Kerry keeps asserting that we must make Iraq the worldâs responsibility. But, one has to wonder, to what world is he referring. If Iraq is an American âquagmireâ or, as Kerry calls it, âthe wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time,â why would any other nation agree to get involved there in Iraq? If American soldiers are dying in vain in Iraq, what makes Kerry think that the French and the Germans will be willing to send their soldiers to Iraq to die in vain also? What exactly makes Kerry believe that our âalliesâ will take up this cause when they are not even living up to their obligations in Afghanistan, where they were in support of the war against the Taliban from the very beginning? Moreover, the French and Germans have already stated that they will not assist with troops in Iraq.
Kerry is polished⌠but for the life of me, I cannot understand what he intends to do in Iraq.
OK, last one. This is more true than funny⌠but, its funny nonetheless:
I think this is very true. Bush, although not a great public speaker, is clear on his goal and his plan for getting us there. Certainly he has stumbled along the way⌠but, I cannot disagree with his reasoning for going the way he is going.
Kerry, however, still hasnât identified his goal⌠:s
Well, Tigerman, you sure post some interesting shit. Sorry I didnât reply to this or the other thread, was out doing better things. Shame you canât solve your questions yourself-but I know that would require reading some horrid democratic propaganda. Hereâs a website that I encourage you to familiarize yourself with, maybe youâll become less cynical⌠:bravo:
In his remarks, Kerry laid out the steps we must now take. First, the president must secure international support. Second, we must commit to a serious effort to train Iraqi security forces. Third, we must carry out a reconstruction plan that brings benefits to the Iraqi people, and fourth, we must take the necessary steps to hold elections next year.
:s :s :s :s
George Bush had the world on his side going into Afghanistan, and did not finish the job. He isolated US by pushing to a stupid war with Saddam, and then trying to keep all the spoils for US (and Brit.) companies. Every step of the way in Eye-raq theyâve fluffed the job. It will be hard for Kerry to solve the deteriorating situation, but heâs got more chance and world respect than shrub and the rest of this neo-con administration (especially after that silly debate performance by GWB).
Debate-wise, donât be hurt that Kerry got to be less specific than Bush, heâs not the incumbent. Look at Bush in 2000⌠this is how it works.
But unclear on policies? Kerry âwillâ (parentheses required for any candidate for political office)
give health care to children under 3x the poverty level
pay for catastrophic insurance claims to reduce the cost of premiums
offer incentives to companies not to outsource
increase police and emergency responder funds
move to quickly secure nuclear materials in the former soviet union
ramp up port security
TRY to undo the damaging perception of free Iraq as an American satellite state⌠I say try because he will if elected inherit a godawful mess.
He said the last 4 on Thursday and if you tune in next Friday and on the final debate youâll see the rest. This seems to have blindsided a lot of people who were thought that the flipflopping, indecisive, vacillating, Euro-sophisticate wussy liberal John Kerry was not just a Karl Rove invention.
I think the reason for Tigermanâs âdilemmaâ is that itâs essentially impossible for a morally and intellectually honest person to be for either Kerry or Bushâs positions on Iraq.
Thatâs because Bushâs position is intentionally duplicitous and Kerryâs position is calculatedly inconsistent.
I think itâs clear to everyone at this point for example that Kerryâs âsolutionsâ are lighter than air. Bushâs âpositionsâ havenât been given enough real scrutiny yet because when he declares his âplan for victory,â is to âremain strong and resoluteâ â and to âkeep training more Iraqis to take the place of U.S. soldiersâ no one presses him for more details because after the half-assed weapons of mass destruction debacle and the quarter-assed post-invasion âplanningâ no one expects any more follow through from him than that. Thatâs a mistake though. If the Bush Administration has anything, itâs a long-range plan for the rooting of the U.S. military and intelligence apparatus in Iraq.
So almost by definition no supporter can come forward and offer a full and honest defense of their respective positions without giving away the game.
The only opportunity to say anything that rings true is to be an opponent. The problem with that though is weâre all tired to the bone of being told whatâs wrong with our leaders and their proposed solutions. We hunger for someone who can give us believable hope that thereâs a solution to the quagmire we feel ourselves and our nation slipping into.
