Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Well, the obvious answer is that they want to avoid the kind of international incident you get when you advocate that another country’s leader lose the election. It’s not as if Bush’s people will get gentler if Kerry just names names.

As for the times, I think the lack of official foreign trips would be too much of an obstacle if you consider the membership of this particular senate committee:

Committee membership: Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

As Kerry is listed among the members of the Subcommittee on European Affairs, I don’t think he’d have a tough time getting in touch with diplomats from those countries Bush so tactfully described as “Old Europe”. People who could of course privately tell him their leaders are rooting for him.

I’m sure there are world leaders would prefer Kerry to President Bush such as North Korea’s Kim Jong-il and Iran’s mullahs.

Oh yes, the big, hanging sword of Damocles over our heads! The remaining members of The Axis of Evil If we don’t reelect Bush, all the Evil he’s been preventing will re-emerge, and the regulatory agencies will come and kidnap the children for foul satanic rituals calling their master. He will arrive, and use the UN to establish a one world government… Need I go on?

Seriously, I don’t see how you should expect any Democrat to take that bit of weak rhetoric seriously. It’d be like telling a Jimmy Carter supporter in the seventies that his election would please the communist in Russia and China.

If anybody’s the wimp, it’s Bush, who hides behind the military’s powers while his people burn bridges with every ally worth having at the UN and NATO.

I’ll second that, Stephen.

I wonder why he said it, though? Without sighting names, it certainly sounds wishy-washy. There must have been other opportunities to start talking about re-entering the world community and retaking our moral authority in the world. Reagan would very much disapprove of the current world view of the States, and of the president in particular. 75% of Europeans consider Bush himself to be the single biggest threat to global security.

We will not make ourselves safer by increasing anti-americanism. All of the Administration’s foriegn policy goals could have just as easily been accomplished without tarnishing our great country’s image.

It’s hardly preposterous at all to think that more than one foreign leader might tell Kerry that he or she hopes for a Democratic victory.

(What’s preposterous is that Washington Post article: Has the Post not heard of the *telephone*? Have they not heard of “Ambassadors” and “friends”? You don’t have to meet someone to receive a message from them.)

If you want to know which countries’ leaders are rooting for Kerry, just look at a map of the world. You’d be hard pressed to find a country on Earth in which the people and the leaders think that Bush is preferable to Kerry.

As you survey the map, pay special attention to our Iraq-invasion allies: For starters, it’s a fair bet that the new Prime Minister of Spain is rooting for Kerry.

Kerry was right to refuse to name the leaders he alluded to - that would have been a terrible breach of trust. But, to be fair, I am disappointed that he brought it up in the first place - I’ve never heard another Presidential candidate say such a thing. But then again maybe he felt that the support he was receiving was so unusually vocal that he thought it would be appropriate to make it public.

-Cf

As for the timing of visits - well, there is email, telephones, telegrams, and envoys and messengers probably a half dozen other ways for Kerry and foreign leaders to have communicated.

Lot of verbage to lead lead to no evidence, proof or conclusions, reasonable or otherwise. But, the opinion was well established.

Many foreign leaders have publicly and diplomatically denounced the ways of this President making it reasonable to assume not only foreign leaders, but, millions and millions of foreign citizens would prefer another President other than Bush.

David, Kerry said “I’ve met with foreign leaders….” There was no implication that the alleged preference for Kerry was communicated in any other manner.

I could say “Met, been in contact with, what’s the difference”, and although a valid point, it wouldn’t be a sound one. I think it may just be that you’re thinking of the wrong kind of foreign leader. One does not have to be a head of state to be a foreign leader. I’m certain as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he’d be more likely than anybody to run into such people.

I really would wish that if you guys wanted to critique Kerry, it wouldn’t be in parsed out, literal minded examination of each and every word. You should too, because your candidate has more or less had a terrible track record as far a what he says, and what’s more important, there’s solid evidence that he was wrong.

Bush said there were stockpiles. Yes, there were. ten years ago. He elevated a mistrust of Saddam’s word on weapons to proof that had them, without gaining on the ground support for his assertions. Because of that, we went in looking for these chemical and Biological weapons, and had to suffer the humiliation of not finding any.

Bush said there were major terrorist cells already working with Saddam’s blessing and aid in the parts of Iraq he controlled. Well, since the Bush administration, which has much to gain from such revelations has been unable to produce proof of that, I think one would have to be a Bush partisan to accept any hope of find that out now.

We can go into all the perhapses and the maybes, but the fact is, the Bush Administration could have taken its time, and not rushed and cherrypicked its way into battle with forces too small to secure the sites suspected of having the WMDs, or to establish law and order promptly enough to preven terrorists and displaced Baathist from rushing into the power vacuum.

The case made by Colin Powell was richly illustrated, and gave the impression that the administration knew where these weapons were. If the administration was right, even if those weapons had been moved, Bush could have shown Americans that they had been removed during the conflict, and maybe, if they were looking closely enough, showed them going into Syria or Iran. I mean, those great big stockpiles don’t exactly vanish into thin air. If either assertion is the case, and we can prove it, we have an act of war that’s quite blatant, and redemption of our previous Causus Belli.

If all that is the case, then why is Bush sitting around, why is Bush admitting anything about the intelligence being wrong? For a man confident in the truth of what he’s said before, he’s remarkably unmotivated in his actions facing these threats.

Meanwhile, Osama lurks in Afghanistan, and we’re only now trying to root him out, once and for all. This after another ally has felt the brunt of a terrible attack. If the pattern keeps up, we could be next, and if so, we may very well be next because Bush couldn’t think for himself or pay attention to one problem long enough to take care of it.

So before you ask where Kerry’s supposedly imaginary foreign leaders are, I’d like to ask you where Bush’s substantially imaginary WMDs are.

I’ve been hounding Stephen over this point for days now (so forgive me Stephen), but it’s such an important point that I can’t let it go unchallenged.

“We’re only now trying to root him out, once and for all (Bin Laden).” This is a shocking reading of the facts, considering that we lauched the war in Afghanistan for the primary reason of uprooting Bin Laden—we uprooted him straight out of Kandahar and sent him scurrying into the caves along the Afghan/Pakistan border where he’s now afraid to so much as use his sattelite phone. We’ve been doing everything we can to get him considering the sensitivities involved in working out of Pakistan and the warlords who’ve sheltered him—can’t it just be admitted that he’s well hid and VERY hard to find? Or do you want to invade Pakistan now? The assumption that finding Osama bin Laden is as easy as finding a gallon of milk in the dairy aisle is just a convenient little way of smearing Bush while ignoring history.

Why Kerry’s expressed desire to please unnamed “foreign leaders” and make US foreign policy more like Europe’s (Spain’s?) may help Bush:

The Spain elections demonstrate, for those who needed a demonstration, Europe’s ingrained preference to appease terror instead of fight it, and may serve as a clarifying event for the American electorate. Spain had their 9-11 on 3-11 and without the intervening events of the kind that caused support for the war to erode in the US, Spain buckled to their knees in three short days. The equation was clear—Al Qaida attacked, Spain capitulated and was willing to do whatever it took to no longer be a target for terrorists. Even Bush-haters I’ve spoke to don’t like the looks of such rank cowardice. If Kerry—if indeed his entire campaign—can be linked to the Spanish model (a box his “foreign leaders want me” statements can easily land him in), people will start asking if we really want to hand Al Qaida yet another victory at the ballot box.

Martin - that’d be a good point if the Socialists hadn’t been expected to win even before the bombing, and if they hadn’t planned on withdrawing from Iraq even before the bombing.

The bombing changed nothing, really.

Let’s also remember that we know Iraq and Al-Qaeda weren’t working together, so pulling out of Iraq is hardly a capitulation to Al-Qaeda terrorism.

ceejayoz, that would be nice if it were true, but IT’S NOT!!

According to EVERY poll before the bombings, the Socialists were going to lose the election.

Ceejayoz, also please note that the issue is not that the Socialist party is accused of having changed their minds - you’re correct that their party platform included removing Spanish troops from Iraq - rather, it is the electorate who is accused of “buckling”.

Still, it’s sad that the fight against terrorism is being painted by the American right as this ludicrous dichotomy: We can either (a) be brave and support the current policies of polarizing the world through nearly-unilateral dogged aggression, or (b) be cowardly and end these policies, retreating into perpetual victimhood.

It’s disingenuous to paint the debate this way. Both John Kerry and the new Prime Minister-elect of Spain (or for that matter the majority of the anti-Iraq war protest movement worldwide) see the question this way: We can either (a) be carelessly belligerent in choosing and structuring our battles, losing allies and making new enemies needlessly, or (b) be careful and steady, building alliances and fighting only those battles that are likely to lead to increased peace.

Remember, it is the contention of the Spanish people (and most intelligence experts) that the war in Iraq wasn’t and isn’t part of a war on terrorism. Spain pulling out of Iraq only withdraws them from the “false war” recklessly instigated by Bush - it does not reflect a “caving” or “buckling” with regards to the war on Terror.

Al-Quaeda may claim to have targeted Spain because of their involvement in Iraq, but that alone doesn’t make Spain’s pulling out of Iraq a bad idea for Spain. For example: If I punched you in the face and told you it was punishment for your crime of setting your own house on fire, I would assume that you would still try to extinquish the fire. It would be stupid and childish to avoid doing what is right simply because your enemy also wants you to do it.

I get the feeling sometimes that the current administration would *rather* fight the war on terror unilaterally, because it enforces their perception of themselves as the only government on earth with balls.

I somewhat flippantly liken this difference to the difference between Bruce Lee and Arnold Schwarzenneggar, or for that matter between Gary Cooper and Arnold Schwarzenneggar. One type of hero will fight only when necessary, choosing their battles carefully and being content to *be* tough without having to constantly prove it, while the other type of hero will machine-gun every last person in sight at the slightest suggestion of their lack of power.

-Cf

Christopher says, “We can either (a) be carelessly belligerent in choosing and structuring our battles, losing allies and making new enemies needlessly, or (b) be careful and steady, building alliances and fighting only those battles that are likely to lead to increased peace.”

Building alliances with whom? European appeasers who let Islamic terrorists pick their governments for them? Who criticize us for being cowboys, for lacking “the subtlety and nuance” of a John-Kerry style foreign policy, also known as total surrender? Some peace that’s going to be—hey, blow up a train and Spain will elect whoever you tell them to. Peace through capitulation. We need to be allies with countries who don’t even have real militaries anyway and have to be babysitted on the battlefield by Americans? And who are the enemies we’ve needlessly made? International arms dealers Jaques Chirac and Vladimar Putin? The mullahs? No, we’re better off without Spain. Let them enjoy their coward’s peace while it lasts, and when it doesn’t (a coward’s peace never does) America will be there as always to pick up the pieces haul their butts out of the fire. They’ll be ridiculing us and complaining the whole time, but that’s just how it works with Europe.

Bush had a choice to devote his full attention to search for Osama Bin Laden, or to go off and fight a war in Iraq. People suffer around the world, Iraq is not unique in that. It could have been left for a year or so, until things were wrapped up in Afghanistan, until Osama was caught. It might have actually made Iraq easier, not having Al Quaeda able to take advantage of the vacuum of power.

Martin, I can seem to find anything that would have been wrong with that. If they had been paying attention to the real evidence, and weren’t trying to build up reasons to invade the place, they could have seen that Iraq was not a pressing matter.

Instead, they built it up into something more important than Afghanistan, committing the droves of American troops that were conspicuously absent from Afghanistan, building Saddam back up into a credible threat.

It is only because of the insistence of the Neo-Conservatives on the confluence of weapons and terrorists that Saddam appeared to us as being anything but a contained dictator ruling at the sufferance of the UN.

It is only because of that, that we, the American public, really forgot. Forgot that Al Quaeda was only down, not out. That the man responsible for thousands of American dead had still not been found, still not be captured.

In the wake of 3-11, we can no longer assume that Al Quaeda is that terribly weakened. We just can’t. Why? Because we saw a series of international targets get hit in the years leading up to 9-11. So, it may be safe to assume that the terror will not stay outside our borders for long.

Even James Webb, former Undersecretary of the Navy under Reagan can see the nightmarish truth of what’s happened in Iraq. It’s not Al Quaeda that’s stuck in the honeypot. It’s us.

