Democrats & Liberals: Archives

This is an interesting argument- I especially want to take up the self-defense analogy you used at the end here. Basically, you say “And it is entirely appropriate to have that right. But if you attack someone premptively, the law says that you need to justify your actions.” Which is correct.

If I use force against another person- I must explain my actions in front of the legal authorize in charge of the jurisdiction- that is, the state. Now if the United States president takes a pre-emptive action against another nation, who is the authority to whom he must explain himself to? I think the only authority to whom he OWES an explanation is the American people. That is, the relationship between the United States and the intentional community is NOT the same as the relationship between you, as citizen, and the state. The state has authority over you to a certain extent, and you are responsible for explaining yourself to it in certain, limited circumstances. This is not the case between the hodge-podge of informal rules that is international law/norms and nations.

Now, I do not think that Kerry actually believes the international community’s relationship with the U.S. is such that we MUST explain our actions to the interntional community- I think he believes that its smart to do so. The real issue is really a continium thing- that is, Bush would explain LESS than Kerry, although he would also explain. Where you fall in the balance of how much explaining, waiting-for-them-to-respond continum you fall will determine if you prefer a more global-focused test…

Mr. Cohen: While I must vote against kerry, I do agree with what you have posted. The right is trying to make this out to mean what supports their side. It is actually kind of sad in a way. I think kerry would surely make the right decision with whatever intel. he had at the moment and I would not view his decision as wrong simply because he is a Democrat. That being said, I think Bush made the right decision with the intel he had and that many on the left are holding him to a higher standard than they would if he were a Democrat.
Playing party favorites divides, not unites. Instead of name calling and arguing, the candidates should concentrate on telling the American people what their positions are.
I know where kerry stands and that is why I will vote against him, but sadly, to many people base their vote only on what they see on TV(left wing) or hear on the radio(right wing).

One last small point- I think we should not forget that the difference here- while important-are not really so much IN-KIND but rather in terms of emphasis. This is a perfect example- Bush talked to the UN- he could have talked to them more. Presumably Kerry would ahve talked to them more still. But there would have come a point where even Kerry would have said “screw you” to the UN, and there was a minimumal level of consultation that even Bush considered important.

William-

Do you apply the “test” in hindsight or in foresight?

And is it limited to only countrymen (U.S. citizens) or does it include international opinioin?

Misha —

We don’t have an obligation to explain to the world why we’ve invaded another country? Why not? I’m not saying (any more than Kerry is) that we should wait for international approval if we need to take action to protect ourselves, but if we do what we see fit without explaining it to anyone else — doesn’t that make us a “rogue nation?”

We (and the UN) instituted “no-fly” zones over Iraq and imposed sanctions against the country because Saddam wrongly invaded Kuwait. That’s what started this whole ball rolling. What if Saddam had reasons for invading Kuwait that he didn’t feel were necessary for our understanding of his perfectly (in his mind) justifiable action?

The right spurns cultural relativism (with some justification) but also seems to pick and choose its appplication of morality.

Alejo:
“I’m not saying (any more than Kerry is) that we should wait for international approval if we need to take action to protect ourselves, but if we do what we see fit without explaining it to anyone else”

Bush explained to the world why we were going into Iraq. You and kerry say we do not need to wait for international approval, so why does Bush?

Alejo- to me, when you say “obligation”, i think enforceable obligation. That is, that the rest of the world has, as a matter of RIGHT, a right to know why we used offensive actions to defense ourselves. I do not think this is so- nor do I think Bush or Kerry think this is so.

Until there is a super-government entity that has the authority to enforce international law, this is and ought not be the case. As Bush properly said, and I think as Kerry agrees, the president is only accountable as a matter of RIGHT, to the American people- not to the French, Germans or Russians. It is smart to let other countries know why we do things, but they do not have the right to force us to explain ourselves like a court has teh right to force me to explain myself if I take a life in self-defense.