I mean this is the man that voted against the 1st Gulf War that had an international coalition with UN support and then voted for the 2nd Gulf war that had fuzzy UN legality and a coalition of âthe coerced and bribed.â
It just gets unf^%$ing real sometimes how much of a cocoon the media is in. Kerry has not given one hard hitting interview in months. When asked by Lettermen and John whatshisname about Cambodia he literally ignored the question. Yet read any newspaper and you will see Bush getting hammered daily for anything, while Kerry gets nothing but sweet press about the most innocuous things.
[quote=âComrade Stalinâ]I seem to remember a certain Richard Nixonâs âsecret planâ in 1968 for ending the Vietnam War. And we all know how well that worked.
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo:[/quote]
Luckily for Nixonâs reelection campaign, an October surprise message from then National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger was announced at the end of the Nixon-McGovern campaign that âpeace is at handâ with Vietnam.
[quote=âEEzzee!â]Sorry I didnât reply to this or the other thread, was out doing better things. Shame you canât solve your questions yourself-but I know that would require reading some horrid democratic propaganda. Hereâs a website that I encourage you to familiarize yourself with, maybe youâll become less cynical⌠:bravo:
In his remarks, Kerry laid out the steps we must now take. First, the president must secure international support. Second, we must commit to a serious effort to train Iraqi security forces. Third, we must carry out a reconstruction plan that brings benefits to the Iraqi people, and fourth, we must take the necessary steps to hold elections next year. [/quote]
Yes⌠I know that Kerry asserts he will obtain international support (except in North Korea, where for some unstated reason he believes the US should be acting unilaterally)⌠But, I am asking⌠how does Kerry plan on obtaining international support for the effort in Iraq? Our âalliesâ have already recently stated that they will not at any time send troops to Iraq to die in what Kerry calls âthe wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong placeâ.
And of course we must commit to getting more Iraqis involved in the security of their own nation. Again, the question is what is kerryâs plan for doeing so?
Again, of course we must strive to rebuild Iraq. That is Bushâs plan. I want to know how Kerry proposes to do it more efficiently.
Finally, Bush is committed already to the Iraqi elections in January. Kerry keeps asserting that he can do âbetterâ than Bush. Fine⌠what is his plan? How will he do this differently?
Iâm not cynical, per se. I am only asking the obvious questions that should be considered by anyone who hears Kerry speak.
The job there is on-going. The people of Afghanistan will hold democratic elections in the very near future. Our âalliesâ, who Kerry claims to be able to get on board in Iraq are not even fulfilling their obligations in Afghanistan⌠and they all supported that war. How is Kerry going to get these âalliesâ to assist in Iraq, a war that they did not support?
That isnât true. Some of our âalliesâ had what then appeared to be and now seem clear to have been unscruplous reasons for not backing us in Iraq. Screw them now. Yes, there have been mistaeps and stumbles along the way. But, show me a war that was conducted without any problems or mistakes. Again, Iâd rather stumble along on the right road than walk gracefully along the wrong road.
What respect does Kerry have? I think that is untrue. Our âalliesâ have already stated that they will not help in Iraq. How does Kerry plan to get our âalliesâ to change their minds? And even if our âalliesâ do agree to support our effort in Iraq⌠what will they provide in such support? Troops and money? Dream onâŚ
[quote=âTigermanâ]âŚI think this is very true. Bush, although not a great public speaker, is clear on his goal and his plan for getting us there. Certainly he has stumbled along the way⌠but, I cannot disagree with his reasoning for going the way he is going.
Kerry, however, still hasnât identified his goal⌠:s[/quote]
Couple things. First, I think the greater problem for most Bush supporters, especially supporters who describe themselves as neoconservative supporters of Bush, is less that Kerry âstill hasnât identified his goalâ and more that he doesnât use precisely the language in doing so that the neocons use. Because he doesnât, the neocons worry/fret/fear that it implies he will fail to use American power pre-emptively in all cases. Note that during the debate Kerry stated unequivocally that he would not hesitate to use preemptive military force if he decided that doing so was warranted.