It is we who will have to sit a large force in Iraq for the forseeable future, undermining our readiness. It is we who will have to endure years of guerilla warfare, where Al Quaeda has the advantage. It is we who lose face every time the Shia get attacked again. It is our agenda that becomes dictated by the terrorists, not theirs.

If Iraq was covered with terrorist training camps, filled with WMDs, there would have been value in the invasion. But as it is, we just put our foot in the snare.

But of course, this is what happens when you elect a president who’s a rank amateur at foreign affairs. Kerry will be a welcome replacement. He’s not afraid to go to war, his votes have proved that. But he won’t use it as his only tool of statecraft. And he won’t forget what these tragedies are all about.

I highly doubt anyone will want to return to the complacency of 9/10, as far as sending in troops. But I sure as hell won’t miss the Bush doctrine, because so far, it’s just allowed us to play directly into Al Quaeda’s hands.

As the Gipper once said, there you go again.

“Bush had a choice to devote his full attention to search for Osama Bin Laden, or to go off and fight a war in Iraq.”

This is a centerpiece of Democratic revisionism, so it needs to be contradicted every time it comes up. I just can’t let it slide.

You sound like a smart guy, Stephen, but this is not only NOT what happened, a false dilemma which Bush never faced in the first place, but a violation of both freshman logic and fundamental physics. Here’s how this particular smear of Bush works. Pay attention, ya’ll, because there will be a test—it’s called Election 2004.

First, you reduce the entire US military to the word “Bush” in order to create a verbal formula in which “Bush departs” one place and ends up in another—when he’s in the second place, he’s no longer in the first place—get it? Your words may then evoke a plane of the imagination upon which voters can picture Bush putting down his rifle in Afghanistan, waving to Osama bin Laden who is sitting in plain site on a hillside above him, and then doing the Texas mosey on over to Baghdad. This makes it clear to everyone that it is impossible to either work towards two goals at once or recognize how two goals may be complimentary. This is proof that Bush, who we already knew was a liar, is also incompetent.

Of course, this sort of reasoning also “proves” that no city can possibly have both a hospital and a fire department. It “proves” that if it does have a fire department, that fire department cannot put out two fires at once (even if it’s the largest, best-trained and best-equipped fire department in the whole world). It proves that you can’t try to get in shape by both eating well and exercising (after all, how can you eat green leafy vegetables if you’re jogging?). It also “proves” that John Kerry cannot tell the truth and speak at the same time.

Sometimes I feel that life would be a lot easier if I was a Democrat.

> No, we’re better off without Spain.

Seth, you prove my point.

-Cf

Here’s what Kerry should do: Call up Colin Powell and name names to the Secretary of State in private.

Then Kerry can tell the world that he gave Powell the information Powell so publicly demanded (as if Powell doesn’t already know which leaders are rooting for Bush - and which are not!).

This would put the ball in the administration’s court. Then Bush’s team will have the freedom (if they so choose) to reveal those names publicly … and destabilize international relationships for political gain (shocking!).

-Cf

As a Kerry supporter, I have to admit that it was silly for him to say that unnamed foreign leaders want him to win. One of the big GOP talking points about Kerry is that he is too deferential to foreign opinion, and this just feeds into that idea. Ultimately, it is American voters who get to choose the US prez. For better or worse, foreigners have no say on the matter.

On the other hand, Colin Powell is the last person in the world who should be demanding that anyone name names. After his smoke-and-mirrors at the UN, Powell has about as much credibility as Jon Lovitz’ old “liar” character on SNL.

Sadly, no; the right is chasing its tail.
http://www.drudgereport.com/kerrybo.htm

Next?

so i don’t know if any of you heard the audio from that kerry remark…but he said nothing of foriegn leaders….he said “i’ve met more leaders”……

now go ahead and attack him for that you vultures…..

The issue isn’t whether Kerry met with foreign leaders. It is “When did he meet with them?” If Kerry met with “more” foreign leaders prior to the beginning of the Iraq war for the purpose of giving them false confidence in working against the US Administration’s efforts to resolve the Iraq crisis peacefully (through the UN), then Kerry is a traitor!!!! But, that is nothing new. Kerry betrayed the US during Vietnam. Kerry betrays every value or issue by taking both sides (depending on who he is pandering to). Simply put, Kerry is a spineless coward.