This is a very important issue because it implicates what is our relationship with the international community. I do not think the UN is supposed to be a super-government to which all nations are accountable. Perhaps there should be such an entity (ideally, i guess, there would be), but the way the world is currently set up, I think it would be very very mistaken to allow a nation like China or, even Russia the direction it is headed, to have a lead in any sort of super-national organization.

I offer a different interpretation of Kerry’s statement. Let’s look at what he said:

“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 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.”

In the clause in which he mentions the “global test,” he talks about our countrymen and our people. OUR countrymen, OUR people.

Using this context, if we interpret the word “global” to mean “comprehensive” or “total,” rather than meaning having international support, we can begin to understand what Kerry really meant.

He meant that the President must be able to show that we had valid reasons for our strike, after having exhausted a comprehensive set of diplomatic alternatives. He must be able to prove that what we did was right and legitimate. George W. Bush and his administration have not proved to the American people or the international community the legitimacy of its actions in respect to Iraq.

In short, the United States does not have to have the support or blessing of any other nation, but we must have the comprehensive and total backing of our own nation.

kctim —

Bush’s stated reason for going to war turned out not to be accurate. I never suggested that Bush needed the world’s approval — but if you’re going to act pre-emptively you’d better be able justify your actions afterward if you want anyone to play with you.

Misha —

I see the distinction and your point. I guess that brings about the question, Is there a place for morality in this discussion? Or is it purely a case of self-preservation?

Alejo- that is an interesting way to put the question, and I like it! I think in ALL decisions we make, morality must be the guiding principle. Even in the case of self-preservation- we need to take into account the consequences of acting in self-defense. This is true both in terms of our intertional policy and our domestic policy.

The next logical question is- “is it immoral to take unilateral action without explaning to the rest of the world?” I think the answer to that is plainly- NO. Lets take an easy example- lets say we had stopped the genocide in Rwanda via unilateral force. I think that action would have been morally justified regardless of whether we explained ourselves or not.

The morality of an action is based upon the combination of means used, ends achieved and principles guiding the action. doing a proper moral analysis of every policy, and in fact, every single action you take as a human being, is absolutely essential. Do you agree?

Misha —

I do agree, completely. And that’s why I would have supported the war in Iraq if it had been presented as a war to end Saddam’s genocide. But instead that was secondary to punishing Saddam for being a sneak and a liar. As I have posted before, the problem I have with the war is that the end is being used to justify the means and that’s why it bothers me so much. The end can never justify the means if there was dishonesty and innocent people were killed.

The next logical question is- “is it immoral to take unilateral action without explaning to the rest of the world?”

Alejo, I’m not sure about morality here, but there is a more practical issue of leadership. “Do unto others…” is a complicated thing to translate to nations, but the US is supposed to be a global leader, and we should not pursue courses of action that we don’t want others to pursue, or abandon rules of engagement that we want others to follow.

Do you apply the “test” in hindsight or in foresight?

And is it limited to only countrymen (U.S. citizens) or does it include international opinioin?

As I said originally, my reading is that the test is applied in hindsight - you explain to the country and the world that what you did is legitimate. And that the cost of not doing this is a loss in prestige, leadership, etc.

I think it is telling that Kerry says that you need to be able to explain to “your people” first. Not only has Bush has been able to unable convince the population of any of our allies (Israel is I think the only exception) of the legitimacy of the war, he’s also been unable to convince more than a slim majority of US citizens - and practically nobody outside his own party.

I think Bush made the right decision with the intel he had and that many on the left are holding him to a higher standard than they would if he were a Democrat.

I agree 100% that the left is always going to bash the leaders of the right more than they do their own, and vice versa. I don’t agree that going to war in Iraq was right, but do agree that Bush’s decision was at least defensible.

However, his execution of the war has been indefensible. In my view, if you ignore the experts and run a war a new way - smaller faster cheaper, whatever - then you damn well better be right.

Misha, I think your first post sums it up pretty well, and in a non-partisan, balanced way. Thank you. I wish some of the red column folks would read it and understand it.