He further stated that his decision may be subjected to a âglobal testâ, and I am arguing that this language - global test - is what the neocons object to far more than the real idea. After all, by appearing before the UN and in his appeals to Old Europe allies recently, Bush is retroactively applying the same global test to which Kerry refers. IOW, I believe Kerryâs global test infers that, if passed, it necessarily implies that significant global resources will be forthcoming in the effort. Again, Bushâs recent appeals to Old Europe lead me to conclude that both he and his neocon supporters actually (now) agree with Kerryâs true meaning of a âglobal testâ.
As far as Iraq goes, I think things are so bad there today - thanks to Bush - that no one may be able to salvage Bushâs putative goals there. And I donât mean to limit the choice to Kerry or Bush, either. I mean that the situation in Iraq may be so bad that nobody in the world could defuse growing global terrorism by establishing a democratic government there. However, if either candidate can act to establish democracy in Iraq, it sure as hell ainât Bush. Bush has clearly shown heâs less than interested in doing so (because heâs obviously less than fully engaged with the situation in Iraq). To the extent neocons fault Kerry on Iraq, then, itâs a non-issue because Kerry is the only valid choice between the two.
Second, I think youâre missing the greater significance of the first debate. You seem to conclude that Kerryâs accomplishment (singular) in that debate is limited to establishing that heâs the more polished debater of the two. I honestly canât tell whether you really believe that or are politicking, but either way youâre incorrect.
Kerryâs accomplishments were these:[ul]1. He showed that he could act like a President (no small feat after what Bush had hit him with over the past 60 days and $200 million)
2. Kerryâs share of undecided voters is now growing, instead of shrinking. Largely thatâs because while Kerry provided answers about his candidacy (does he look/act with presidential gravitas, and âare the Bush charges true or falseâ), Bush provided questions about his own candidacy.[/ul]
Itâs a nuanced analysis, for sure, but I believe Iâm right.
âUnequivicallyâ? Surely you jest? Kerry stated that before he would use pre-emptive force he would need to have passed some âglobal testâ of validity. As I asked previously⌠who will approve our use of pre-emptive force? The Chinese? The French? The Germans? Iran? Syria? Myanmar? Columbia? WHO?
No way. The goal now is clean-up and nation-building. The goal that Bush did not leave up to a âglobal testâ was that of the right to use pre-emptive force.
What global resourses would those be?
Moreover, whether the other nations agree that the war was justified or not, surely they ought to be able to justify assisting the Iraqi people with clean-up and nation-building. They are not even attempting any such justification⌠Heck, they are not even doing what they said they would do in Afghanistan, where they said they supported our war. The appeal to support from our âalliesâ is both hollow and useless.
No. Again, the âglobal testâ that Kerry proposed is in regard to the use of pre-emptive force. Bush already showed and has stated since that he would not seek global permission to protect the US with pre-emptive force. Kerry was not referring to reconstruction when he raised his idea of a âglobal testâ
I think one could actually look at the situation and conclude that the islamofacists are losing. The Taliban has been whipped and elections will be held in Afghanistan soon. Pakistan is no longer safe fo al Qaeda. Saddam Hussien is gone and thus will never be able to cooperate with and or support terrorists again. Libya has seen the light. Syria is wary. Iran is under international scrutiny. The palestinians are in worse shape than ever. Iraq is critical for the terrorists⌠thus they fight and use barbaric tactics. They are desperate. We need to keep the pressure on⌠not talk, like Kerry, of leaving the problem to the world⌠if we leave the mes to the world⌠nothing but bad will happen. See how the world deals with the Sudan?
The whole idea of bringing democracy to the middle east is Bushâs idea. It is a novel idea, and it is Bushâs idea. I donât see how you can claim otherwise. For the better part of two years the Bushwhackers have been ridiculing Bush for this novel idea of planting the seeds of democracy in the middle east. Now, as the people of Afghanistan prepare to cast their vots for the first time, as Iraq prepares for elections in January, and as Bush continues to endorse a democratic Palestine⌠you want to assert that Bush is not engaged in the spread of democracyâŚ???
