Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

To use the term “anti-war” is to oversimplify things. The consensus I’m seeing is that Democrats want to stay in Iraq until it’s pacified. I think “Anti-Bush Doctrine” describes it better.

I agree with you Craig. We may be seeing the disenchantment now that Kerry has moved into the ‘move to the center’ portion of his campaign. He’s stuck with an alloyed policy.

He sounds like an anti-war candidate in some respects but knows that practically and politically the general population won’t support that position wholeheartedly, at least not yet. For a whole host of reasons the Kucinich/Dean positions are untenable with the general public. Kerry must say he will not just pull out of Iraq when he’s elected, yet not say it at the same time. His hardcore left wants to cut and run, while a host of other democrats just want Bush out at any cost.

Kerry definately has to tread a fine line here. Too ‘anti-war’ and he alienates average voters, too ‘stay the course’ and he alienates the anti-war folks. That is why he has to answer a yes or no question with:

But the American people, I think, would like a yes or no answer: Do you believe the war in Iraq was a mistake?

SEN. KERRY: I think the way the president went to war is a mistake.

This only reinforces the idea that Kerry is full to his eyeballs in nuance and it doesn’t help that his history is full of such nuance either.

Craig, that argument has one big, gaping hole in it. Kerry was never anti-war and he has always advocated staying (hopefully as part of a UN force) until the job is finished. The vast majority of Democrats are for staying.

You must be thinking of people from the other, more liberal parties who want to boot Bush, but have a problem with a US occupation of Iraq.

And the use of the intensly anti-Democrat pundit Charles Krauthammer as a source just guarantees you’re not going to get an unbiased opinion of Kerry.

Krauthammer’s responsible for some of the most fractured editorials I’ve ever read. Here’s one where he says the post-9/11 goodwill was a myth and argues that the entire world has always hated the US. Then he tries to make the connection that the 9/11 terrorists attacked us in spite of the fact that we had good relations (that he argues never existed) with the Europeans, as if there’s some correlation between Europe and Islamic terrorists. That particular article’s not appropo here. It’s just my favorite. :)

In the article you cite, Krauthammer says “Russert… quoted Democratic foreign policy adviser Ivo Daalder as saying that handing political and military responsibility to the United Nations and other countries is not realistic,” But if you look at Daalder’s poistions, he is consistently pro-UN in Iraq. I’m not sure in what context Russert and Krauthammer are interpreting what Daalder actually said. No quote or source is provided. The article also doesn’t make clear how “Kerry simply dodged the question.” Do you have a transcript of the interview?

Assesment: Rabid Republican Krauthammer’s opinion piece paints a predictable portrait of Kerry as weak. Yawn.

Craig, I agree that Kerry has not defined the concrete steps he would take to increase allied forces in order to reduce our exposure and losses. Until he does, and they are shown to hold promise of success, it is just pie in the sky rhetoric.

Your candidate said Kerry voted to raise taxes over 350 times. Your people accept that load of hogwash uncritically, and would probably rationalize what in effect is flat out dishonesty. They include votes for tax increases and against tax cuts, but they also include voting for tax cut reductions, against the repeal of raised taxes, against making tax cuts permanent, as well as “Votes for watered down, Democrat ‘tax cut’ substitutes”

That’s a hell of a lot of nuance there, especially in that last item.

If you don’t believe me, believe your own Administration I quoted that last line directly out of one of the documents Bush provided to show what he meant. The links are at the top right hand corner.

That load of sophistry shows just how nuanced Bush’s vision of what a tax cut is. If it’s not the full version he wants, why then, it’s a “Watered-down Democrat tax cut substitute.” apparently, Bush has become the english language’s arbiter on what the phrase “tax cut” means. At least when Kerry speaks of Bush going into war the wrong way, it’s a plain and honest point to make, not a muddying of the linguistic waters like Bush’s circumlocutions.

Lee:

If Senator Kerry was never anti war, then how does he criticize Bush for misleading the American people? It “sounds” like he might be trying to be on both sides of the same issue. In addition that makes him look pretty bad for his vote on the $87 billion.

Do you thing Nader is going to pick up some support as being the only true anti war candidate??

Craig

Craig, I don’t think telling people he thinks this war’s been botched lands him on both sides of the issue. That’s only the case if you frame the debate as a contest between doves and hawks.

Kerry is soundly on one side, though, if you frame the debate as being between those who think the war has been done well, and those who think it’s been botched. Of course, if you frame it that way, Kerry has the advantage because many Americans agree with the sentiment that Iraq has been mishandled.

I think Bush’s people want to define it as Doves vs. Hawks so they can reclaim some of their own people, or shame them into coming back to Bush’s side against Kerry. I think you should be aware of that possibility.

