Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Dan:

That was good for a hearty laugh. Kerry is simply a nuanced kinda guy. I’m sure he does try to see all sides of a situation, but for him to claim consistency is ludicrous.

Of course, Democrats are now settled with him, so their script appears to be evolving with Kerry’s.
Depending on the audience, he has been on virtually every side of the issue, from being against the war(to fight off Howard Dean) to being against the timing of the war, to being against the methods used in the war, but for the war itself, to now having been consistent all along in his policy ideas.

Thanks again for the chuckle.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 11, 2004 08:08 PM

I have to be honest, only two of Kerry’s statements strike me as remotely inconsistent:

“And the fact is, in the resolution that we passed, we did not empower the President to do regime change.”

Well, Senator, you didn’t command him to do it, but you gave him pretty much a blank check to do whatever hare-brained thing he wanted. So yeah, you “empowered” him.

MSNBC’S CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Are you one of the anti-war candidates?”

KERRY: “I am - Yeah.”

I agree that he probably said this to get a bit of a Dean contact high. I believe that he honestly opposed the war starting when it did and under such rushed and reckless circumstances, but he had never ruled it out either, which is what “anti-war” suggests.

The rest of the quotes look totally consistent to me because, unlike most Republicans, I believe that the increased threat of force began by the Bush Administration in late 2002 was working quite well against Saddam and that the invasion probably could have been avoided (I say “probably” because we don’t know). If the inspections were thwarted by Saddam throughout the remainder of 2003, even under the threat of war, then I probably would have supported an invasion in late 2003 or early 2004. But, as it turned out, not only were the inspections most likely going to turn up nothing, but the Bush Administration planned to invade no matter what Saddam did. In mid to late 2002, although I didn’t trust Bush I thought he was generally doing the right thing by applying intense pressure to Iraq and to the international community, I really did. Like most Americans in both parties, I was suspicious that Saddam had some sort of nuclear program under way and probably had hidden WMDs still. But I didn’t realize that Bush’s plan was just a game, and that he had no intention of inspecting Iraq at all, no plan to do anything but invade. In August 2002 I was all in favor of bombing Iraq’s suspected WMD facilities at every opportunity and getting other nations to send inspectors (and troops to help them) into Iraq. By February of 2003, smelling the impending Bush betrayal, I went to an anti-war protest. Somewhere in the middle I was convinced that the increased inspections were working and that Bush was intentionally ignoring that success in his single-minded fervor for war.

I am pretty sure that Kerry’s position is roughly the same as mine, although I think he might have trusted Bush way more than I ever did. Outside of those two comments above, though, I don’t see inconsistency at all.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 11, 2004 08:36 PM

Chris:

In one sense, Kerry is entirely consistent. He takes pretty much the entire spectrum of options and puts them on the table. He says we should be tough with Saddam, even if the UN disagrees.

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.” (ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

This quote is vintage Kerry—note how he opens many doors all at once. “I supported, but would have preferred….” Gotta give him credit—he IS good at dissembling.

Posted by: joebagodonunts at August 11, 2004 08:54 PM

Speaking of flip-flops, check this out:

YESTERDAY:

President Bush said on Tuesday that abolishing the U.S. income tax system and replacing it with a national sales tax was an idea worth considering.

“It’s an interesting idea,” Bush told an “Ask President Bush” campaign forum here. “You know, I’m not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it’s the kind of interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously.”

TODAY:

Administration officials on Wednesday denied that President Bush is considering a national sales tax, a day after the Republican incumbent created a stir by calling such a tax “an interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously.”

Posted by: entertainment news at August 11, 2004 09:36 PM

Bush finally has an interesting idea to move this country in a direction away from the income tax and of course his little white house handlers have to deny the whole thing. This is one of the key reasons why I am voting libertarian for the first time in my life- I have had it with always needing to be in the mainstream about everything.

Memo for Karl Rove: “Dont rock the boat or get any idea about pushing your principles W! We have an ELECTION to win.”

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 11, 2004 09:47 PM

I meant “Memo FROM Karl Rove”

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 11, 2004 09:52 PM

Bush never endorsed or even proposed the income tax thing—the Speaker of the House has been floating the idea.

Bush just said it was an interesting idea, but not one he was considering.

You can put both ideas is one sentence and there’s no contradiction or flip flop whatsoever.

Posted by: Martin at August 11, 2004 10:15 PM

Martin- dont you think that if Bush would stop being so close to the vest, he would actually support some REAL income tax reform (as opposed to a tiny, less than 1% tax cut) or some REAL social security reform? I think that he believes in these things, but he wont come out for them. I wish he would put his neck out there for some real change- maybe he could get my support back…

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 11, 2004 10:20 PM

I’ve contacted some people about the list, I’ll see what I can dig up fact wise on the full context of the quotes there, because I don’t have access to the originals of all the sources.

But from I have read, Kerry has most likely kept the same position: A moderate to liberal, diplomatic track first, fighting second attitude. Given what’s happened in Iraq, we can better appreciate the joys of that approach.

In my experience, such quotations are better propaganda than they are documentation. Words can be twisted, can be quoted out of context, ellided, and in various ways carved and butchered.

How many times were questions edited out? How many ellipsises are used, and what do they hide? I sure hope you know before I do, Dan. Care to fill us in on that?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 11, 2004 11:18 PM

As far as I can tell, Kerry’s Iraq invasion policy has remained consistent: Iraq needed to be dealt with at some point. Just not at a time and in a manner which would distract us from our main goal of defeating the terrorists.

BTW, that Iraq resolution gave the President the authority to invade if necessary.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 12, 2004 12:00 AM

What if Kerry really IS this incredibly nuanced and sophisticated in his positions? A philosopher of incredible intellectual power, aware of the subtlest minutiae, he’s such a deep thinker that even an astute political observer like yourself has to labor incessantly to explain why apparently contradictory statements are actually part of one unified, masterly and incredibly delicate (and dare we say it— beautiful) understanding of the powers that shape our world.Is that what we need in a president while terrorists are cutting our throats and blowing up our buildings? We need someone who doesn’t leave us (and more importantly, our enemies) guessing about hidden messages. There may come a time again when we need a Woody Allen in the Oval Office. But now we need John Wayne, the guy who let’s you know exactly where he stands. “You destroyed two of our buildings, so we’re taking down two of your COUNTRIES.” “Bring it on,” and “Let’s roll,” not “Let’s see if you can figure out what my real position is! A-ha, Osama! I have confused you with my intellect! Will I retaliate? Won’t I retaliate? Does your brain hurt now? Do you surrender?”

Posted by: Martin at August 12, 2004 12:27 AM

Martin:

“You destroyed two of our buildings, so we’re taking down two of your COUNTRIES.”?

Still trying to hammer the tired rhetoric that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Give it up, it just makes you look silly at this point.

Posted by: Jarin at August 12, 2004 12:51 AM

Oh, wait, I forgot… wouldn’t want to be nuanced enough to tell one arab guy from another, now would we? That’d just be too much…

Posted by: Jarin at August 12, 2004 12:52 AM

Martin, you’re intentionally ignoring the fact that Kerry’s Iraq policy isn’t nuanced. Neither is his counterterrorism policy.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 12, 2004 01:15 AM

Jarin, still hammering at the tired old rhetoric that suicide-bombing funding, terrorist-harboring, yellow-cake seeking, WMD-using, assasination-of- American-president planning Saddam Hussein was no threat to anybody and not a key figure in the threat to America posed by Middle-Eastern fanaticism?

I never said anything about 9-11. At this point, and Bush understands this even if some don’t, the important thing is not to punish those responsible for 9-11 (though that’s happening too and nice when it does), but to stop the next 9-11 from occuring.

It’s called strategery. It’s the “vision thing,” and not, unfortunately, immediately understood by the faint of heart.

Posted by: Martin at August 12, 2004 01:19 AM

Martin, you think the diplomacy’s for his benefit? No, it’s about getting what we want in this war on terror out of the countries we have to, whether they be good, bad or indifferent towards us. That’s extradition, that’s extraordinary rendition, that’s getting our investigators on their trail in their countries, that’s getting them to employ their resources to help in the war, and rewarding those countries that do their part.

That’s getting logistical and tactical support for our troops. That’s getting our enemy’s potential allies or interlopers to understand clearly the price of their intervention before we have to deal with it.

Diplomacy is our interests getting expressed where we don’t have sovereign power. You are for the extension, rather than the subtraction of American power in the world, aren’t you? Diplomacy is how grown up nations deal with most problems.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 12, 2004 01:31 AM

AP, Kerry’s Iraq and counterterrorism policy aren’t nuanced? Well, maybe not, but who knows?

Kerry, seemingly invoking the ghost of Richard Nixon who had a “secret plan to end to war in Vietnam” which still remains a secret to this day,
can only describe his position like this when pressed for details about what he’d do in Iraq.

As an athiest, I can’t muster the quasi-religious faith in Kerry that he is demanding—or blind faith in his “secret” plan. But I know Bush’s policy. Like all bold policies, it hits potholes and requires determination and fortitude to see it through to its conclusion. I hope, but don’t know for a fact, that he will have a chance to see it through before we’re all forced to live with whatever waits behind Kerry’s mytserious door number three. Voting for Kerry is a blind leap of faith which we can’t afford to take at this point in history.

Posted by: Martin at August 12, 2004 01:38 AM

Never said anything about 9/11? Umm… Martin, in the comment I was replying to you JUST SAID that we need someone who says “You destroyed two of our buildings, so we’re taking down two of your COUNTRIES.” It was in the part after you called Bush a John Wayne. Since the only two buildings anybody destroyed in the US recently related to this discussion were the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11, how can you possibly say you never said anything about 9/11? Your statement in and of itself says that both Afghanistan and Iraq were countries belonging to one group referred to by the collective pronoun “you” in your statement who had destroyed buildings in the US on 9/11. That’s simply not true.

And where exactly is this rhetoric that you say I’m hammering? I do actually think that Saddam wasn’t a threat to anyone in the US at the time we attacked him, an assessment fairly well supported by what we found when we went over there, but I don’t recall mentioning it here in this thread, let alone hammering it with my rhetoric. In fact, the only statements I’ve made in this thread prior to this one are about your apparent inability to tell the difference between bin Laden and Saddam. Or is that unwillingness?

Simple facts: Iraq never destroyed any buildings in the US. Saying that we have destroyed two countries in retribution for two buildings destroyed on 9/11 is both ludicrous since only one of the two countries had anything to do with the destroyed buildings, and also possibly racist since the only way you would be somewhat accurate is if the “you” being referred to are all arabs everywhere, making no distinction between those arabs who are terrorists and those arabs who are not.

Posted by: Jarin at August 12, 2004 01:42 AM

Stephen, I’d agree with your points—since they do make sense from an academic and intellectual point of view—if I thought that diplomatic successes were as easily doled out by presidents as candy-canes by Saint Nick at Christmas. Positing the election as a choice between diplomacy (somehow represented by Kerry, totally untested in this area) and non-diplomacy (Bush, who has cajoled even Pakistan into cooperating and has kept Tony Blair and the heads of Eastern Europe on his side, including Russia and its intelligence assets as many points) is a pleasant formula, a nice little black-and-white scenario worthy of Disney, but all to mysterious, secret, and based upon blind faith to actually believe. Kerry will smile, say “pretty please” and France, Belgium and Germany will forget their national interests and send troops to do work they’ve sworn they won’t?
Not even Kerry will come out and say this, because he knows he’d be laughed at—hence his secret plan, his little bauble of hope that he dangles and then pulls his into his sleeve as soon as you try to lean in for a closer look.

Posted by: Martin at August 12, 2004 01:53 AM

Congratulations, Dan. You’ve mastered the technique, used skillfully here by others and most famously by Michael Moore, of taking select quotes out of context to make your argument say what you want it to say. Here, here…

Let’s take your example from Hardball in January 2003— also used in the masterful cut-and-paste job by the GOP in its video distorting Kerry’s position on Iraq.

You wrote:

MSNBC’S CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am - Yeah.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04) )

Leaving it at that, one might think that Kerry opposes the entire concept of war with Iraq and that he regrets the vote he made to authorize military action in Iraq. You’ve set the trap. Well done, very well done indeed.

And then, to complete the misdirection play, you leave out key parts of the interview. Say, this:

MATTHEWS: Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt?

Are you one of the anti-war candidates?

KERRY: I am-Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.

Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Let me…

KERRY: Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was, and we should have done it right.

So there. You have successfully misrepresented Senator Kerry’s position and you’re free to characterize him as changing his position, when you and I know that he never has. That all along he has said that the resolution he gave the President was to be executed only if the president exhausted all diplomatic efforts AND only if the president built a global coalition AND only if the president met the test of proving that Iraq posed a threat to our national security.

Sensational job. Karl Rove could not have done it better himself.

Posted by: Jerome Guerra at August 12, 2004 01:56 AM

Martin:

What would you consider “tested” in diplomacy? I’d say that someone with a couple of decades on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, someone who has practiced diplomacy all over the globe (as opposed to battling those pesky Mexico-Texas border disputes, which accounted for the sum of George Bush’s foreign relations experience prior to his inauguration) is a bit more than “untested” in diplomacy.

There are surely some areas where Kerry can be criticized, but a lack of experience in foreign relations or diplomacy is not one of them.

Posted by: Jerome Guerra at August 12, 2004 02:07 AM

Jarin, I guess the disagreement here hinges on your belief that 9-11 was the sole responsibility of a handful of specific individuals (Al Qaida and its direct sponsors) that can be dealt with as abherrent criminals and my belief that 9-11 was the culmination of a massive anti-American, anti-Western phenomenon with deep and broad roots in the Middle East that has to be taken on deeply and broadly.

We’ve lost less than a thousand soldiers in a year and a half in Iraq. We lost three times that on our own streets in an hour and half in Manhattan. I suspect that these are just the beginning— soldiers and civilians alike—of the eventual butcher’s toll. It saddens me deeply. None of us wanted this. But it’s here. Al Qaida is the tip of the iceberg—a footnote, a minor player. 9-11 was a tiny, miniscule taste of what we face as a result of the pathology of Islamicism.

Do you really think I feel this way just because I love some guy in cowboy boots from Texas—that I have some homoerotic attraction to Bush. Honestly, I don’t care a second about Bush as an individual—he’s not “my people.” I care vastly more about my fellow citizens—in and out of uniform.

Posted by: Martin at August 12, 2004 02:14 AM

So you openly admit you don’t give a shit about the guys who actually did it, you want us waging an ideological war against islamicism wherever it’s found and you want that war waged with guns rather than words? I applaud your bluntness on the matter, even if I find the notion itself abhorrent.

Posted by: Jarin at August 12, 2004 02:24 AM

Jerome, Texas-Mexico “border disputes” have lacked any real urgency since the days of Santa Anna,
Davy Crockett and the Alamo. Are you joking? Somehow I can’t see comparing diplomatic wrangling with Vincent Fox by a Senate Commitee to leading two wars in the modern age. I could elaborate, but this is really too obvious.

Posted by: Martin at August 12, 2004 02:26 AM

Exactly, Jerome. Islamicism (which is something totally different from Islam and an ideology that explicilty seeks to dominate the world through violence) has to be destroyed, discredited and utterly defeated by whatever means necessary— diplomatic means where possible, military means when necessary. We’ve only begun to bear the costs of doing so.

I didn’t say I don’t give a s*** about those who perpetrated 9-11. That’s YOUR straw man. What I’m saying is that even if we can’t avoid the next 9-11 or the one after that, the satisfaction of punishing those immediatley responsible is insignificant compared to the solemn and difficult duty of breaking the back of the world-view that causes 9-11s to happen.

Posted by: Martin at August 12, 2004 02:37 AM

Kerry, seemingly invoking the ghost of Richard Nixon who had a “secret plan to end to war in Vietnam” which still remains a secret to this day,

I’m glad to see you used the word “seemingly”. :)

Coming from a software entrepreneur background, I understand how important it is to hold details of negotiating strategies close to the vest.

In fact, the type of public diplomacy you seem to be advocating is part of the reason Bush couldn’t work with the UN on Iraq. Bush told the UN delegates what he wanted, and dared them to defy him. That’s not diplomacy.

A better method would have been to spend a few months behind the scenes working with other countries in private, then proposing a clearly worded Security Council resolution for which everyone was already on board.

You don’t just go chucking out resolutions and hope everyone agrees. You need to do some wheeling & dealing first. But then, that kind of Diplomacy 101 might be too nuanced for Bush.

the culmination of a massive anti-American, anti-Western phenomenon with deep and broad roots in the Middle East that has to be taken on deeply and broadly.

There are currently estimated to be fewer than 20,000 actively anti-American terrorists world-wide. Hardly a “massive anti-American, anti-Western phenomenon”.

But you’re right that the solution needs to be deep and broad. Disregarding the rhetoric, what has Bush done to make you feel he’s acting on that strategy?

Invading Afghanistan and forcing bin Laden into hiding is not a broad and deep strategy. Ousting Saddam, if it even has anything to do with counterterrorism, isn’t a broad or deep strategy.

The only program I’ve seen from Bush that might cut the legs out from underneath violent Islamic fundamentalism is his Millineum Challenge Account, and he didn’t even feel strongly enough about it to fight for full funding.

I don’t understand how you think Bush is waging a broad and deep idological war against “a massive anti-American, anti-Western phenomenon?”

Posted by: American Pundit at August 12, 2004 02:42 AM

And you actually think it’s possible to break the back of a world-view with guns?

And you kind of do say that you don’t give a shit about the actual perpetrators. You say this because you conflate going after the ideology as being the same as going after the criminals. You say that THEY did it, so we have taken out two of THEIR countries. But THEY didn’t do it… some of them did it, and no matter how much you’d like to believe they are all equally responsible that just isn’t supported by the facts.

Posted by: Jarin at August 12, 2004 02:46 AM

Well, not just guns, Jarin. Incendiary bombs are important too.

Perhaps you think Hitler’s world view was demolished with a smile and a few well placed sarcastic remarks (spoken in French), but we live in more complicated times. “Two of their countries” may have been unfortunate on my part, since we still need to deal with Iran and probably Syria.

The task, and the eventual costs, are no less now than in 1941. Bush is aware of it. Kerry, eventually, would be MADE aware of it—his learning curve paid for in blood. I’m just not willing for all of us to suffer as he’s brought up to speed.

Posted by: Martin at August 12, 2004 03:01 AM

Martin, World War 2 was not an ideological war. We weren’t fighting socialism, hell England was our ally at the time. We were fighting a country which had invaded others, and which was also directly allied with a country which had attacked us. We didn’t even know, at the start of the war, of the horrors of the death camps we would find. WW2 was not about defeating an ideology, it was about defeating individual nations. Islamicism is not a nation, it is a combination of religion and world-view that transcends national boundaries. Guns and bombs are not going to change minds and hearts. What you’re advocating is equivalent to a new crusade, and the tenet of conversion by the sword.

Posted by: Jarin at August 12, 2004 03:09 AM

On the first Iraq war

letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]
“Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition … to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.”

Nine days later he wrote this:
Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]
“Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.”

These statements have a different thought process and what scares me is that he has mastered the political language so masterfully that he can say completely diametrical opposing statements and have people believe them. And in the process sound very rational.

In this day when we are battling a war on terror and an enemy that is unlike any we have seen, what we need is a President that has clear visions of what he needs to do. Not one that would satisfy everyone’s opinion on what needs to be done, especially in his words and statements, and certainly not one that is on every side of every position such as Mr. Kerry. He creates his own quagmire.

Posted by: MAW at August 12, 2004 08:17 AM

entertainment news, that’s not necessarily a flip flop. More likely it’s just another example of Bush not understanding what the hell he’s talking about!

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 12, 2004 08:25 AM

Yes, Martin, as a matter of fact I was joking. My reference to Mexico-Texas border disputes was meant to illustrate how our current president came into the job with essentially zero experience in foreign relations.

Meanwhile, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Kerry has routinely participated in diplomatic missions in Asia, Africa, South America, Europe, and the Middle East. He worked with Sen. John McCain to reopen trade with Vietnam. He was Chairman of the subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, traveling to India, South Korea, and across Southeast Asia just a few years ago.

If your point is that you believe President Bush has done a good job with diplomacy during his term— a notion that many in this country find laughable and even his staunchest supporters are unlikely to promote— that’s one thing.

But to then suggest that Senator Kerry is “untested” in diplomacy suggests a complete lack of familiarity with the details of his career. John Kerry would enter the White House with far more experience in diplomacy than not only our current president had in 2000, but than just about any president in recent history has had upon assuming the office.

Posted by: Jerome Guerra at August 12, 2004 09:05 AM

The war on terror is unlike any other military undertaking in US history. There is no ‘nation’ of terror and there are few diplomatic tactics than can be used.

This said- I don’t think GWB has a ‘clear vision’ of what to do. I think on the most abstract level there is a clear ‘mission’ which is to eradicate global terror (which is shared by just about everyone). When you try to realize that mission with ‘vision’, ‘goals’, and ‘actions’, I think GWB is taking the most thoughtless route possible.

First of all they had no idea about what a long term budget for this undertaking would even look like. Not that an accurate budget would even be possible this early int he game, but usually that is a sign to take things slow, esp. with a struggling economy at home.

Second of all, they failed to predict the consequences of acting without UN support- part of which accounts for continued terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere. I have read interviews with volunteers of al Sadr’s militia in Najaf who specifically stated that they did not even know what al Sadr’s plan or goals were, but they volunteered as a statement against the United States for killing people in their country without UN or international support. In this sense GWB’s actions have actually created MORE terrorism, and terrorism pointed directly at americans.

If you continue to try to just stomp it out, you will continue having new terrorists who resent your thoughtless violence and strong-arm tactics. They see this as entirely disrespectful of outside opinions and they end up feeling more desperate and more apt to resort to terrorism as a last resort of being heard. This is exactly what the Palestinians have been doing for the past few decades, only on a smaller scale.

If we worked through diplomatic means, it would be a slower and more complicated process, but it may have prevented premature action like we saw in Iraq. Some agrue the premature part, but after looking at what little weapons we’ve found there and what the senate intelligence committee found about our existing intelligence that was waiting to be looked at- I think diplomacy would have been a much smarter option.

Posted by: peezee at August 12, 2004 09:08 AM

MAW, I browsed the rabid right blogs you got those quotes from. None of them provide the quotes in context, and I’d be curious to know what the ellipses are hiding.

Even taking those quotes at face value, it’s a stretch to conclude that they’re conflicting.

The second says he’s supportive of what the president had done up to that point, the first says he wanted more time for sanctions to work.

And perhaps you’ve never written to your representatives, but they all have an automated response for both sides of an issue. I got this one from GW in response to a question about campaign finance reform,

Thank you for your message. We appreciate your views and welcome your suggestions. President Bush is dedicated to pursuing policies and programs that make America safer and more prosperous for all citizens. We hope you will visit the White House website at www.whitehouse.gov for more information on these issues. Thank you for writing. Best wishes.

If you’re going to judge a guy on automated responses, this one’s about fifteen years more recent. Bush didn’t even address my concern, so he must be a moron, right?

Posted by: American Pundit at August 12, 2004 09:15 AM

Yow! How’d that get posted here? Disregard the last post.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 12, 2004 09:17 AM

Jerome:

I agree that Senator Kerry has a lot of experience in dealing with foreign relations (insert cheap joke about his marriage to Teresa from South Africa here…buh da boom).

The salient issue is what stances has he taken in regard to diplomacy…and that’s where his record comes in to play. Simply having hung around for a long time aint good enough—-lets see what positions he has taken and what he has achieved.

I think there is a reason that Senators have typically NOT been elected President in recent history. You have to go back to the original JFK to truly find a Senator who made this transition (yes, I know LBJ and Nixon were Senators as well, but their leap was not from the Senate to the Presidency directly.) It might be a similar reason why most VP’s havent ascended.

While there is leadership within committees, its different when you are THE MAN—and the ONLY MAN. Seems to me our voters are seeing the qualifications of governors as more closely resembling what we want in our Presidents (see Carter, Bush, Reagan, Clinton).

In any case, lets look at Kerry’s Senate career. It seems Kerry isnt sure about how to present it, at least judging from his acceptance speech. I think the public will find it lacking in substantive achievement, though I’m sure there are successes in there where he simply wasnt the “point man” who got the credit.

Lets get to the records, and away from the fluff. Lets see what the man actually did for those 20 years—-then we can see how he measures up.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 12, 2004 09:18 AM

Haha! This is the right place. Disregard the disregard. It’s late here. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at August 12, 2004 09:20 AM

In this sense GWB’s actions have actually created MORE terrorism, and terrorism pointed directly at americans.

Hey peezee. Bush’s own CIA and State Department back you up on that.

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has accelerated the spread of Osama bin Laden’s anti-Americanism among once local Islamic militant movements, increasing danger to the United States

Posted by: American Pundit at August 12, 2004 09:27 AM

thanks for that AP.

a last thought from my previous post:

Terrorism is an act of desparation. In previous global wars, our enemies were acting in strength and trying to accumulate more power. Strength is an easy thing to knock down with enough allies. Desperation doesn’t work the same way though. Terrorists represent a desperate culture, they are simply the extreme members of that culture. If you just kill them off and do nothing to support the culture, more terrorists will come to take their place.

The only real solution is to empower them so they are no longer desperate. In the past this has had mixed results- but usually negative results when we just thorough money and military support at a desperate nation and hope they will work things out themselves. For one thing, this wont work now because the current breed of terrorism is not behind one nation, but rather a religious and cultural ideal across many nations. It is a much bigger task to give that culture an empowered voice. Especially when part of that voice speaks against western influence, which is another thing the US doesn’t want to hear in the age of global economics.

There is no simple answer to this problem, but GWB seems to think there is and has already run off to battle with very controversial results.

Posted by: peezee at August 12, 2004 09:53 AM

Fair enough, Joe. I don’t mean to make this an issue of semantics. But if Martin’s point was that Kerry’s diplomatic positions are unclear or unwise, then he should have said so. “Untested” implies something else altogether.

And if you, I, and the rest of the country are ready to finally talk about Kerry’s Senate record and the issues that really matter— as opposed to where the candidates were or were not 35 years ago— than I would absolutely welcome it. I would just hope (but certainly not expect) that the debate would be about his actual record, as opposed to the distortions currently being propagated by the Bush campaign in its ads and speeches.

Posted by: Jerome Guerra at August 12, 2004 09:58 AM

It is precisely my point that diplomatic successes take hard work that Bush is simply not willing to put forward. Look, Pakistan knew that any further overt support for the Taliban or the terrorists would mean they’d be next on our list of targets.

In other words, this is the one easy case where the president could hand out a candy cane- do you really want to be against us? Otherwise, diplomacy is not so easy. And neither is war, and that’s where your mistake is.

You think that somehow brute force can answer our terrorist problems each and everytime. Trouble is, even as powerful as we are, invading one unwilling country has been enough to more or less take other engagements off the table. We have a volunteer army, and not a draft one, which basically means that Uncle Sam cannot magically come up with the troop reserves that are required to occupy more than one country at at time.

The terrorists, meanwhile, have no such logistical problems. This is what people have been telling you: Go after the terrorists with special forces, with espionage, and international law enforcement. Why? Because what the situation lacks in asymmetry, it makes for in flexibility and affordability.

However much you want to believe in a monolithic, Islamofascist threat as being the source of the problem, a close look reveals all kinds of divisions and sectarian issues. Look at the differences between the Shia in Iran, and those in Iraq. Heck, try the differences between Sistani and Sadr. To view the world of Islam as unified is to take a view of the world of Islam that not eve our worst enemies among the Islamicists take.

Islamofascism, the political enemy du jour is such a vague concept, that your people have thrown a puritanical Islamicist saudi terrorist in with an Iraqi Baathist dictator. In case you didn’t know, Baathism, being Arab Socialism (or better put, Stalinism) is a secular enterprise. Iraq itself is one of the most secular countries in the middle east, to the tune of about forty percent. Contrast that with Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Even in the Palestinian territories, you have tensions between the socialists like the Abu Nidal group, and religious groups like Hamas, and Hezbollah (whose name literally translates to “The Party of God”

Anybody who sees a clash of civilizations in the fractured, factional political and religious landscape of the Middle East simply engages in unfounded conspiratorial thinking.

Al Quaeda is no tip of the iceberg. The tip of the iceberg is not the part that rips the hole in your boat. We cannot and should not fight a war to try and destroy an ideological point of view. We cannot and should not believe that everybody who believes a return to truer Islamic roots is necessarily our enemy (that, by the way is a textbook definition of Islamicism.)

We cannot and should not treat Al Quaeda as insignificant in the scheme of things. They have done what no country in almost two hundred years has done: landed a devastating attack on our mainland. They have since proven time and again that they are capable of that same kind of sophisticated attacks, and we have no business brushing them off as a minor threat.

Perhaps this is why you’re willing to defend an administration that allowed itself to become distracted by Iraq, and which failed to even live up to Clinton’s record on terrorism. Because in the end, you have same flawed thinking concerning this new and decided lethal threat. I sure hope it doesn’t take another terrorist attack for you or Bush to realize who the real enemy is.

MAW-
We need a president who can be this diplomatic! Besides, they are not diametrically opposed.

Let me take you through it: in the first one, he says that he opposes immediate authority to go to war, saying he would allow more time for the sanctions to work He never says he opposes the war outright.

In the second one, he doesn’t say he unequivocally supported authority to go to war, he says he unequivocally supported Bush’s response to the crisis (which undoubtedly includes the sanctions, the push at the UN for the Broad Coaliton, and anything one might care to read into that), and (this is important) “…the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.”

That last sentence is a masterpiece. He’s basically said that he supports the troop deployment, and the purpose for which they were deployed. He never goes back on having said that he opposed the immediate authorization to go to war. By doing things this way, he can support the military, support the war, even if he didn’t support it’s immediate start.

That’s pretty good, and it takes a pretty clear thinker to keep juggling all those statements. Who would you rather have arguing for you in front of an international audience, a man who tries to Bully and insult himself out of the various diplomatic binds he’s put himself in, or the guy who can reverse himself so skillfully, and have ready-made defenses arrayed for what he said?

We need a president who can convince nations neutral and unfriendly to us to change their minds. We need an expert manipulator. We also need, in the words of some man who’s name I forget, a uniter and not a divider. If Kerry has proven skillful at trying to please more than one side of a debate at once, isn’t that so much better than a president who’s managed to piss so many people off at the same time?

What has this country come to, if we’re willing to pick the guy who can’t string together good sentences over the guy who has the intelligence to pull a 180 like this?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 12, 2004 10:20 AM

> Let’s take your example from Hardball in
> January 2003— also used in the masterful
> cut-and-paste job by the GOP in its video
> distorting Kerry’s position on Iraq.

Thanks for that Jerome. So, revising my first post, now I only find one of the Kerry statements above to be slightly contradictory.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 12, 2004 10:26 AM

Jarin-

Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11?

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have formerly debated the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.

The best proof of this is the Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million… despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So now they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.

The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel’s survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

Sheikh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Fatwa against the U.S.
February 23, 1998

Posted by: George at August 12, 2004 10:39 AM

George, he’s using their suffering as a rhetorical call to arms. It implies next to nothing about them actually being in active collaboration.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 12, 2004 10:47 AM

Stephen, it’s not “next to nothing”. It proves nothing.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 12, 2004 10:49 AM

Stephen:

Your last post was so full of the effluvia that excretes from a male bovine intestinal tract that I can only assume you are joking. (We’ll see if THAT gets past the editors…lol)

Mostly Dems are saying Kerry is NOT a flip-flopper. You actually congratulate him on his ability to flip flop (you characterize Kerry as
“the guy who has the intelligence to pull a 180 like this”) as well as his manipulation (“We need an expert manipulator).

