September 30, 2004
Reliable Principles, or Reliable Words?
When the San Francisco Chronicle combed through 200 of Kerry’s speeches and statements on Iraq, it found instances of “clumsy phrases and tortuously long explanations” that made Kerry’s position difficult to follow. But it also found that “taken as a whole, Kerry has offered the same message ever since talk of attacking Iraq became a national conversation more than two years ago.”Factcheck.org- The “Willie Horton” Ad Of 2004?
Sometimes, John Kerry can be hard to follow. But what if the problem with Kerry's position is not that he takes so many, but that he sees them differently than most of us?
"Since 1996, the John Kerry who once opposed the Apache helicopter and wanted to cut Tomahawk cruise-missile funds by 50% has evolved into a steady supporter of military budgets."It's true that Kerry voted against the entire Pentagon appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995, and also voted against the Pentagon authorization bill (which provides authority to spend but not the actual money) in 1996. But in his nearly 20 years in the Senate Kerry has voted for Pentagon budgets far more often than he's opposed them, and hasn't voted against one for the past eight years.
Eight years, no arguments with the pentagon budgets. There are kids in second grade now who weren't even born when Kerry last voted against a Pentagon Budget. There are kids in third grade who weren't born when he last supported an intelligence cut. And guess what it had bipartisan support. You see at that time, we discovered that the CIA was saving back one billion dollars in unspent money. The cuts basically gutted a slush fund. Kerry supported previous cuts, but those cuts were small in relation to the CIA's total budget, post-cold war, and part of a deficit fighting measure.
Factcheck also states that in order to allege inconsistencies in Kerry's other statements, Bush's people had to "edit Kerry's quotes egregiously out of context to make Kerry look inconsistent". The link is there, you'll find the full text of what Kerry really said.
Why is Kerry vulnerable to this? Kerry's manner to me seems quite familiar. It's my own, in many ways. Sometimes, explanations can get long-winded, go nowhere, digress. Catch me at an off moment, and I might contradict myself in a literal sense. But if you were to say I didn't have consistent opinions, actually, you'd be quite wrong. I can be a stickler for rules, for regularity, and I can be quite strong in my beliefs.
Appearances can be deceiving. Somebody listening to Bush now, might think he's consistent. But listen to him six months before, and you'll fall out of your chair in shock. Between two State of the Union Addresses, WMD stockpiles become WMD related program activities. From actual weapons, to board meetings, hidden vials, and plans that aren't being carried out. Big difference, especially when you go in accusing somebody of hiding something, claiming you're invading to disarm Iraq.
Between when this war started and where we are now, Bush went from saying that we were fighting this war so that a Mushroom cloud wouldn't become the smoking gun of Saddam and Osama's shared capabilities to saying that we did it because Saddam was simply a bad man who need to go. The difference? One explanation, if maintained from the start, would have justified a war, the other would have kept things status quo.
The Substance of Kerry's beliefs on Iraq has never really changed. Laid out it goes something like this:
1. Saddam deserved to be deposed.
2. The way he was deposed was important to not having dictatorship return or Chaos some about.
3. Given the case the executive branch delivered to congress, he believe he was right to vote to authorize the president to use force on the condtion that he fulfill certain requirments.
4. The facts of that case have since fallen apart, and knowing what he does now, Kerry would not have had us go to war.
5. In addition to his failure to provide an accurate picture of conditions on the ground, Bush compounded his intelligence failure by willfully circumventing the UN violating the spirit if not the letter of the authorization which required he exhaust his UN remedies and let the inspections become complete.
6. To top it off, Bush failed to prepared properly before the war for what would be one of the most complicated military endeavors any army can take on- an occupation. He let certain advisors run roughshod over the process, and as a result, we went in there with false expectations and insufficient organization and funds to start the Occupation off well. This mistake has had massive repercussions.
7. Faced with the consequences of his actions, Bush's strategy has been to essentially to pump sunshine up America's collective rear end concerning the war, even about the obviously escalating violence. The president, according to Kerry, should be more honest with people concerning this.
8. He would prefer we finish the job in Iraq as quick as we can, and not draw out the occupation, but if it requires more soldiers, more of one thing or another, we should be willing to do what's necessary.
9. We must win this war.
10. We must bring in international help to alleviate burdens.
11. We must refocus our efforts back onto al-Qaeda and start winning the real battles in the war on terror.
12. We must do what it takes to train the Iraqi police and military to defend their own country, even if it involves taking them to another country.
More or less, that's the bulk of it. Where are the contradictions? It's not simple, but since when has politics here or abroad ever been that simple?
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2004 12:27 AMStephen,
Very informative article. Yes, Kerry and others have been consistent on what is needed to be done in Iraq.
What I would like to see in Congress to start speaking out as they have had to take charge of addressing the policies that Bush’s administration is following. Anyone who has took the time to watch the House & Senate Committee Public Hearings over last year has an idea of just how poorly Bush has ensured the execution of his orders. As well as has little idea of what we can expect in the coming months.
No, our own 24/7/365 “News Media” has falling prey to their own glory. What started out as a why to keep up with the facts, CNN Headlines and the rest of the news has turned into the jounarlists that they make fun of. Today, the main media has replaced Hollywood with their very own “News Stars” where bashing the latest “Hot Topic” or person is made into a cirus. Spending 24 hours on the same topic while only providing their on spin on the subject has become an art. Fox News has set this new standard which is sounding more like “Max, the Talking Head of the 80’s.” In fact, John Stewart is a more popular and believable news outlet than the best of the cable networks.
If Kerry and Edwards loses it will not be the fault that they have not made a firm case about Bush’s irresponsible handling of the White House. No the media gaints can take pleasure in whatever happens to this nation.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 30, 2004 02:33 AMStephen:
You articulate this so well that perhaps it is YOU who should be running for office instead of Kerry. Part of being a public figure is being able to coherently explain your positions. Kerry is guilty of either waffling on his positions or being incrediblyinarticulate in explaining them, even to his own party.
I take issue with points 4 and 5. Kerry has said that knowing what he now knows, he both would have fought this war, and that he would NOT have fought this war. Gotta be one or the other—-no nuance here.
Point 5: In addition to his failure to provide an accurate picture of conditions on the ground, Bush compounded his intelligence failure…
We know that intelligence was flawed. We know that our information was inaccurate. And we know that you blame George Bush for this, despite the fact that the information was gathered over a period of months and years, even prior to his administration.
A simple fact that you have been unwilling or unable to address is that Senator John Kerry served on the Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC), charged with reviewing and monitoring US intelligence.
Senator John Kerry missed 76% of the SIC public meetings, yet has the temerity to now complain about how badly our intelligence services were informed. When Kerry had the opportunity and the responsibility to make necessary changes, he shirked his duties to this important committee. He did nothing—-in fact, he did worse than nothing. He allowed the perception that our intel services were doing a good job to spread.
Stephen, I understand your unwillingness to engage on this central point. I’ve brought it up numerous times for you to respond. Its a tough issue to respond to. The facts are clear.
1) Kerry had the responsibility for 8 years (1993-2001) to monitor our intelligence services.
2) Kerry missed 76% of the public meetings, and has refused to say how many of the private meetings he missed.
3) When something could have been done to change our intelligence gathering agencies, the person appointed to do so (John Kerry) failed to do anything, even go to meetings.
Thats a harsh list of facts to get past, when someone is running for President.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 30, 2004 08:21 AMIwant to say that George Bush is responsible foe all that has happened. He is in charge and has to be understand that. Infact I have always known that John Kerry had one position My family has always voted Republican but this time we are voting for Kerry. Poeple continue to talk about Kerry’s record in the in life. He a record for fighting the right battles. Can Bush tell us what he achieved before his becoming a governor.
On Iraq the president and his people has called every one who asks any question a non patriot.
This was the same that was played on the Germans during the Nazis rule. The eason given for going th war was WMD. When that failed, he came up with the idea of Saddam’s record as a brutal dictator. When that did not hold water he came up with spreading democracy. and now he is called to spread freedom. Can somebody tell me when Bush told the American people that he going into Iraq to spread Democracy in the middle east.
chu
Posted by: Chu Kochu at September 30, 2004 10:12 AMKerry has said that knowing what he now knows, he both would have fought this war, and that he would NOT have fought this war.
That’s the first I’ve heard of that, joe. Could you provide a link?
As far as I can tell, Kerry said, knowing what he knows now, he would still have voted to give the president the authority to invade if necessary. I never heard him say he’d have invaded Iraq knowing there were no WMD.
Joe,
You keep trotting out this factoid about intelligence meetings as if it is the key to the Kerry presidency. What do you think this actually tells us? Do you really think that Kerry is going to ignore intelligence meetings now?
We also know that Bush ignored warnings about Al Qaeda attacking the US before 9/11. Should we conclude that Bush will screw up again, or does this reasoning only apply to Kerry?
Part of being a public figure is being able to coherently explain your positions.
Your party is one to talk about incoherent public speaking. Wasn’t Bush the guy who was talking about something like gynecologists practicing their special kind of love on their patients? At least Kerry sounds intelligent.
Speaking of intelligence I think you make an error in your logic. You don’t know why Kerry missed those meetings, you don’t know how well he served at those meetings. You don’t know how important those meetings were. You can repeat that one fact again and again, but you don’t know what was or wasn’t done because he missed those meetings.
First of all, nobody objected enough to censure him for his non-attendance. You haven’t even established what the average attendance for committee members was. I mean, if most people only showed up for half the committee meetings, then a quarter isn’t that bad. On the other hand, if you can prove that the others were far more consistent about their attendance, that would go a long way towards proving your argument.
We know that intelligence was flawed. We know that our information was inaccurate. And we know that you blame George Bush for this, despite the fact that the information was gathered over a period of months and years, even prior to his administration.
The Bush administration didn’t passively accept this information, they sought it out. It was their intention to prove Iraq a worthy target. They would grasp for straws, knowingly including information that had questions of authenticity and reliability attached to them.
They believed they knew the answer. But history tells us all leaders are fallible, and that is a fact that the Bush administration seems never to have made peace with. They chose to fight against the checks and balances typically in place to prevent such debacles, overriding or circumventing them in their impatience to go out there and do what they believed had to be done.
I take issue with points 4 and 5. Kerry has said that knowing what he now knows, he both would have fought this war, and that he would NOT have fought this war. Gotta be one or the other—-no nuance here.
False dilemma. There’s no nuance there: Facts support this war, we go to war. Facts don’t support this war, we keep our troops, our treasure and our reputation for the fights that really need fighting. It is your side that has nuanced itself out of following that simple principle.
Joe, you nitpick at these minor matters of intelligence committee attendance and ambiguities about one incident in or near Cambodia, but you let pass your administration’s substantial and public errors in this war.
What Kerry wants is what all Americans want: somebody to be straight with us about this war, to tell us the hard truths about the fights we face, and not treat us like a bunch of Kindergarteners who will burst into tears if not told everything’s fine.
In The Siege, Denzel Washington’s character speaks to a press conference about terrorist attacks on the city and reassures them by saying “We’re New Yorkers, we can take it.” Well, I’ll say this: We’re Americans. We can take the difficult truth. We’re not as sheeplike as some foreign countries would like to believe, unable to handle stress, unwilling to confront their fellow citizens on the issues. This campaign, ugly as it is, is heartening to me, because nobody’s simply becoming submissive and moving along in a herd. The contention in this election is the result of people thinking long and hard about the facts and the issues, and that fact makes me very proud to be an American.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2004 12:06 PMCHU: I would like to see or hear exactley when and where Bush called those people non patriots. That would be a great fact to pass along.
If you believe in what kerry stands for, then I am afraid you have been wasting your vote in the past by voting Republican. You can’t actually believe the lefts myth of “tax cuts for the wealthy” and still have voted for Republicans in the past.
You said Bush is in charge and is responsible and should not be re-elected. I totally agree with you. But then again, I also thought that when the first WTC bombing, OK. City and the murder of innocent people in Waco occurred, that clinton was in charge and was responsible and should not have been re-elected either.
> Kerry has said that knowing what he now
> knows, he both would have fought this war
I second AP’s astonishment at this statement. When in the world has Kerry ever said this? Where did you get this information?
I already know the answers: “Never”, and “From the GOP lie machine”.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 30, 2004 01:36 PMkctim-
Clinton didn’t order Waco, he didn’t order the terrorists to attack us at Oklahoma City or the WTC. Bush did direct his people to gather intelligence implicating Iraq in the war on terror, encouraged them to make it as scary as they could, then sent us to war undermanned and underprepared. Now he denies that the problems there need addressing. Bush has more culpability for Iraq than anything Clinton was involved in.
The Pelican File
Complete debate coverage from all major U.S. newspapers: www.pelicanfile.com
SD: I wasn’t trying to stir anything up with my comment. I just think everyone should look at the good and bad of both sides with an open mind. When the same people who made clinton a saint and voted for him in 96, sit around and criticize Bush for every little thing today, I think it is wrong.
Bush is totally responsible for Iraq. But to say he set out to implicate Iraq and lied, is heresay.
Reno ordered Waco on clintons behalf. But to say he wanted to kill innocent people is heresay.
The same people who condemned Bosnia are now shrugging off Iraq.
The same people who shrugged off Bosnia, are now condemning Iraq.
It’s no longer a right or wrong thing, it’s now a who did it thing.
This “my party at all cost” thing, is what has turned our country upside down.
I don’t think you’ll ever get the kind of consistency out of people that you want, kctim. People change their minds. People come at things from biased perspective. To me the only way to bridge partisan perspectives is to rely on the evidence. As much as splitting the difference might seem fair in an abstract sense, I think it is ultimately untenable as a position in regards to the facts. The facts will never balance so neatly between two different sides. one side will be more wrong than the other. And the side that is most correct will have to deal with the errors of their thought and minimize those. There is no party that is right by nature.
Both sides need to remain cogniscent of the facts and take approaches that don’t run counterfactual. True balance exists in all sides being accountable for their deeds. The trouble is, as I see it, is that the Republican party has done a poor job of watchdogging their people. It has mattered more to them that the “right” people be in office than that the right things get done. I hope Democrats, when the tide is turned, will do a better job of keeping their politicians in line.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2004 03:25 PM> The same people who condemned Bosnia
> are now shrugging off Iraq.
> The same people who shrugged off
> Bosnia, are now condemning Iraq.
By “Bosnia” I assume you mean the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia and the much more substantial and more controversial (to Clinton’s opponents) NATO military actions in Kosovo. Anyway, it’s an interesting observation, although there are some on the far left (pacifists) and the far right (isolationists) who oppose both equally.
My take on the distinction will probably appear to fit right into your image of it as a partisan issue. But I’ll come out and say it: I think that the Republicans are the ones who are the hypocrites. The Kosovo action was broadly supported by our allies, unquestionably honest and unambiguous about its intentions and goals, and was an indisputable success. The Iraq War is not broadly supported by our allies, is highly questionable and ambiguous about its mission and goals, and has yet to be put demonstrably on track to being called a success.
Republican condemnations of the Kosovo action were framed in ways that were philosophically diametrically opposed to basic Republican doctrine: they said, in a complete flip-flop from positions the GOP had held under Reagan/BushI, and that they now hold again under BushII, that the US isn’t the world’s policeman, that nation-building is wrong and wasteful, that even a handful of American soldiers’ deaths were a failure, etc. Yet the Democrats’ condemnations of the Iraq War have not been inconsistent with basic Democratic doctrines at all: we think that international alliances, treaties, and conventions are highly valuable; we think that war is a last resort, not a foreign policy instrument; that transparent government is good even if it weakens the power of the cheif executive, that discussion and engagement with current and potential enemies should be vigorous, etc.
Put it this way: The (not-purely-partisan) reasons why so many Republicans condemned the Kosovo actions are still a mystery to almost everyone to this day, while the (not-purely-partisan) reasons why so many Democrats oppose the Iraq War are pretty clear.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 30, 2004 04:04 PMStephen wrote:
> 4. The facts of that case have since fallen
> apart, and knowing what he does now, Kerry
> would not have had us go to war.
Joe wrote:
> I take issue with points 4 and 5. Kerry has said
> that knowing what he now knows, he … would
> have fought this war…
Joe, I’m going to explain this one to you. First, let’s also look at another point that Stephen made:
> 3. Given the case the executive branch delivered
> to congress, he believe he was right to vote to
> authorize the president to use force on the condtion
> that he fulfill certain requirments.
Kerry has said that, knowing what he knows now, he would not have changed his vote for the October 2002 Congressional Resolution giving the President the power to go to war. He has also said that, knowing what he knows now, he would not have actually gone to war. You, of course, perceive this as a contradiction. It is not:
First, we need to realize that the question (“If you knew in 2002 that Saddam had no WMDs, would you have supported the October 2002 Resolution?”) is a ludicrous hypothetical: If the whole world indeed knew positively (as we do now) that Saddam had no WMDs in 2002, then there would not have been a Congressional Resolution - Bush wouldn’t have had the political foundation to have gone that far. It’s also ludicrous because the only way we could have known that Saddam didn’t have WMDs was to re-institute the inspections. The hypothetical naturally assumes that American intelligence “got it right”, and was reporting unambiguously that Saddam was 100% WMD free. This hypothetical is obviously quite a leap.
So let’s change and clarify the question a little so that it’s actually something more reasonable:
“If American intelligence agencies in 2002 were saying that they were fairly certain that Saddam had no WMDs, but we weren’t totally sure, and the rest of the world wasn’t totally sure either, would you have supported the October 2002 Resolution?”
Under such a scenario, why would Kerry still have voted for the October Resolution? Because the point of giving the power to the President to go to war was to get Saddam to submit to the inspections. Even if Kerry knew with reasonable certainly (again, presumably from intelligence reports) that Saddam was WMD-free, only international inspections would work to make the world 100% certain.
Some would argue that the invasion was the only way to make it 100% certain. I’m not so sure that’s true: in light of the inadequate planning and manpower for the post-invasion violence and insurgencies, it seems fairly obvious now that if Saddam did have lots of WMDs, the invasion would almost certainly have resulted in some portion of them being “lost” right into the hands of terrorists.
The best and wisest strategy in October 2002 was to give the President the power to invade Iraq, which Kerry did, then to allow the President to use that power to pressure Saddam into submitting to inspections. The President did so, and I commend him for it. Then, if Saddam resisted (which he did not) or became belligerent in the face of the international and US pressure (which he did not), then the President would have the authority and flexibility to launch an attack.
Of course, all of the above presumes that the President is extremely wise and trustworthy. He has proven to be neither. Bush attacked despite the resoundingly successful resumption of the weapons inspections. This is exactly the point where Kerry and Bush diverge. Kerry’s actions and words are totally clear about this: He supported every single basic Bush Administration policy regarding Iraq right up until the very moment Bush decided to go to war. That’s where Bush’s view leaves the realm of wisdom and honesty and enters the world of recklessness and arrogance. This is precisely the case for why Kerry would make a vastly superior president to Mr. Bush: his consistency, wisdom, and honesty.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 30, 2004 04:56 PMSD: I know it is all a pipe dream and will probably get alot worse. I don’t want to vote for Bush, but (IMHO) the idea of kerry in charge is even scarrier.
I just wish the Democrats would choose a democrat to run for president.
Cf: By Bosnia, I meant Bosnia and Kosovo. Thousands died in the name of that peacekeeping mission.
The mass graves with hundreds of thousands of people in them still have not been found.
The WMD stockpiles still have not been found.
Thousands of civilians have died in Iraq.
Thousands of civilians died in the bombings.
See, its tit for tat. Over and over again.
When people start making excuses to justify their candidates actions, and then criticize every move of the opposition, with no chance that the opposition may just be right, we end up with leaders like we have today.
> The mass graves with hundreds of thousands
> of people in them still have not been found.
That may be true, but the existence of mass graves was never given as a reason for the Kosovo war. The reason was to stop the killing (that was actually starting to occur) from becoming like Bosnia, where mass graves certainly existed. And we did stop the killing. Part of the necessity of the Kosovo conflict was to make up for Europe’s (and the US’s) silence and inaction during the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian ethnic cleansings in the early 1990s. The war was entirely justified, and I still haven’t heard an argument against it that wasn’t based on either American partisanship, pacifism, isolationism, or Serbian nationalism.
I also fear that your argument heads down a slippery slope to suggest that neither side is ever right, that all wars are good, and that no criticism of a war is ever valid. The reality is that some wars are bad and some are good. We must feel free to take a stand on the justification for any given war without being afraid of being accused of being partisan. I deeply believe in my views, and I have not ever changed my mind because of who happens to be in office.
If you think that Democrats are equally guilty of hypocrisy in praising or condemning America’s military engagements as Republicans are, make the case. The record of GOP hypocrisy regarding this is vast, and it goes right to the tippy top: We now know that the man who said the following in the 2000 Presidential debates was not saying what he actually beleived, but instead he was merely attacking the sound policies of the Administration he wanted to replace:
“I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war; that’s what it’s meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops.”
…
“I’m going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious. “
…
“I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it’s got to be… I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you.”
> When people start making excuses to justify
> their candidates actions, and then criticize
> every move of the opposition, with no chance
> that the opposition may just be right, we end
> up with leaders like we have today.
You’ll notice in my previous post that I do not criticise every move of President Bush’s Administration. I praise their decision to amass troops on the Iraqi border in late 2002 and I praise their resounding success in re-instituting aggressive UN weapons inspections in early 2003.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 30, 2004 05:40 PMStephen,
It looks like a list of twelve different positions on Iraq to me.
Kerry has zigged and zagged and no amount of counterspin will ever be able to blow enough smoke to hide that fact.
Face it, Kerry will say anything to get elected. Unfortunately for him, he doesn’t have the ability a Bill Clinton does to keep his spin straight. What’s worse than being inarticulate is being able to say one thing to one group on one day and then saying something else entirely on another.
Emblematic of the kind of outright abuse, in the name of nuance, of the human language Kerry has been engaged in, is this instance where Kerry told an audience in Detriot that he has lots of SUV’s, then he told an audience on Earth day that he didn’t own any SUV’s. Which then morphed into his famliy owning the SUV’s not him. Kerry is a politician. A very lazy one.
This is exactly what Kerry has done on Iraq. For the war— voted for it. But then later is against the war. Then says he didn’t vote for the war, he was really voting for ‘more inspections’ and, uh, for more multilateralsim… yeah that’s what it was.
“George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)
CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am — Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04) georgebush.com
Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 30, 2004 11:24 PM
You know the old stories, Boy meets girl boy falls in love with girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back?
Bush sells a war on information that’s dubious. People find out just how dubious that information is. Problems arise and escalate with that war, compounding the problems of legitimacy. That’s the through line of the general public
Kerry’s through-line, the spine of his story is one of a betrayal. I supported the war when I thought you were shooting straight with me, but now that I’ve found out differently, and all this has happened, I can no longer support your version of the war.
That story of betrayal is one Kerry has in common with many Americans. Except the president asked Kerry to give him the choice to go to war.
Kerry has one story. Bush has had many. Bush just finds it easier to repeat himself often enough to make each one seem like the only one.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 1, 2004 12:30 AM