I watched the debate and read the transcript. You can accuse me of politicking (like noone else is)⌠but, can you answer my questions regarding Kerryâs utter lack of substance?
So have plenty of hollywood actors in recent years (and no, I am not refferring to Reagan)⌠I mean, how many movies and TV shows have actors play the role of POTUS? So what? They are not qualified just because they can act well.
And the Kerry campaign has spent nothing on attacking Bush??? And the likes of CBS havenât tried to assist Kerry (for free)???
The only poll that counts is the one on election day. So, Kerry proved that he can act. Thatâs good. Maybe after he loses he can get a job in Hollywood or on Broadway.
[quote=âOkamiâ]
It just gets unf^%$ing real sometimes how much of a cocoon the media is in. Kerry has not given one hard hitting interview in months. [/quote]
Tell me youâre being funny! Or is this another âKerry must not be compared with Bush, simply nitpicked in a vacuumâ thread? :no-no:
Pretend youâre President Bush and you can rebut Kerry in the debate (you must be doing this in your living rooms already!) - how would you reply when Kerry said âI made a mistake in talking about Iraq. The president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?â I thought that was a pretty good point, and a brilliantly concise phrasing of it. Somebody is on the hook for Iraq, and it isnât Kerry.
Watch the video and see him taking out and unfolding notes.[/quote]
lol. hillarious. there are hundreds of millions of people watching you from every angle. how can you think youâre gonna get away with something as idiotic as bringing in notes?
Kerry should also be on the hook. Bush failed during the debate to focus on one of Kerryâs real shortcomings, i.e., Kerry voted for a war, then failed to support it. Bush can rightfully criticize Kerry for voting for $87 billion in troop funding before he voted against it. Even worse than that, however, is the fact that Kerry withheld his support for the spending bill after he said that it would be reckless and âirresponsibleâ to vote against it.
During the debate, Kerry stated that he made a mistake in how he âtalks about the war,â but "Bush made a mistake in invading Iraq. Kerry then asked, which is worse?
If this is so, then Bush should have retorted that Kerryâs thinking the war was a mistake, but voting for it anyway is even worseâŚ
step right up, hear all about it, get your latest news from The Drudgereport! :bravo: my comment? letâs see how the Kerry camp responds to this, the vidâs too inconclusive, but is unusual. Maybe itâs a handkerchief.
Tigerman: I try to make it a habit not to surf the internet too long, so will just give you a short reply-which is less than you deserve given your somewhat smart & verbose posts.
You state that Germany/France etc wonât help. I would like to point out that all were willing to give help for Afghanistan, but after the war was won, Bush bungled the peace-when he could have led an international effort to reform the country (opium production is higher than ever, etc. etc). The world-and the US Senate, were willing (but not at all keen) to be dragged along to put pressure on Iraq. They predominantely disagreed with the arguments Bush was making, but he used the momentum of support from 9/11 to get his neo-con goal. He squandered all the goodwill. Remember the worldwide protests of millions of people? Then, when the war was won, Bushies greedily tried to play winner takes all. But theyâve mismanaged the âpeaceâ.
My point is that the world still wants to respect and support America. The world needs a strong, moral and responsible America leading the way. At the moment the world is leaving detested cowboy Bush to his own devices to sink or swim, but Kerry is a new face, and will be seen as a new chance. He has a ton of good ideas, and should be able to get major countries from Nato and the UN involved in urgent efforts to try to salvage the peace. He can lead morally, intelligently, coherently, and will share development contracts with other nations. The resources they will provide? Money, troops, training of Iraqis, management and legitimacy of the election planning.
Iraq is only one of several areas where the US is seen as failing itâs obligations as leader and global partnerâŚ
[color=blue]When Bush says Kerry heard the same intelligence he did and came to the same conclusions I know that Kerry, like the rest of us, heard this part:[/color]
âSpeaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September (2002), Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had âirrefutable evidenceâ - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminumâ in its possession that it had seized in Jordan on their way to Iraq to be used in clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges.
