September 30, 2004
Spins and Damn Spins
First off, thanks to Stephen for his post Reliable Principles, or Reliable Words?. The article he quotes is actually one of several recent ones that look past the spin and actually look at what Kerry has said about Iraq, and guess what, they all come to the same conclusion: Kerry has been completely consistent in his views on the current Iraq war. Personally, after I done my homework, I was sort of surprised at this conclusion. I mean, everyone knows Kerry's "flip-flopped" on Iraq---I figured somewhere along the line he must have actually changed positions, somehow. But apparently not.The first piece I've seen analyze Kerry's history of statements was a Slate article from August 12 titled Would Kerry Vote Today for the Iraq War? No.. This one summarizes the Kerry statements that were collected in a 12 minute video compiled by the RNC, looks at the quotes in context, and produced a summary that looks a lot like Stephen's, noting at each point in the summary that there are no contradictions, and no changes in position. A later piece in Slate concludes: "Disagree with Kerry's reasoning if you want, call him ambivalent or even unclear, but you can't say that he's been inconsistent or that he flip-flopped." Also, FactCheck.Org has a story Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq, which has the summary:
Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that he, as President, would not have gone to war without greater international support. But a Bush ad released Sept. 27 takes many of Kerry's words out of context to make him appear to be alternately praising the war and condemning it.
These are not partisan articles. William Saletan, the author of the first Slate piece, doesn't sound at all like a Kerry supporter: e.g., at the end of the article he includes a Kerry quote which he says "gave the RNC more comic material" and contains "endless, backside-covering nuance". Chris Suellentrop, the author of the second Slate piece, spends a paragraph arguing that Kerry's current position does contradict the position he took for Gulf I. But both of them acknowledge the basic consistency of Kerry's position on Gulf II, which Saletan summarizes as: compliance, inspections, skepticism, process.
Meanwhile, Kerry's non-existent "flip-flops" on Iraq are the heart of Bush's current campaign (which I now summarize as: look out, if you elect Kerry the terrorists will get you!) Leave aside the 527's: Bush himself is cracking jokes about this ("Kerry could have a 90 minute debate with himself!") and distributing an online game called "Kerry's Flip Flop Olympics".
So, here are some discussion questions for the Red Storm (that must surely be rising in response).
1. Is taking a candidate out of context in this way misleading?
2. Does Bush know that he's being misleading, or is this the result of faulty intelligence?
3. On what issues is it right (not effective now, I mean morally right) for a sitting President to deliberately mislead the country? His opponent's views? His own views? His own plans?
4. Why did Bush and his campaign strategists decide to waste our time
with childish name-calling, and obscure the issues to the extent that
we need stories in Slate (for God's sake) to straighten them out? Why
not just open up an open debate about the disagreements that he and
Kerry actually have on Iraq?
Posted by William Cohen at September 30, 2004 05:00 PM
I don’t think that Kerry has flip-flopped… for that to happen he would have to take a position!
The problem with Kerry and Iraq is that he is playing monday morning quarterback, saying ‘look at all the things that have been done wrong’, and many things we have done post-invasion have been mistakes. But he does not offer up what HE would have done instead with any substance, rather he just says ‘I would have done better’.
I’m sorry, that just isn’t good enough.
“We need to change direction.”
“We are failing.”
“We are going down the wrong path.”
All of these things are nice and do portray a feeling that many people feel, but what is the RIGHT path? How do we know which path is right and how do we know that Kerry knows which path that is?
He says that if he were elected in 2000 then we would not be in Iraq now. What does that mean? Whould have have let the sanctions continue, thousands of Iraqis dying under a murderous regiem each day while supporting terror groups and allowing them save haven? Would they have just picked up stakes from Afghanistan and moved into Baghdad? Would have have done something else that would have had us in and out leaving a vacuum?
What *IS* it that Kerry would have done instead? This position is something he has just been unable to articulate even with the benefit of hindsight. Is it a failure on his part to get his message out or does he just not have one, and is either option a positive one for a presidential candidate?
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 30, 2004 07:03 PMRhinehold-
Were you listening? His alternative has been there all along: Let the facts and not our fears guide our actions. We should not have rushed to war, especially not on a bad case, and subsequently failed to revise a plan when it doesn’t succeed at it’s aim.
The question isn’t what Kerry will do- it’s obvious. Kerry will stick with the war and do everything to win it. He’ll engage the international community as Bush has made impossible for himself, he’ll shore up our strained armed forces, he’ll do many of the things that Bush’s people have only said they’d do, and have never followed through in doing.