Here’s an example of the kind of dishonesty and cover up we will be in store for if Kerry ever got elected. First Kerry claimed he had never been to this meeting, then when confronted with facts that he was there, said that if there was evidence that he was there then perhaps he was.

When questions were raised last month about whether a 27-year-old John Kerry had attended a Kansas City meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War where the assassination of senators was discussed, the Kerry presidential campaign went into action.

This next little detail just blows me away. The member who had proposed assassinating senators who supported the war was working on Kerry’s presidential campaign!

It accepted the resignation of a campaign volunteer in Florida, Scott Camil, the member of the anti-war group who had raised the idea in November 1971 of killing politicians who supported the war. It pressed other veterans who were in Kansas City 33 years ago to re-examine their hazy memories while assuring them Kerry was sure he had not been there.

The Kerry campaign, then called other members who had said they recalled that proposal to tell them their recollection was wrong.

John Musgrave, a disabled ex-Marine from Baldwin City, Kan., who had told The Kansas City Star that Kerry was at the meeting, got a call from John Hurley, the Kerry campaign’s veterans coordinator.

“He said, ‘I’d like you to refresh your memory,”’ Musgrave, 55, recounted in an interview, confirming an account he had given the New York Sun. “He said it twice. And call that reporter back and say you were mistaken about John Kerry being there.”

Such little-noticed moments in Kerry’s past — including his decision at age 26 to meet with the Viet Cong emissaries to the Paris peace talks — are coming under new scrutiny now, as Kerry finally makes the presidential run that his comrades in arms, and in the anti-war movement, half-mockingly predicted decades ago.

In an interview about his anti-war activities, Kerry said he knew nothing of attempts by his campaign to tinker with the past and that he disapproved. “People’s memories are people’s memories,” he said. He added that he himself did not remember being at that 1971 meeting of the anti-war group.

Hurley said he was merely asking Musgrave to be accurate, “because his memory was contrary to everything I was hearing.”

Yet while Kerry is heavily accentuating his five months in combat in Vietnam, he rarely emphasizes his two years working against the war even though he first catapulted to fame 33 years ago this week when he asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “How do you ask a man to be last man to die for a mistake?” -dailynews

Democrats have to ask themselves who they have nominated here. If anything, Kerry has definate Nixonian characteristics.

The more I think of it the more it occurs to me that the most telling symbolic action Kerry took during that time was throwing other men’s medals over the fence onto the White House lawn. (At least that’s what he said he did.)

Here is a man with ambition. A man willing to throw away the honor and valor of others, but still retain his own medals. Symbolic, I think, of the craven unprincipled politician willing to sacrifice others to get and keep power.

Some press reports say that Kerry ‘threw his medals.’ But Kerry has long maintained he threw his own ribbons but someone else’s medals. In an interview, he said that he had previously met two veterans … who had asked Kerry to return their medals to the military. Kerry said he stuffed them into his jacket. He said that when he prepared to throw his ribbons over the fence, he reached into his jacket and pulled out the medals from those two veterans. He said his own medals remained in safekeeping” (Boston Globe, June 17, 2003). -slate

More than anything else this sums up the man himself. Nuance doesn’t seem to be apt enough a description. Ambiguity, perhaps, in the sense of always trying to have your cake and eat it too. The life-long pursuit of the wealth and power which he feels entitled to.

In 1985, Kerry told the Post, “It’s such a personal thing. They’re my medals. I’ll do what I want with them. … People say, ‘You didn’t throw your medals away.’ Who said I had to? And why should I? It’s my business. I did not want to throw my medals away.”

In sum, Kerry seems innocent of duplicity but guilty of an extremely nuanced moral code, according to which it’s OK to throw away your ribbons and somebody else’s medals, but not your medals. -slate

Wish I had seen this link before I posting the last comment.

1971 VIDEO: KERRY ADMITS THROWING OWN MEDALS; CONTRADICTS CURRENT CLAIMS

In an interview published Friday in the LOS ANGELES TIMES, Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry claimed he “never ever implied” that he threw his own medals during a Hill protest in 1971 to appear as an antiwar hero.

But a new shock video shows John Kerry — in his own voice — saying he did!

ABC’s GOOD MORNING AMERICA is set to rock the political world Monday morning with an airing of Kerry’s specific 1971 boast, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The video was made by a local news station in 1971.

It directly contradicts Kerry’s own website headline: “RIGHTWING FICTION: John Kerry threw away his medals during a Vietnam war protest.”

Kerry’s campaign refused comment Sunday afternoon, citing a policy not to respond to the DRUDGE REPORT. -drudge report

If this is true it’s another example of an outright lie. That’s the problem you run into when your philosophy is relativism. Truth becomes estranged from you.

Stephen:

Hasn’t Kerry said that he thinks Bush “misled” the American people with the WMD?? That sounds like having it both ways.

How can he support something that in his mind began with such dishonesty?