[color=blue]But I always find myself wondering if he heard this part too:[/color]
âBut almost a year before (September, 2002), Ms. Riceâs staff had been told that the governmentâs foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.â
[color=blue]Or this part:[/color]
"Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of Americaâs leading nuclear scientists . . . "
[color=blue]Or this part:[/color]
âThey worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.â
[color=blue]Or my personal favorite part:[/color]
"Yes, it was theoretically possible (for the aluminum tubes to be retrofitted for use in a centrifuge), but as an Energy Department analyst later told Senate investigators, it was also theoretically possible to âturn your new Yugo into a Cadillac.â
[color=blue]Did Kerry really hear the full story and come to the same conclusions that Bush did? If he did, then Kerry has a credibility problem of major proportions. If he didnât really hear the full truth, then Bush is, simply put, lying.[/color]
I appreciate your replies⌠most do not reply at all.
Well, they are not living up to their committments in Afghanistan, where they supported the war. What makes kerry believe that they will be supportive in Iraq, where they opposed the war? Moreover, both the French and Germans have recently stated, presumably in response to Kerryâs statements, that they will not send troops to Iraq ever.
I think you are mixing two different issues here. Yes, our allies opposed the war in Iraq. But such opposition to war is not, IMO, valid justification to refuse support now. And letâs not forget, the UN left after being in Iraq only a very short time⌠and where is the international support with the Iraqi elections? Why should our âalliesâ refuse support for Iraqi elections, even if they opposed the war? These folks are not going to help⌠and I donât understand how it is that Kerry doesnât understand this.
Again, that was a different issue. That was opposition to the invasion. That is a different and separate issue from support for Iraqi reconstruction. I can understand (though I disagree with) opposition to the war⌠but I cannot excuse refusal to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq.
I think there were valid reasons for shutting some nations out of the bidding (and non-bidding) process. But, I agree that the peace has in many instances been mismanaged. But, that is not a valid justification, IMO, for refusing to assist at this point in time with the reconstruction of Iraqi infrastructure and society. In any event, there indeed have been a number of successes in Iraq⌠largely ignored by the press.
I donât agree with that statement. France, for one, does not want to see an unipolar US-led world. That fact explains much more to me the French unwillingness to support the US efforts than any accusation of US unilateralism. The French have been playing this game for years. Iâm amazed that this seems to elude kerryâs intellectual grasp.
As Iâve pointed out, the world does not want to help. They are not even helping as they promised in Afghanistan.
And if Bush is to be criticized for acting unilaterally (which is a false accusation), then why does kerry want to scrap the coalition of Russia, Japan, South Korea and most importantly China in dealing with North Korea? Thatâs a fairly substantial contradiction in philosophy, IMO.
Again, you guys are apparently not listening to what is being said by our âalliesâ and nor are you looking at the facts of their failure to come thru on their committments in Afghanistan.
And Kerry has been anything but coherent in articulating his plan. We still havenât a clue as to how he is going to do what he says he can do.
The world does not want the US to lead⌠except with troops and money for projects that meet the âglobal testâ. Iâm not concerned particularly with global opinion when it comes to the issue of US security. And I cannot understand why Kerry seems to crave global approval for US actions. Do we need to have Chinaâs approval before we act in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act?
Ever try to plan an activity for a large group of people?
step right up, hear all about it, get your latest news from The Drudgereport! :bravo: my comment? letâs see how the Kerry camp responds to this, the vidâs too inconclusive, but is unusual. Maybe itâs a handkerchief. [/quote]EEzzeeâŚat least you show consistencyâŚ
The video clearly shows the scenario being discussed. Comments were made immediately after the âdebateâ that Kerrys responses were too quick and too trite to be spontaneous. Is this related to what is shown in this video? Good question.
The text at the website shows 2 Kerry camp non-responses. That is called âarrogance.â
As for your comment about The DrudgeReport website - He doesnât make the news, he just scoops everyone else with his sourcing. Is he perfect? NoâŚbut then again, heâs no Dan RatherâŚlol
And as for that spanking you just received from TigermanâŚIn the words of someone who was probably one of your heroes and moral role modelsâŚâYou better put some ice on that!â
:bravo:
