poland” 🙂

Peter G: calling Kerry on his flip-flops on Iraq isn’t a weak argument at all. The fact is we really don’t know where he stands on it. Why bother have the debates if the words are meaningless?? He may have scored points with his base, but what does it say about his character? This isn’t a matter of changing his mind because of new information, it’s a matter of defining his principles. He runs around telling his stand and then saying his position has always been consistent. Sorry, it insults people’s intelligence.
——–

MD: On this “global test”, if you re-read his words, you’ll see that he said it both ways. He said “The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike.”
Then he adds: “BUT if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test …”

No it doesn’t have to pass a global test. The reality is the President should consider global issues (and they do), but he can’t have it both ways. Kerry sounds weak when he implies we need to ask for permission.
——–

“No name”: You said: “When was the last time America had a dignified and diplomatic president who can interact on an intellectual basis with other leaders of the world?”

I think you’re making a big assumption that the other leaders are are very intellectual. Sure, some are, but many are thugs and dictators who have no interest in freedom and democracy. Also, many of these countries are highly corrupt.

I think everyone somehow ignores most of the world and gravitates towards the parts of Europe that are against us, especially France and Germany. I don’t know why.

Al: You say: “I think [NN] you’re making a big assumption that the other leaders are are very intellectual. Sure, some are, but many are thugs and dictators who have no interest in freedom and democracy. Also, many of these countries are highly corrupt.”

So are you suggesting for America to join the thugs club or the other club?

Also, do we really really have a “democracy” and “freedom” in America? Try saying “liberal” things in a public arena, i.e. Vegas. What happened in Florida in 2000? What will happen this year when non-auditable voting machines are used and people find out on voting day that “the computer” says they are not eligible to vote? Look in the mirror. The bannana republic is us. We want Iraq to also be a bannana republic and ship all their produce here — in barrels, at $30 apiece.

“Then he adds: “BUT if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test …”
No it doesn’t have to pass a global test. The reality is the President should consider global issues (and they do), but he can’t have it both ways. Kerry sounds weak when he implies we need to ask for permission.”

Again, you’re clearly misreading Kerry’s positions (hopefully unintentionally). He never said nor implied that we need to “ask for permission.” When he referred to a “global test,” he was referring to (in fact, he explicity explained that he meant) diplomacy. We have the right to do whatever we want, but if we want to be respected in the world; if we want other nation’s help; if we don’t want to burn all the “ally” bridges we’ve built over the past 50 years, we need to make sure that we can back up our actions with diplomacy. We didn’t do that in Iraq — in fact, we never even tried.

“A month or two ago he said he would have gone into Iraq knowing that they had no WMD.”

No, Al, he didn’t: that’s what Bush _claimed_ he said. But Bush was lying about Kerry’s position. Again.

“For those who say he doesn’t mean ‘veto power’, then what does he mean?”

I would assume he means “the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons”. But I have to confess that I only assume that because THAT’S WHAT HE SAID IN SIMPLE ENGLISH.

“In any situation as serious as war-like actions, we should not defer one iota of our decision process to others.”

Well, it’s unfortunate that you feel that way, because we did. Over 50 years ago. I’m surprised you haven’t heard about it: not only was it in all the papers, but it’s part of the standard high school civics curriculum.

“But Bush made clear that he’s far, far more of a unilateralist than Kerry.”

I’d nitpick that and say that “Bush made clear that he’s far, far more willing to be a unilateralist if that’s what is required to protect America’s interests.”

Hello,

NN: No I’m not suggesting that we join the thugs club, but I am suggesting that we should be realistic in understanding that many countries are run by thugs, dictators, and are heavily corrupt.
I took your line “…interact on an intellectual basis with other leaders of the world” as some type of code word for more UN type thinking. My contention is the UN is flawed because everyone looks out for themselves…there is little “coming together” unless the goals and ideas involved are fairly simple or workable by civilized countries and the “thugs.” I just have a sense that many on the left (you may not be on the left) have this notion that everyone in the UN is out for the common good and, as we’ve seen, time and time again, everyone is out for themselves. There are only a few countries that go out of their way to help others. We’re one of them. (I haven’t seen to much aid come in to Florida from the UN or other count
ries, have you?) And for those that say we were bullies and embraced losers during the cold war, you are probably right. If we didn’t, the Soviets would have. Unfortunatley, there’s a lot of “destroying the village to save the village” mentality that drives world affairs.

Anyways, your line “interact on an intellectual basis with other leaders of the world” tickles my spider hairs and takes me down the UN-type thinking path. Michael Moore seems to have this hankering for Euro-think too. It sounds like Kerry with his “global test” condition, has this problem too. I don’t see the attraction.

MD: I understand that Kerry nuanced his “global test” by saying the President has the right to premptive actions, but you say he doesn’t mean “permission.” But if we always have to outwardly “check” with the allies, or however you want to phrase it, then it is in fact preety darn close to “permission.”

I don’t think any President wants to harm relations, but I think we have to make it clear that we have the right to unilaterally to act. It is only up to us to deal with the ramifications.