Craig

Stephen:

Hasn’t Kerry said that he thinks Bush “misled” the American people with the WMD?? That sounds like having it both ways.

Craig, the issue of war is not just being for it, or against it. Think about it realistically. The true pacifists are a real minority in this country, and in both parties. Kerry, from his recent voting record, doesn’t qualify as a pacifist. He’s not even on record as saying that he will pull out of Iraq upon taking office.

You complain because you sense that the argument of Hawk vs. Dove doesn’t work. My Advice? Drop it, then. You won’t get anywhere except with the choir. The real questions surround the justifications of the war. Since a pre-emptive war places the burden of proof on those initiating it, the question of the quality of the proof is essential.

Kerry is not the only one asking that question- so are many moderates many liberals, and even some Republicans. So is Kerry trying to have it both ways? No. What he was saying is that if those things had been true, war would have been justified, but since they weren’t, war wasn’t.

Now, at the same time, he believes the Bush administration misled us into war. Is that a contradiction? No. It’s a lack of justification for us having done it, combined with deception on the part of those who made the case for war.

Eric-

I think this is a case of your people throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks. Medals, what meetings he did or did not attend, atrocities he’s already admitted to, and secondhand quotations from a croaked Admiral unable to clarify what he did or did not say.

This is all stuff you’ve covered before, and that he’s covered before, and all of this stuff about dates and places could easily fall under the heading of one having a foggy memory of things done over thirty years ago. Memories are reconstructive, and Kerry’s memories are older than some of his campaign staff.

The Medals: Who gives a crap? If he didn’t throw them, he had a reason. If he did, he had a reason. It was a symbolic gesture done on behalf of his fellow soldiers. You’re trying to make it look like Watergate, which involved things like Felony Burglary and use of campaign funds for illegal activities.

The Atrocities: I’ve seen this crap before, referred to it as well. Kerry has admitted that he participated in common atrocities of the day, things that were confirmed as common by other sources. You guys have to stop pretending Vietnam was a clean war.

The Meeting: Whatever meetings he did or did not attend, his policy was that his group would not use violent means. Even his detractors paint him as a moderate and a voice of reason.

These are questions whose answers, in their proper context mean jacksquat. Unlike the question of who in the administration outed Valerie Plame. Or what did the Bush Government do or not do in the leadup to 9/11. Or what did Bush’s people know about the weakness in the case for the war in Iraq, and when did they know it? The answers to those questions are important, critical, involving issues of the highest importance.

Wake me when you find a critical issue with real substantive backup.

Stephen,

Critical issues? With real substantive backup?

No, you’re right. Kerry’s lies aren’t substantive. They just go to the heart of his character. The fact is that his statements now and then happen to be about the same critical issues of today. If what he did and said then matters in a positive sense, one cannot exclude what he did and said in a negative sense. You cannot have it both ways here.

You said that the Bush administration was secretive and hiding things. I give you facts that the Kerry campaign is trying to cover up ‘insubstantial things’ and it doesn’t matter? Only the fact that Bush ‘lied’ matters.

The fact that Kerry says he was never at that meeting, when he was. The fact that the guy who proposed killing senators at that meeting is working on Kerry’s campaign today has no relevance whatsoever to you?

What if thirty years ago George Bush had said he thinks we should rule the world and be a benevolent dictatorship? Would that have any relevance in your mind?

Let’s see, Bush lied because he relied on the intelligence and didn’t go to Iraq and prove that WMD were actually there. (Isn’t that what the inspections were for? Which were thwarted at every turn?) But Kerry contradicts his own statements, apparent bald face lies, and it’s a contexual problem.

Eric, that’s pretty funny. First off, if Kerry doesn’t remember something from 27 years ago, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But if you really want to talk about what the candidates were doing in 1971, I’m all for it.

How about your candidate’s drinking problem? Drunk driving is a pretty serious offense. How about burglery? Drunk and disorderly? And that’s just the stuff that has police records to back it up.

My favorite part was when Bush described his irresponsible drunkeness as a youthful indescretion. He was 35 years old for crying out loud. The he says that he learned his lesson and stopped drinking… ten years later. I know he’s not the brightest star in the heavens, but that seems like a long time to learn a lesson.

How about the womanizing, the coke snorting, and the time unaccounted for in the National Guard while he was actively avoiding service in Vietnam?

All of Bush’s actions paint a portrait of a man who is irresponsible, unfocused, and childish. Not the kind of man I want leading my country

I can hear you whining that these are all cheap shots. You bet. If you want to trade cheap shots, then in the words of your drunken frat boy candidate, “Bring ‘em on!”

No, you’re right. Kerry’s lies aren’t substantive. They just go to the heart of his character. The fact is that his statements now and then happen to be about the same critical issues of today.

What makes you think I agree Kerry was lying, much less that it was the substance of what he was saying that I was concerned about? Again you’re cherrypicking what I’ve written, trying to use rhetorical special effects to counter my argument without actually addressing what I was talking about.

You jump the gun, trying to convince me of the gravity of what Kerry has supposedly lied about, without ever having fully convinced me that these are lies, and not the kind of memory lapses that come from over thirty years of time coming between you, and events in question. Memory, even recent memory can be very unreliable. Eyewitnesses can be swayed in their recollections by the manner of the questioning alone. That’s part of how you get all that recovered memory BS about satanic rituals, alien abductions, and sexual abuse. So if you try and tell me that a candidate asked off the top of his head for something like this gets it wrong, then I’ll tell you that memory isn’t that reliable, and he could easily have remembered it incorrectly rather than be dishonest about it.

As for the man that proposed assassinations, we know two things: Kerry is known for his rejection of such means, and people are known to mellow out over such long periods of time. I wonder whether you’d be willing to give me that person’s name, as it’s hard to trace the history of a man without his name. If he was still advocating such means in the decades since the passionate disagreements of the Vietnam era, Kerry would have a problem. But if the guy’s now laughing at his previously radical behavior, I wouldn’t find it at all outrageous.

But Bush?

Bush’s issues are another story.

We have an issue where Americans are dying, and a strategy intended to make Americans safer back home, may indeed have the opposite effect. Bush’s policies are costing American lives at a rate unheard of in almost thirty years. He has significantly diminished our nation’s diplomatic power, and must now ask for help from the same people he circumvented and ridiculed. His failure to find the WMDs and terrorist only rubs salt in the wound, as this represents a failure to vindicate his defiance of the UN. Now our opponents abroad, friendly and unfriendly are pointing to that and saying, “See, like we said, he didn’t have anything.” And now, most Americans fear that what Bush has done has made the terrorism problem worse.

What we have here are not just character issues, but Character issues expressed in policy that has the capacity to kill Americans or put them in danger of their lives, if done wrong.

For so long, politicians have made character issues about what the candidate has done outside of office. I think it’s far more valuable to ask what a politician has done within office, especially in Bush’s case. The American people are prepared to accept a flawed leader. Clinton is proof of that all by himself. What they are not willing to accept is a leader who has endangered them needlessly, and Bush, right now, is looking like that kind of leader.

I would say we all have funny ideas as kids. But as far as Kerry goes, you have yet to show me a quote from anybody that has him advocating the murder of politicians, explicitly or implicitly. You’re just expecting me to believe that because some people advocated that, everybody at that meeting there advocated that, and thus Kerry is guilty by association. Trouble is, the Anti-War movement there is described as being diverse in it’s opinions and attitudes, and Kerry is known for his opposition to violence and his moderation.

As for Bush and the benevolant dictatorship, well, actually, Thirty years ago, Nixon had his people arguing precisely that: that the presidency had the absolute power of Louis the fourteenth, only four years at a time.

And Bush has revived the Imperial presidency, strengthened the powers and the secrecy of the executive. He’s been throwing off executive orders left and right to that effect. So if actually said something like that, I wouldn’t be suprised at all.

Sorry, I messed up the tags. I meant to quote you like so, Eric:

What if thirty years ago George Bush had said he thinks we should rule the world and be a benevolent dictatorship? Would that have any relevance in your mind?

…trying to use rhetorical special effects to counter my argument without actually addressing what I was talking about.

I was trying to be specific. He may have forgotten, but I doubt it. The gravity is not that he may have recollection problems, the gravity is the Nixonian way he deals with the entire question.

Kerry took charge of that meeting. That’s when he suggested going to the Capitol Mall.

The man who proposed killing senators name is in the quote I supplied. Scott Camil.

It accepted the resignation of a campaign volunteer in Florida, Scott Camil, the member of the anti-war group who had raised the idea in November 1971 of killing politicians who supported the war. It pressed other veterans who were in Kansas City 33 years ago to re-examine their hazy memories while assuring them Kerry was sure he had not been there.

Now, Kerry knows this is a potential turn-off for voters, so he conveniently can’t remember being there, at the apex of his young political life.

Thirty years later this guy is working on his campaign, Kerry says he was never at that meeting, and Kerry’s campaign staff goes into action to suppress testimony of witnesses.

If something this ‘inconsequential’ is treated in this manner, what lengths would Kerry go to if something really consequential turns up?

Yet while Kerry is heavily accentuating his five months in combat in Vietnam, he rarely emphasizes his two years working against the war even though he first catapulted to fame 33 years ago this week when he asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “How do you ask a man to be last man to die for a mistake?”

I’m just looking for some balance here. The people have a right to know after all. We can’t afford to sweep these kinds of things under the rug can we?

Bush’s policies are costing American lives at a rate unheard of in almost thirty years.

Sure Stephen. But statistically that is not correct. Except for abortions (1 million+ a year), automobile accidents (45-50,000 a year), the flu (20,000 a year), and murders (15,000 a year), combat deaths are a relatively small percentage of American deaths.

I am not happy about any service members death. But these are all volunteer troops, and many of them are doing precisely what they have trained to do. I don’t believe their sacrifice has been needless and neither should you.

Part of the issue is the comparison to Vietnam. With that comes the anti-war demostrators, the harsh way our soldiers were treated and viewed by that crowd, and Kerry’s participation in that movement.

Thirty years later this guy is working on his campaign, Kerry says he was never at that meeting, and Kerry’s campaign staff goes into action to suppress testimony of witnesses.

Suppress how? Be specific. Are they moving to spin the issue, are they simply answer questions, or are they out bullying and intimidating? I think it’s important that we are clear about what kind of acts we’re speaking of here.

From what I’ve read, I think I can be sure that Scott Camil does not work for the Kerry campaign. I think it was mentioned somewhere that he’s green party. What is for sure, whenever, and wherever he was, what meetings he attend, that Kerry ultimately resigned from the organization over such talk. If I’m wrong, please show me the evidence that tells us Camil’s working for Kerry so we can clear this up.

There were more than just the meetings you described. I believe there was at least one more meeting than that big one, if not two. One of those was worked out in order to discuss the issue of those plots in question, and it was a knock down drag-em out fight where ultimately the proposal was voted down.

In the end, though, the sum of it is that he took the high road. He may not have remembered small details clearly after the fact (the words “does not recall” pops up in his aide’s explanation), but he did oppose the use of violence by his organization, and resigned from it as a result.

People don’t always find themselves in ideal company, Eric, and I’m certain Bush’s associations have caused him quite a lot of headaches. Only difference is, where Kerry took the better angle on things than his fellow veterans, Bush sunk to the level of his questionable associations.

As for the loss of lives, I meant it in a narrowly military sense, a focus you don’t acknowledge when you say it’s statistically untrue, but do acknowledge when you say:

I am not happy about any service members death. But these are all volunteer troops, and many of them are doing precisely what they have trained to do. I don’t believe their sacrifice has been needless and neither should you.

As for that last sentence, I think you’re correct. I don’t see their sacrifice as needless, since they are working to fix the situation in Iraq, and will help save American lives by stabilizing the country, if they are able

But starting this war? No. That was needless. That was unjustified. The loss of hundreds of American lives in such a war, therefore, though necessary to correct the mistake, is nonetheless the result of a mistake. A mistake with consequences those who made the decision to go to war should be held accountable for.

It seems you Bushee’s get your joy from the slaughter of peopleover in Iraq. Oh - yu mean they qre nbot people - just collateral damage.

Dubya’s daddy said Kuwait was about principle - of course that was spelled O.I.L. Now Dubya states its for Democracy (WMD bioological weapons etc do not exist). Once again the OIL ministry was protected a year ago - but hospitals, whose population was 83% children under 14 years old had no electricity, water, or medicine. Priceless treasues were lost and are propbably in the homes of some of Bush’s coprporate buddies.

Today the people of IRaq have 3 hours of electricity on and four hurs off,, it they are fortunte enough to live in the cities. Water is contaminated, sewage is digusting, and unemployment is around 40%, But they are FREE to vocalize their gripes about circumstancs thy never had to face under the former repressive and brutal regime.

Dubya and crowd crow that Iraq ships 1.5 milllion b/p/d of OIL. Of course all the workers and contracts go to Dubya and Cheney’s buddies. How much of that OIL money is actually handled by Iraqi’s for projects wanted and prioritized by Iraqi’s?

In april we kill 600 people in Fallujah. Of course the lie machine states they were insurgents - but verified objective reports find that of the 600, 357 were woman and their young children. More collateral damage??

And on the home front we lose 3 million factory and white color job to outsurcing - but grow the Burger King, McDonald type jobs to 308,000 and call it success.

States now compete to see which has the worst respitory illnesses because our enviornment is has improved so dramatically - yeah right!!

If you yo you’s are from another planet - please return home, so that everyday, decent Americans can clean up the Rerublican War Criminals mess, and bring back the prosperous hopeful years we had before January 14 2001.

If I’m wrong, please show me the evidence that tells us Camil’s working for Kerry so we can clear this up.

It’s in the quote above…

…the Kerry presidential campaign went into action.

It accepted the resignation of a campaign volunteer in Florida, Scott Camil, the member of the anti-war group who had raised the idea in November 1971 of killing politicians who supported the war.

Just imagine the following call with a new jersey accent and tell me what that sounds like…

…got a call from John Hurley, the Kerry campaign’s veterans coordinator.

“He said, ‘I’d like you to refresh your memory,”’ Musgrave, 55, recounted in an interview, confirming an account he had given the New York Sun. “He said it twice. And call that reporter back and say you were mistaken about John Kerry being there.”

We can’t trust Kerry to even tell us he owns an SUV for Pete’s sake.

Kerry insisted, “I don’t own an SUV.”

When pressed about a Chevrolet Suburban, the mother of all SUVs, kept at the Heinz Kerry abode in Idaho, Kerry said: “The family has it. I don’t have it.”

Kerry has now closed the distance between nuance and flat-out deception.

And that’s without mentioning the other gas-guzzlers this candidate and his family enjoy, all the while posturing about reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and fuel efficiency.

At last count, there were eight “family” cars and SUVs, including the 1995 Suburban (15 mpg highway, 12 mpg city), a 1993 Land Rover Defender (12 mpg highway, 10 mpg city), a 1989 Jeep Cherokee (20 mpg highway, 16 mpg city), a 1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee (20 mpg highway, 15 mpg city), a 2001 Audi Allroad (21 mpg highway, 15 mpg city), a 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser (25 mpg highway, 20 mpg city), a 1985 Dodge 600 Convertible (26 mpg highway, 23 mpg city), and a 2002 Chrysler 300M (26 mpg highway, 18 mpg city). Kerry, however, only owns up to the latter two.

Then there’s the 2002 Harley Davidson (his), two powerboats (one his, one hers), a power inflatable 2001 Novurania (his), and a Gulfstream II private jet (hers).

President Kerry would have to open his own pipeline in Saudi Arabia just to meet family fuel demand. -boston.com

Unfortunately, the best democratic candidate lost the nomination.

WASHINGTON (AP) Sen. Joe Lieberman on Monday called for the creation of a bipartisan Iraq war council and insisted that Republicans and Democrats aren’t far apart on key issues surrounding the conflict.

In a speech to the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, Lieberman said President Bush and presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry agree that America cannot abandon Iraq, that more troops are needed and that the international community should be more involved.
-boston.com

Leiberman at least understands that this war must be won and a bitter campaign threatens to create a public relations-propaganda nightmare surrounding the war. Giving the enemy valuable anti-US propaganda sound bites on why we are there and how the war was prosecuted does not help us win it.

Given the information I’ve looked at, I guess I can accept that Camil was a volunteer and that the Kerry camp asked for his resignation. You haven’t quoted any material that says whether or no he offered it, or was asked for it. Was in charge of much? I don’t know, I would think a volunteer would be working this in his free time.

But again, it’s clear that Kerry never supported any violence out of his group, even for a worthy cause like civil rights. If that’s clear, then all the guilt by association stuff is merely a smear tactic, not representative of Kerry’s character.

As for what campaign staffs do, your president is just as vulnerable, if not more.

Karl Rove is famous for having spread rumors of an interracial love child via push-polling about Sen. John McCain. A nice thing to do in North Carolina, especially considering that McCain has an adopted Bangladeshi Child. And if that isn’t bad enough, the rumors are that Roves a likely suspect as the person who outed Valerie Plame as a NOC agent, something quite illegal.

Let’s just face facts: this thing is going to get ugly, and it’s doubtful any side is going to come out of it without their tailored suits ruined by the mudslinging.

Lieberman said President Bush and presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry agree that America cannot abandon Iraq, that more troops are needed and that the international community should be more involved.

If you like Lieberman’s stand on defense, why don’t you like Kerry’s position? They’re identical!

If you like Lieberman’s stand on defense, why don’t you like Kerry’s position? They’re identical!

Except Lieberman thinks it was right to go into Iraq in the first place. Kerry’s present stand on Iraq is now very close to Bush’s in fact. So why not Bush?

Kerry is obviously taking that position for a variety of reasons, necessity being foremost. I am willing to give him credit for that at least. For realizing that immediate withdrawal is out of the question.

The real solution is victory. I am not sure Kerry understands this in the same way I do, or Bush does (also by necessity if you want to be critical). Kerry’s argument boils down to a presumption that he can get our counterbalance in Europe to send troops into Iraq. Bush certainly tried to make that happen. Could Kerry succeed where Bush failed? Perhaps. Just maybe, in the circumstance of humiliating Bush, France and Germany would make some gestures. That, in a nutshell, is how I see Kerry’s nuance on Iraq.

Kerry’s present stand on Iraq is now very close to Bush’s in fact. So why not Bush?

Eric, this is where health care, the economy, education, energy policies, the environment, and fiscal responsibility all come into the debate. Kerry’s stance on these issues tips my vote his way.

Bush gave every indication to the UN powers that their decision would not affect his, that he would go to war even if they did not take his position and validate it. Having not been thoroughly convinced, the UN simply turned him down.

Kerry’s nuance on this is not that that much of a nuance, but a general disagreement with having rushed to war on bad intelligence, and worse preparation. If we had gotten the UN on board, told them that their opinions were valued (even if we could give a crap less), and we could have gotten much better support for the war from neighboring countries, and not looked like the Christian/Atheist power hell-bent on conquering and occupying a Muslim country. That’s not nuance, that’s just plain getting your ducks in a row, and that’s what Bush failed to do. That’s what I call incompetence: the failure to do the job right.

Craig,

With all due respect… On first glance, a Watchblog reader would deduct from the title of this entry, that you would track down any available information on Kerry’s public and/or published position(s) on Iraq, and decipher it from the perspective of a Conservative.

Instead, you cite and link a shrill partisan pundit of the Right (Krauthammer), and then launched into a wishful thinking inspired scenario of party dis-unity, totally at odds with the true state of Democrats.

For the record, here is Kerry’s positions on Iraq:

JohnKerry.com/Iraq

Lee,

Eric, this is where health care, the economy, education, energy policies, the environment, and fiscal responsibility all come into the debate. Kerry’s stance on these issues tips my vote his way.

…and tips my vote solidly for Bush. His stand on all those issues is wrong, my friend.

Stephen,

Bush gave every indication to the UN powers that their decision would not affect his, that he would go to war even if they did not take his position and validate it. Having not been thoroughly convinced, the UN simply turned him down.

…That’s what I call incompetence: the failure to do the job right.

First I’d like you to at least consider that UN officials and several of our ‘allies’ had a secret conflict of interest in this issue. France led the resistance to the US. They had billions of dollars of business to protect, as well as under the table dealings. The UN, strapped for cash, had a profitable venture ongoing with the oil for food program. Just it’s legal compensation alone made up some of the budget shortfalls it had had previously. Throw in bribes and kickbacks, which even Scott Ritter received and that amounts to alot more than Halliburton.

Do you think this might have influenced their position on this matter at all?

Eric, Eric. We could have easily arranged to pay our back dues, and then the UN wouldn’t have to worry about such things.

We could have named and shamed if we were willing to play dirty enough Problem is, you have weak sense of how to do diplomacy to go along with your view of it as a weak method for dealing with international crises.

Could their be some connection? I think so. I think you’ve been given a hammer, and you think every problem’s a nail. I think you ignore, for partisan reasons, evidence which seriously undermines the very case you went to war on, but you don’t want to admit that because it puts you in a position of weakness. Well you put yourself there, and you’re there whether you think you’re there or not. If the facts were on your side, you’d be able to cite mainstream sources that demonstrat the truth of what you’ve said.

Instead, you have to spin your way through every discussion of WMD, talk about potential threats when everybody with any sense knows that you engage in preemptive war to answer actual threats before they show up on one’s front door.

You go after missiles and WMDs you know are there, and you know are prepared to launch your way. You don’t go after the idea of missiles, the wish for missiles, the vague sense of “gee, isn’t that kind of firepower cool?” You target actual, imminent threats, or at the very least gathering threats you are sure about. a nice set of Al Quaeda camps would be one, a document connection implying control, material support and initiative on Saddam’s part relating to terrorists would be another. The most we got on him is that he was fighting a Proxy war against the Kurds in the north with a couple Islamist groups. That’s it. We have been in possession of Iraqi documents for about a year now, and no connection stronger than a few cases of guns has come up. The worst part about it is that people could have told you this was the case, if you were listening.

But, no, this president had to put himself in a position where he would lose face politically if he decided not to go to War. He chose to encourage an atmosphere where being took a backseat to attempting the impossible: trying to anticipate every threat. He wanted proof of what he thought Iraq was doing, not evidence of what Saddam was really doing. They made sloppy assumptions of what Iraqi’s could do, or bought into them when presented from other countries.

Such sloppiness has a price. As intelligence blowbacks mulitply, people get very uptight about their assumptions, very unwilling to go out on a limb. To have repsonsible effective intelligence gathering, there must both be rewards for seeking out new information, taking risks, and consequences for not doing things right. A balance has to be struck between the unacceptable extremes of waiting for perfect evidence, an letting their imaginations run way with themselves. America will not be more secure if our intelligence officers are either jumping at shadows or sitting in their nice, safe rooms, making nice, safe assumptions.

In military terms, such sloppiness means we will be more reticent to involve ourselves where needed. The Pentagon will worry itself sick about the next Iraq, instead of the next Vietnam.

In domestic terms, kneejerk reactions like the PATRIOT act will have the same effect. The Draconian, purposely vague nature of the laws will either encourage imposition of authority where it does not belong, giving the government a black eye, or an unwillingness to cooperate with such a law, or to enforce it, an unwilingness that could undermine counterterrorism. The balance should be struck because counterterrorism laws must survive the environment they were meant for, and if your law is a constitutional challenge waiting to happen, if your law is so over the top that people don’t make use of it for fear of the political flak, or because their better judgment advises against it, then the law will not do it’s job right.

The reality is that no line of defense in the war on terror can properly be hardened by heavy-handed, hamfisted measures. If we are to win this war, then we must apply measures that are appropriate to what manifests itself in the real world, to our society, and the societies we engage with.

1. Diplomacy

We could have named and shamed if we were willing to play dirty enough Problem is, you have weak sense of how to do diplomacy to go along with your view of it as a weak method for dealing with international crises.

Sure we could have named and shamed, if we had known. But much of the information we now have is actually a result of our occupation of Baghdad. The uncovering of the UN corruption is another ‘unintended consequence,’ as you say, of the rush to war.

The kind of evidence you are talking about to ok a preemptive attack will never exist. We are finite beings in a infinite world of possibilities. What is an imminent threat? Troops massing on our borders? ICBM’s streaking across the sky?

Not only did GW, the merciful and compassionate, attempt to do what you suggest he should have done, but he nearly succeeded in doing it. In the end diplomacy failed because we underestimated the duplicity of allies who had a conflict of interest. Had we known the extent of that conflict of interest at the time, I assume GW & company would have named and shamed. It is probably a result of being diplomatic that any hints were not capitalized on.

2. Iraq

I think you’ve been given a hammer, and you think every problem’s a nail.

Stephen, there are times to compromise and there are times to stand your ground. Iraq was a time to stand our ground.

But, no, this president had to put himself in a position where he would lose face politically if he decided not to go to War. He chose to encourage an atmosphere where being took a backseat to attempting the impossible: trying to anticipate every threat. He wanted proof of what he thought Iraq was doing, not evidence of what Saddam was really doing. They made sloppy assumptions of what Iraqi’s could do, or bought into them when presented from other countries.

Kerry also put us in that position when he voted for the authorization of force. Are you questioning his judgement on that as well? We made the threat, which Kerry in all his wisdom thought it entirely appropriate to make nut apparently not carry through on. Is this internationalism?

How could we know what Saddam was doing at the level you are asking for? Bush doesn’t even know how many Democratic-Liberal fifth columns he has in his own adminstration. ie. Clark, O’neil, et al.

Even a broken watch is right twice a day. Kerry’s internationalism is a position of compromise for the sake of compromise. He would not have gone to the UN, because Iraq would not have been a threat in his eyes. That is, once France made it clear that they did not want Saddam removed, Kerry would have had to bow and acquiese for the sake of not appearing arrogant.

IN the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and in the year since, a fashionable argument about toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime went something like this: no effort to end the suffering of the Iraqi people would be “legitimised” unless it was led by the UN because, while the UN’s motives were humanitarian, those of the US and its allies were blackened by material self-interest. There is now growing evidence that the opposite was the case. Iraqi oil production is at pre-war levels, and generating $20 billion a year in profits that flow direct to the Iraqi people – not the coffers of the coalition of the willing. But in a scandal that has now snaked its way right to the office of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, it appears that it was at the UN, and among Security Council members who opposed the invasion, that Iraq was “all about oil”. -theaustralian.news.com.au

3. Patriot act

In domestic terms, kneejerk reactions like the PATRIOT act will have the same effect. The Draconian, purposely vague nature of the laws will either encourage imposition of authority where it does not belong, giving the government a black eye, or an unwillingness to cooperate with such a law, or to enforce it, an unwilingness that could undermine counterterrorism.

I’m not sure what’s so draconian about the Patriot Act. Except for the extreme abuse of acronyms it seems pretty tame to me. (Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism)

We can trust our government to take over and nationalize our health care system but we can’t trust them to look at our library records?

I think that the Campaign Finance Reform Bill damaged our freedoms far more, and in a way that our founding fathers would recognize as heading down the road to tyranny.

I’d be curious to know what specifically about the Patriot Act you think should be repealed.

Senator John Kerry has been telling everyone that he will get the world “France, Germany, Russia, and the U.N. to work with us in Iraq.,
Here’s how he will do it:
• First forgive them for stealing from the money for food program,
• second ask them to forgive us for catching them,
• third allow them to keep their illegal deals and
• fourth have Iraq honor the illegal contracts and pay them along with interest and penalties for the stress they have gone through worrying about the trouble that they may be in and the money that they may be required to pay back to the Iraqi people.
Then they will help the U.S. by taking the worry about what to do about Iraqi’s oil from the Iraqi people and pump the proceeds to themselves, just as they have been doing for all of the years prior to the war.
Of course the Heinz Company will boom with the extra money that will be going overseas and will be available to purchase from their huge overseas corporations.
Senator Kerry could just make his wife rich—-er,
Thank God we won’t be required to worry about them.
John R. Stanczak
John.stanczakfamily.com