The question is, what alternative can Bush provide to his own plan, which has only let Iraq fall into chaos?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2004 07:45 PMDamn Spin for Bush will be when Kerry tells the him to his faces that he has done “Iraq On The Cheap Mr. President.” How can Bush deny that his idea lacked the brillance of the 92 “Hook Around” that his daddy’s generals had to bring the first war to an end. Bush’s “Shock and Ah” looked more like a “B” movie on steriods.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 30, 2004 07:45 PMStephen, how? That’s what I’ve been asking and can’t get an answer to. HOW would Kerry have convinced the countries that didn’t go with us in Iraq to do so?
I saw a couple of his answers tonight…
1) Don’t turn away from the Global Warming Treaty?
2) Find out what they want and give it to them?
3) Join the ICC?
Excuse me?
I see, give more to other countries that they’ll do what you want! Been working stellar for dozens of years…
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 30, 2004 11:59 PMRhinehold, alliances are like a relationship. There’s some give and take.
Our European allies believe global warming is far more dangerous than terrorists. They are very enamored of law and order. Bush completely blew off concerns that they feel are vitally important.
What would it have cost Bush to even give the appearance that he understood their position?
Clinton knew how to handle them. He supported Kyoto, but pushed for giving the US credits for our forests that act as CO2 sinks, thereby drastically reducing the need for immediate radical changes in the way we generate power.
Clinton supported the ICC, but was negotiating its formation on terms that would benefit the US.
Bush just completely blew them off. No discussion, no negotiations, just a big Cheney-style FU on issues that are very, very important to Europe.
“Most people want to help Iraq but not in a way that rewards Bush,” says a senior EU diplomat.
AP, Clinton did not support Kyoto for the same reason that the congress voted in a near majority against ratifying it. It is a way for other countries to take money away from the US and move it to their own economies. Being against Kyoto has little to do with wanting a cleaner world and more to do with the redistrubtion of global wealth. Clinton supported the idea of a treaty on global environmentalism, but did not support what came out of Kyoto as he shouldn’t have.
As for ‘give and take’ I’m afriad that I’m with many in saying that we need to stop giving money to countries to get them to do what is right. Until we stop doing that, they are going to stand their with their hands out demanding that we do.
Are you saying that if we give France and Germany ‘what they want’ they’ll join in on Iraq? I don’t think so. They’ve said so. And the countries that HAVE joined us in Iraq are called the ‘coalition of bribed and coerced’ by a presidential candidate. The same one who says that he would work to bring MORE countries into the coalition by using those EXACT tactics he is complaining about, to fight a war he is telling people was a mistake (only it wasn’t, or was it?)
A telling example of what I’m getting at. In other countries that are hit by a tragedy, like an earthquake (Iran) or a nuclear accident (Russia) or tidal waves and monsoons or drought, the US is first in line to lend aid and support in any way possible to help them out.
Where was ANYONE offering the US help after 4 hurricanes hit the same are of land in 1 months time?
Do we need it? Maybe not. But there were no concerns, no offers of assistance, etc. Nothing at all.
The world is increasingly about getting what it can from those that have while telling them how wrong they are for any decision it makes. The ‘Food for Oil’ scandal is just another example.
Tonight Kerry said that Iraq and Hussein were threats to the US and peace and stability of the world.
However, he also stated that we should have waited longer for the sanctions to do it’s job.
Sanctions that had been in place for 12 years and been ineffefctive, had done nothing but kill thousands of people, and were the reason that the food for oil program was able to be abused in the first place.
Meanwhile, Hussein continued to fund and give shelter to terrorist groups, attack US and UK planes hundreds of times a year, plan attacks against the US itself (none successfully thank god) and vow to attack the US when it could.
And that’s a good idea?
I may have to agree with Kerry on one thing though. It was the wrong time for the war. It should have been fought in 1994 when it was clear that Iraq had no intention of honoring it’s surrender requirements, was already a year past deadlines for disarming and were putting down attempts to revolt against him with horrendous cruelty.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2004 03:34 AMAP, Clinton did not support Kyoto
Yes, he did. But not in a form that would signifcantly damage US industry. Clinton and Gore were willing to keep negotiating, Bush gave the EU and Japan a big fat Cheney-style FU. Not the best way to win friends and influence enemies.
Sanctions that had been in place for 12 years and been ineffefctive
Dude, are you serious!??? The sanctions were designed to force Saddam to disarm and deter him from pursuing WMD programs. Mission accomplished! No WMD, no WMD programs.