I am not, however, as generous as you are regarding the Bush Administration’s methods of justifying their positions and actions. I do not, for example, think that the Bush Administration believes that it owes anyone whatsoever an explanation, at least not a public one. Not the world community and even less so the American People. Regarding the world’s opinion of their actions, they think that the USA can tend to our best interests through a combination of a small number of allies and vassal states, and through fear. Regarding the opinion of the American people, they are unabashedly of the Leo Strauss “noble lie” school of government, where the Administration’s responsibility is only to do what the Administration thinks is good for the country, regardless of what the people think before or after they do anything.

The only caveat to the above, of course, is the election, which takes primacy over everything.

-Cf

I should add that the reason I think the Bush Administration doesn’t feel like it needs to be honest to the American people is because of their ever-changing multiplicity of rationales for the invasion. The current story (the “march of freedom”) is very noble sounding, but it wasn’t even on the list of actual reasons for going to war - when mentioned at all, it was as if it were a potentially positive side effect of the more urgent goal of eliminating the WMD threat. If they had said at the beginning that the reason for the war was because they wanted to overthrow Saddam and set up a Democratic western-friendly government in Iraq, I don’t think the American people would have agreed to it. So they tried another reason.

If, on the other hand, the current reason *wasn’t* the main reason in March of 2003, then I guess they just changed their minds now that the WMDs have vanished.

Either way, “truth” is not very high on the Administration’s list of war priorities, if it’s there at all.

-Cf

The Global Test:

1) The Domestic Test: The President has a moral obligation to justify his actions to the American people, with full honesty, at the earliest possible date. I realize that sometimes the President can be be moral but not honest about sensitive international issues, but he or she must make a good faith effort to be honest and forthright with the American people with every decision they make. Regarding war, it is especially important.

2) The International Test: The President has NO moral responsibility to justify America’s actions to the other nations of the world. But he or she would be incredibly foolish not to.

Look at it this way: you can lie to your co-workers and simply be known as a jerk, but you can’t lie to your spouse and expect to stay happily married. The Bush team sees lying to America something akin to lying to one’s 5 year old child about where babies come from or about who the Tooth Fairy is. I for one don’t like being treated like a child.

-Cf

What I find appalling is how many people will say that the mere questioning of the statement is ‘pathetic’ and then go on to explain how we are unable to understand what Kerry meant.

Yet, when the right tries to explain Bush’s failure to make his case on Iraq even though there is plenty of evidence to overwhemlingly justify the action, the left points to this rightfully so as a failure of the president to do a proper job in selling the war.

Is Kerry incapable of making what he means clear enough to the american people? Does he get out and explain what he meant?

Or does he, when asked to explain what he meant, just call it sad and pathetic…

Guess we know what Kerry thinks of those that aren’t smart enough to understand him!

It’s pathetic how many Republicans pretend to not understand Kerry’s position. That’s what’s pathetic.

-Cf

CF-

I guess I’m one of those that you call pathetic, but if you take Kerry’s voting record, campaign statements, and last Thursday’s debate in total, they just don’t gel. If they make perfect sense to you then and you wholeheartedly agree then my hat is off to you and your intellect.

“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 [Saddam].”

John Kerry, May 3, 2003

But of course none of this really matters to my vote. Kerry loses that when he says that Iraq was a destraction to and not a part of the war on terror.

It is pathetic in a way, Rhinehold, because you’re not engaging him on substance, you’re playing word games. That’s something you only do if you do not have a legitimate strategy, or you don’t want to use it. You guys have lost the fine art of criticizing on substance, of making statements that give your opponents pause.

What YOU guys have done here is tell us what you think Kerry means, complete with a cogent three point list that makes clear points Kerry never bothered to make himself. If we were reading a postmodern poem, then all these creative interpretations would be one thing—but this is supposed to be a statement by a presidential candidate. If some of us still wonder what Kerry means, it because he hasn’t made himself clear.

Here’s Kerry’s clarification in his own words:

“But I can do a better job of protecting America’s security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere.”

Elsewhere, Senator Kerry? I hope all of you Kerry supporters will now supply an elaborate and sensible explanation for where other than the globe Kerry intends to enact his policies.

But now I think we may be able to come to agreement amenable to all sides in this election after all.

Bush can be president of the United States on Earth, and Kerry president of the United States everywhere else!

The confusion over Kerry’s “global test” remark is indicative of a larger problem with Kerry, actually, a pretty obvious one which I’ve rarely seen mentioned.

Kerry has a reputation for being a fluid and intelligent speaker, but the truth is that he’s a far worse verbal bumbler than even Bush (who is a pretty bad verbal bumbler himself).

I think that this fails to register with many people (especially the east coast media) who fail to look beyond style to substance. There’s a good measure of snobbery and vanity behind this error.

Because Kerry has the trappings of a good orator (a rich voice, a sonorous patrician air and an Eastern accent—which goes especially far with the media types), the endless stream of absurdities coming out of his mouth gets overlooked.

Bush’s gaffes, by contrast, tend to be use of poor grammar or incorrect vocabulary—harmless stuff which makes him look funny at times, but is less likely to cause real harm.

Here’s a recent Kerry quote from a NYT article:. “Right now as we sit here, your tax dollars are being used today, yesterday, all last year, tomorrow, your tax dollars are actually being used to reward the company that takes the jobs overseas.”

As we sit here, things are happening yesterday, last year and tomorrow? Huh? This is your brilliant speaker? Add that to his “Treblinka Square” remark during the debate and his sudden assertion that “weapons of mass destruction” were coming over the border into Iraq, and you see a man whose inability to express himself clearly could pose a real danger in conducting diplomacy.
Misidentifying a city square as a notorious concentration camp could give real offense to a foreign dignatory. Saying that weapons of mass destruction are pouring acrosss a border when you mean something else could be actually dangerous.

Fortunately, however, if Kerry really does get his wish to be president elswhere than on this globe, such things (like the real locaton of Lambert Field) will matter very little.

Martin, Democrats weren’t the only ones observing those kind of problems. His facial expressions, his pregnant, flustered pauses before giving answers, his discursive, almost random way of repeating all the same old Catchphrases. I mean, even in the midst of his best moments, Bush managed to hamstring himself.

Kerry had flow, he had direction, and he demonstrated great mental and verbal agility when dealing with the questions. It’s not harmless the Bush doesn’t know the right words, doesn’t organize his words well. It’s lethal to his stature.

As for Lubyanka, it’s reputation as a KGB stronghold wasn’t much better than Treblinka.

You’re projecting Bush’s weaknesses on Kerry. You want to deny that Kerry connected with the audience on legitimate grounds. Above all, you don’t want to have to admit was most of the country now knows: Kerry was more presidential at the debates than Bush.

Any confusion about Kerry’s remarks at that debate are entirely Bush’s and yours.

William,

I’m glad to see that even in the midst of the WB Blue Column’s post-debate ‘spin’ of Kerry’s strong performance, that you had the forethought to anticipate what David Remer brilliantly described as ‘…the Right’s ability to spin a tornado, out of a butterfly’s wing flap.’

You effectively fleshed out the manipulation and semantics 3 card monty, which consists of the Right’s lone magic trick. I saw Republican Sen. John Warner muddle thru a version of this on CNN Sunday, and surprisingly Wolf Blitzer was having none of it, with debate clip at the ready.

I am not surprised also that this is the one Blue Column discussion from the Debate, that finally brought the Bush apologists a flocking.

But, what is conspicuous about their mocking of Kerry’s ‘global test’ comment, is the absence of utilizing Bush’s unilateral action (or success) in Iraq, as proof that the Senator’s plan is a non-starter.

Stephen, I know that Democrats weren’t the only ones noticing the flaws in Bush’s responses—I noticed them myself. Partisanship doesn’t keep me from conceding the obvious. Bush can be a pretty lousy speaker.

Kerry, though, is something else. He’s a true product of the consumerist age—a figure whose slick appearance not only hides a lack of substance but masks incredible absurdities.

The Treblinka is as good as Lubyanka argument is really beside the point. Honestly now, can we just acknowledge the double standard and stop spinning?

We all know what the media’s reaction would have been if Bush accidently said “Bergen Belsen” instead of Berlin or “Auschwitz” instead of Austria. He would have been called an idiot. But because Kerry made that mistake—well jeez, we know he’s just such a clever fellow so let’s overlook it.

This is just so transparent. There’s one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans. If Bush had made that same gaffe, it would have front page news. But since Kerry made it, it’s not even worth talking about.

Yet, when the right tries to explain Bush’s failure to make his case on Iraq even though there is plenty of evidence to overwhemlingly justify the action…

Oh, c’mon! We just saw Rice and Rumsfeld both come out this week and admit they lied to make a case that led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. How do you explain that?

Rice knew the aluminum tubes weren’t “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,” and she even added the scare, “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,” to drive the lie home.

She made a statement she knew to be factually incorrect. I don’t care how good her intentions were, she lied.

And before the war, Rumsfeld said,

“We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior level contacts going back a decade, and of possible chemical and biological agent training. And when I say contacts, I mean between Iraq and al Qaeda,”

“We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe-haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire … weapons of mass destruction capabilities,”

Now Rumsfeld says, “To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links [Iraq & al Qaeda],”

Not only that, he ridicules the evidence of collusion the administration presented,

“I just read an intelligence report recently about one person who’s connected to al Qaeda who was in and out of Iraq. And it is the most tortured description of why he might have had a relationship and why he might not have had a relationship. It may have been something that was not representative of a hard linkage.”

I’m ecstatic that these guys are all admitting they misled Americans into supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I hope they spend some time in jail like Poindexter and North did.

To paraphrase Gen. Omar Bradley, Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place against the wrong enemy - and definitely not waged for the reason the Bush administration fabricated.

AP, You’re guilty YOURSELF of doing what is charged of the Repuglicans. You take a piece of what is said, take it out of context, put YOUR spin on it and then have fact.

Rice did not say she lied in any way. It was never EVER disputed that the state department did not agree with the CIA, FBI, British Intelligence, etc, on the basis that it didn’t ‘sound right’ to them. But they chose to go with the advice of the other agencies instead of listening to the STATE department’s intelligence.

I do not in any way fault them for that, that you do and you think Kerry would have done the same speaks volumes. And quite frankly scares the hell out of me.

And that one single piece of intelligence was a blip compared to all of the other resons and intelligence that had been proven good. Hell, we should have been in there in 1994/5 if Clinton hadn’t been more worried about how he looked to the world and history (much like Kerry) than how best to deal with threats. After cruely putting down the revolution, firing repeatedly (hundreds of times a year including the year before we invaded) at US and UK planes, harboring and financially supporting terrorists, attempting to assassinate a president and planning further terrorist attacks against the US and refusing to aquiesce to UN inspections in the alloted timeframe (he had 90 days to do it originally, remember?) the fact that we let him sit there in power that long and instead attacked Kosovo with no exit strategy (we ARE still there, you know…) because it was an easier war… *shrug*

Oh, and let’s not forget all of the people, I’m sure you were one of them, who were upset that Bush did nothing to stop bin Laden pre-9/11 with less and even more debatable ‘intelligence’ about what was going to happen.

But what’s even worse is the attitude that many display against anyone who dares disagree with them. I have no problem with people thinking we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq, they base their opinions on their views and I respect that. But many can’t understand (including Edwards who said that anyone who agreed with Bush on Iraq was stupid) is how we could look at the same evidence and intelligence, the state of the world at the time, the danger that Hussein presented and the long term benefits that will come out of this action and say we should have went. It’s an atmosphere of hate and anger, the likes of which are making me wonder if there is any hope of civil debate anymore, even here.

I do not in any way fault them for that, that you do and you think Kerry would have done the same speaks volumes. And quite frankly scares the hell out of me.

It scares you that someone else wouldn’t have lied to make a weak case stronger? It scares you that someone else might have made the case for war with Iraq based on the targeting of US and British planes - a fact - rather than some fiction designed to play on the fears of post-9/11 America?

Do all people who tell the truth scare you, Rhinehold?

And that one single piece of intelligence was a blip compared to all of the other resons and intelligence that had been proven good.

Wait a minute… You say she lied, but compared to all the other “evidence” it was an insignificant lie?

Like I said, I don’t care how good their intentions are, caveat emptor is something I expect from a weasly used-car salesman, not the president’s cabinet members.

Of course not. You might even want to try it some time? I can tell the truth and what is political spin, something you attempt quite often in this forum.

For example, Rice never lied. You can SAY she lied all you want, but you are invalidating any possible point you have to make by making inflamatory statements like you have.

I have repeatedly stated that I am upset with Bush and his administration for not making the point better. They failed. But to vote in someone like Kerry that would put us in harms way in order to curry favor with history or international opinion is something I hope the US is a little to smart for.

Oh if the left had just put someone up as a candidate that had ANY positive points going for them, instead of the most liberal member of the senate, who has, despite the attempted spin, obsfucated his position on Iraq depending on who he was speaking to, has done nothing in his senate career of note, missed most of his meetings on the TERRORISM committe while on it, claims to be able to build better coalitions while insulting those current allies we have giving up people and money for our war in Iraq, all the while telling me how pathetic and sad I am…

Someone like Leiberman, Bayh, etc…

Oh then you might have seen a democrat win this year by a landslide and I might have even voted for him!

But, of course, I supported the action on Iraq because it was the right thing to do, regardless of how it was presented to the masses. The democrats I mentioned do also. Kerry, I *think* might support it sort of?

For example, Rice never lied.

How so? She made a statement she knew to be factually incorrect. How do you define lie? Or is your objection just that I used the word “lie”?

This is the thing that kills me about Republicans. Bush himself could come out and admit he “sexed up” the case for invading and occupying Iraq, and Republicans would call it liberal spin, or start calling Bush a liberal fifth columnist.

It kills me that Republicans won’t believe Rice’s and Rumsfeld’s admissions from their own mouths, but will believe anything bad the Bush campaign says about Kerry.

First, I’m not a republican. Second, you have shown no evidence that she lied, you are inventing it out of whole cloth. Did she ever say that the intelligence community was 100% in agreement with the conclusions that the administration came to? No. Did she ever say that the state department had reservations with the intelligence? No.

If you have some evidence that she lied, please present it.

Rhinehold said I can tell the truth and what is political spin, […]

But to vote in someone like Kerry that [sic] would put us in harms way in order to curry favor with history or international opinion is something I hope the US is a little to [sic] smart for. (emphasis mine)

I can tell this is political spin.

If you have some evidence that she lied, please present it.

He did…

Rice knew the aluminum tubes weren’t “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,”

She claimed that the tubes were only really good for nuclear weapons programs. This is an obvious lie.

> What YOU guys have done here is tell us what you think
> Kerry means, complete with a cogent three point list
> that makes clear points Kerry never bothered to make himself.

He has made these points very clearly on many occassions. You guys keep dredging up lots of quotes from him; some of them are clear concise statements — those are what Kerry beleives. Other Kerry quotes seem kind of vague, usually because they are removed from their context such as the reporter’s question that was asked or the

Why don’t quotes like these exist for Bush? Well, first of all, he hardly allows reporters to ever ask him questions. Confident and open Senator Kerry has probably put himself in front of reporters ten times as often as the unconfident, unsure, and secretive President Bush. Secondly, he just says more things, he talks at length about topics. The debate is a great example. Bush actually used some variant of the phrase “people know what I’m saying” or “we can’t send mixed messages” at least fifteen times during the debate. The guy is a broken record who really doesn’t have anything to say besides his simple one-liner messages. Kerry goes through the trouble of explaining his policy in detail, in informal unprepared venues, on a regular basis, and you guys react by finding obscure quotes from longer statements or interviews, pull out the parts you think are useful, and use their out-of-context ambiguity to paint him as a flip-flopper. But his clear statements remain, clear as day.

Let’s look at this one that George quoted:

“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 [Saddam].”

John Kerry, May 3, 2003

Now, why would he say something like this? It’s kind of a weird thing to just say. Well, in typical slimy GOP fashion George has shamelessly removed the context so of course we can’t tell what he means. We have to just take it as is, out of context, at face value. Naturally it’s a little ambiguous: Does he mean that he supports every aspect of the President’s decision, or does he simply think that a disarmed Saddam is better than an armed Saddam? My gut tells me it was in response to a stupid hypothetical question. A little visit to Google confirms this:

Stephanopoulos: And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

Kerry: 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.

Ah, now with the context we can plainly see two things: (1) That the question was heavily loaded with a kind of “Do you support the troops?” flavor, and (2) That the timing was in the context of the recent rapid military successes. In fact, I can see from the date that this is May, 2003, only 2 days after Bush had prematurely declared that we had successfully ended and accomplished our combat mission. I wish Kerry had simply left it at the first part, which is crystal clear:

I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity

That’s been what he’s saying all along, before the war, during the initial fighting, and right on up to today. The second part is where you GOP hacks think you’re panning for opposition-research gold, but I’ll play along and help you out. He had been saying for years that disarming Saddam was important. The statement below simply repeats that agreement with the overall objective.

it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein

It sounds like he supports the timing, but the first part of the quote says clearly that he did not, so we can only assume that he’s talking about the general goal.

and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

Well, was he supposed to not support the President when he took us to war? You guys would have had him hung for treason!

I’ll admit he wiggles around sometimes with his words, but can you really say that you don’t, overall, know where he stands?

> “But I can do a better job of protecting America’s
> security because the test that I was talking about
> was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe,
> but elsewhere.”
>
> Elsewhere, Senator Kerry? I hope all of you Kerry
> supporters will now supply an elaborate and sensible
> explanation for where other than the globe Kerry
> intends to enact his policies.

Maybe from Bush’s “Beyond the stars”? Do you really want to get into a battle over which candidate makes the most incomprehensible and ridiculous statements? Please. You’ve just quoted a rhetorical slip of the tongue as if it represents some kind of policy. I thought you were above that and that you wanted to talk about policy, not parse the candidates statements word-by-word like a bunch of corporate contract lawyers or Puritan witch-hunters.

-Cf

I made an typo above, ironically so given the context. The missing text is in bold:

such as the reporter’s question that was asked or the preceding sentences in a longer speech

-Cf

What YOU guys have done here is tell us what yout hink Kerry means, complete with a cogent three point list makes clear points Kerry never bothered to make himself.

To clarify: that “cogent three-point list” was a direct quote from the transcript of the debate. The only change I made was to add the numbers (1), (2), and (3), and boldface the word “did”. There was no editing at all of the text, and they were Kerry’s “cogent” words, not mine.

I stand by my original argument: there’s nothing inconsistent about this statement, and nothing particularly ambiguous or confusing. The only way Kerry’s statements can be considered confusing is if you look at what Team Red says Kerry said, instead of actually listening or reading it on your own.

CF-

I didn’t quote the question from George because it adds nothing in context to his answer. Kerry said what he said and sometime in late 2003 changed his position on the war in Iraq.

I supported Lieberman because of his position that Iraq was fundamental to the war on terror. I could even support the Clinton’s position that, while it was the right thing to do and was a part of the war on terror, the execution was faulty. My only rebuttal there would be exactly which war in history went according to plan, but I do agree that the execution of this war has not been good in many respects.