This whole issue seems to be driven by France and Germany’s reluctance to support us. They did some arm-twisting and kept some of the smaller countries out too.
What I have a big problem with is the thinking that their decision is solely based on Bush being a “cowboy”. The reality is EU politics (infighting over the new entrants to the EU and money issues), the “Oil for Sadaam” program, and many other internal political issues drove the decision. I think the media has let us down by allowing the argument to be framed as Bush vs the World; it’s a dangerous and disingenuous way to look at it.
And for you people who are reading this, I know many of you are very smart. To espouse this Bush vs the World line makes you look silly. Come back to Earth and realize that sometimes friends don’t always agree.

My buddy Ran: Kerry said at the Grand Canyon: “I’ll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively.” This was an answer to the question “would (he) have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found?”

He said yes. So he nuanced it by saying he would have done things differently. So what. The fact is his position a month or so ago was the same as Bush’s. In an interview with Diane Sawyer the other night, he came up with another novel way to think about it. He said “it depends on the outcome.” This Kerry has a screw loose or he just makes things up.

And concerning WWI and ceding authority, that was obviously a little different than today. It’s obvious that what people mean by “ceding authority” is to cede it to seemingly powerless, inept and somewhat corrupt organizations like the UN. The fear of many people is that Kerry would actually do this.
If Kerry subscribes to this notion or this “global test” bs, then he is gravely mistaken and probably dangerous.

Oh, I meant WWII in the previous post to Ran.

To take the concept of international diplomacy a step farther, yes, assume other nations will work toward their own interests. It is that way in the Senate, each member serves his own constituency (except those that are in the service of particular lobbies). The art of passing legislation in the Senate is the art of working out an agreement whereby the best is achieved for everyone. This is concept of our legislative branch.

On the world scene, it would be ideal to have some one versed in the art of achieving consensus.

On the matter of Kerry’s changing positions. If America had not changed its collective mind when Kerry, (and many other courageous people), based on his experience, determined that what he had expected to be in his own country’s interest was actually against its interest, wouldn’t we have spent longer, lost more lives, sunk further in the world’s esteem, and gained nothing, in Vietnam?

What did we achieve in Vietnam? Only in getting out did we achieve anything.

And genocide is going on in the Sudan but we have no resources except rhetoric to invest there. North Korea is blatantly defying the world’s objections to its developing nuclear capacity, but we have no resources except rhetoric to invest there. China is violating human rights and threatening Formosa. It goes on and on.

What makes Iraq the focus of this country’s entire attention? I won’t answer what I think it is, but it is definitely at the decision of this present president. And does anyone seriously believe this shows wisdom? or strength?

Ruth,

I think your analogy of the “World” to the US Senate is fatally flawed. Why? The “World” doesn’t follow the rules very well and the members are (frankly) mostly dictatorships or highly corrupt. Yes, one can say that the Senate is corrupt, too (a joke), but the fact is the members of the US Senate all have a great deal in common with each other.

I think your point is that Kerry is up to it. From what I can see, Kerry never (or rarely) even mentions his Senate record. Did he ever sponsor any bills? All he has done is talk and vote. Talking may be nice, but it isn’t “doing” and being the President is about “doing.”

I’ll take a stab an answering why we’re in Iraq. It’s a combination of the Mideast, Militant Islam, terrorism, oil, Israel, the Palestinians. Bush saw an opening to positively affect the whole region at once. Most people compartmentalize these issues (especially the Palestinian-Israeli issue), but they are all related. When Bush says to imagine a democratic Iraq, he means a democratic Iraq that will affect the surrounding areas. In the debate, he said the reason so many insurgents are crossing the borders is because they desperately want to stop the successes there. I think we’re on our way to great success and to slow down is a big mistake.

I understand people’s uneasiness with Bush’s reasons for going, but to harp on it at this point is really hurting our efforts to succeed. How many lives are being lost because our troops have to adapt tactics to both the insurgents and the Democrats? Kerry finds himself on the side of the bad guys, where bad news for the effort is good for him. This is not good for us. Can you see that the Democrat’s rhetoric is actually hurting our efforts besides hurting Bush? I don’t know why this isn’t written up more.

“But if we always have to outwardly ‘check’ with the allies, or however you want to phrase it, then it is in fact preety darn close to ‘permission.'”

No, it’s not, Al. Any more than having shooting boards means that cops have to get “permission” to pull their guns, or sobriety checkpoints mean that you have to get “permission” to stop for a beer when driving home from work.

Perhaps things are different on your planet. But here on Earth, you can’t prove anything about what you “did” until _after_ yo
u’ve done it, and “permission” can only be obtained _before_ the act.

“The fact is his position a month or so ago was the same as Bush’s.”

So, according to you, if you give guns to two cops, and one goes around shooting suspects, while the other uses his gun to force them into jail cells, their actions are “the same”?

“In an interview with Diane Sawyer the other night, he came up with another novel way to think about it.”

There was nothing at all “novel” about it: when asked whether, HAVING ALREADY BEEN STARTED BY BUSH, the Iraq war was “worth it”, Kerry responded as any human being (or, indeed, any living organism, if it had the power of speech) would, by saying that he would weigh the results produced against the costs incurred.

“This Kerry has a screw loose or he just makes things up.”

I suspect that quite a few people, having read your bizarre interpretation of what “did” means, and your confusion about the difference between questions like “Would you have done X?” and “Was X worth the cost?”, are thinking along similar lines.

Just not about Kerry…