But bad execution does not change my belief that the war on terror includes Iraq, and that the war was the right thing to do. Bad execution, or political expediency, has changed Mr. Kerry’s.

Kerry has gone from the above statement to the Dean lines of “grand diversion” and “wrong war, wrong place wrong time.” That’s not nuance that is a fundamental change in position on the most important subject facing this country. If Mr. Kerry could admit this it would be one thing. I wouldn’t vote for him because I don’t agree, but at least his reasoning would be clear. But Kerry and his supporters continue to insist that his position has never changed and that he has been consistent all along.

The statements and the votes don’t bear this out.

> belief that the war on terror includes Iraq

I can see that you hold this belief very strongly, and that your deep belief in this concept allows you to excuse a lot of the Administration’s lies and mistakes because you feel confident that, behind their evolving political rhetoric meant for public consumption, and behind their various philosophical excuses for the War, they are at their core 100% on board with your belief and that John Kerry is 100% against that belief.

I appreciate your candor about your belief. Not only do I agree with you that Kerry 100% denies the belief that Iraq is a front on the war against terror (he has been extremely clear about that, and I’m glad you’ve noticed that), but, like Kerry, I am also 100% against this belief. I’m really not sure that Bush beleives it, either, what with him changing the reason for the invasion so many times. The real reasons for invading Iraq go back to pre 9/11, when neocon thinkers supposed that stateless terrorist groups were not a problem (but that Saddam, with WMDs and all that oil, was a threat), the Iraq/terror connection was, at best, a convenient added bonus that they felt free to invent after 9/11.

In any event, attacking Saddam didn’t help us reduce the international terrorist threat one iota. In fact, just the opposite. The Iraq War has without a shadow of a doubt made the terrorist threat much, much worse on every front: militarily (our forces are less able to fight terrorists), politically (our allies and our competitors who would otherwise trust and aid us in fighting terror are less inclined to do either now), and psychologically (anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world has exponentially increased in the last year and a half). Iraq seems likely to end up as a haven for terrorists - and a treasure-trove supply source for their weaponry - for years to come, and stands a good chance of actually turning into an islamic fundamentalist state. The damage of the Iraq War will take a very long time to fix, perhaps many decades. A collosal, epic blunder.

-Cf

Kerry’s “global test” does make perfect sense…like lugnuts on a birthday cake.

Today, the US vetoed an Arab-backed UN resolution to end Israeli military operations. Since, prior to the veto, the measure had enough votes to pass, does this action also fail the Global Test? Sometimes, doing what is right means going against the majority viewpoint; being able to do that is the hallmark of a true leader.

Sometimes, doing what is right means going against the majority viewpoint; being able to do that is the hallmark of a true leader.

But more often it’s the hallmark of an idiot who just thinks he’s right and can’t understand why no one else thinks so.

AP —

Ha! Nice one!

The whole notion of trusting George Bush because he knows what’s best for us is laughable to me. One of my Republican friends defends the decision to go to war on false pretenses by saying the government can’t tell us everything or there will be no security. Then he tells me he trusts Bush. He apparently doesn’t see a contradiction in trusting someone who lies to us because he believes that Bush has our best interests at heart.

Call me incurably cynical, but that just doesn’t make any sense to me at all.

Beagle & Troy,
How can you be so right and so wrong at the same time. It is absolutely amazing how you easy you flip wrong to right that it just makes me wonder if you can be serious.

Our government (Bush/Cheney) should never put America (We the People) at risk on “I think I am Right” argument period. That is not the way we do business as America. Bush told us (America) that he held proof that Saddam had WMD’s. Once hostile actions was halted he (Bush) had a duty to America (us) to expose that proof and prove to the world that we were right. That is how We the People (America) deal with justice. That is the Code of the West and is the difference between the Code of the Cowboy.