I think after the Clinton years of parsing statements (does alone mean no one else exists on the planet or does alone mean the only two people in a closed door room…. or what the meaning of is is etc), the American people want someone who says things clearly. I know, I know…Bush mangles the language, but everyone always knows what he is saying.

You congratulate Kerry on his nuance and his ability to seemingly leave open many options. Thats politics at its core—-never say anything of substance lest you be held accountable to it.

Please please please tell me you were joking. If so, thanks for the good laugh. If not, then all I can say is “Wow, you are a good writer with the ability to justify virtually any negative trait….in a Democrat.”

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 12, 2004 11:20 AM

Stephen-

That statement does not prove the collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda; I’ve never claimed that there was any collaboration. It does, however, demonstrate the correlation between the two issues. Iraq and our policy of containment towards it had everything to do with 9/11 and the war that has been declared against us.

Posted by: George at August 12, 2004 11:27 AM

What has this country come to, if we’re willing to pick the guy who can’t string together good sentences over the guy who has the intelligence to pull a 180 like this?

There’s no 180 involved, Stephen. The two quotes are not contradictory.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 12, 2004 11:34 AM

George, didn’t I hear Bush pull that same lawyerly parsing recently? I thought those days were gone. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at August 12, 2004 11:37 AM

Who’s lawyering AP? I don’t have a clue as to what GWB said, but I just get so tired of the statement, “Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.” The two issues are inseparably linked; Iraq and our policy of containment was reason number one in Bin Laden’s declaration of war. And his declaration was followed up with a missile strike in downtown Manhattan. That proves everything.

Should we have just continued to contain Saddam? Or maybe we should have just threatened action then backed it up with more threats once he failed to comply for, I don’t know, the 250th time? That approach really sells with our enemies over there by the way.

I voted for Lieberman in the primary because he was the only candidate, in face of the anti-war movement in the Democratic Party during the early debates, to stand up, raise his hand, and say he understood that Iraq is an integral part of the war on terror. Kerry says he understands it, but when he had the same chance to stand up he decided to nuance his way so as not to piss of the anti-war crowd. I guess you would think that’s smart, because he came away with the nomination and my guy got about 5% of the vote, but to me this issue is bigger than any party’s desire to re-conquer the White House.

I’ll vote for Bush on this one issue alone. He was there, he acted, and he did the right thing in confronting Saddam. Enough said.

Posted by: George at August 12, 2004 12:05 PM

George, if you’re going to trail the link back that far, why not just go ahead and say bin Laden attacked us because we want Middle Eastern oil?

No one is denying that Saddam needed to be dealt with. Just that it was reckless and irresponsible to do it at the cost of alienating our allies and distracting us from the war on terrorism.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 12, 2004 12:21 PM

AP,

Yes I have done the same thing myself.

The second says he’s supportive of what the president had done up to that point, the first says he wanted more time for sanctions to work.

An admiral trait which I will define as doublespeak.. As described in American Heritage 4th edition. deliberately ambiguous or evasive language. Yes he has mastered that hasn’t he?

Posted by: MAW at August 12, 2004 01:03 PM

> Iraq and our policy of containment was reason
> number one in Bin Laden’s declaration of war.

George, “reason number one” was America’s military presence in “the Arabian Peninsula”. Are you aware that Iraq is not even in the Arabian Peninsula, that Bin Laden was actually referring to Saudi Arabia and the smaller states surrounding it (UAR, Qatar, Yemen), and not to Iraq?

If anything, Bin Laden’s statement is a transparent dare to the US to attack Iraq. Bush appears to have taken the bait. Thanks to Bush’s predictability, the fatwa is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 12, 2004 01:21 PM

Stephen,

saying he would allow more time for the sanctions to work He never says he opposes the war outright.

He never says anything outright!

That’s pretty good, and it takes a pretty clear thinker to keep juggling all those statements. Who would you rather have arguing for you in front of an international audience, a man who tries to Bully and insult himself out of the various diplomatic binds he’s put himself in, or the guy who can reverse himself so skillfully, and have ready-made defenses arrayed for what he said?

As for juggling all those statements, I call it a politician at his best! So on this we can agree; President Bush is no politician.

You use the term Bully. I use the term resolute and determine. To answer the question; who would I rather have, a leader arguing in front of an international audience who is resolute and determined or a politician that says what they think you want to hear? Which you choose to call diplomacy, I choose the former.

We need a president who can convince nations neutral and unfriendly to us to change their minds. We need an expert manipulator.

Translation: We need a President that will boost the egos of Chirac and Schroeder.

Interesting term manipulator.
Manipulator. 2. To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously: The American Heritage® Dictionary 4th edition.

You treat this as if it is Cuba we are trying to get an international coalition against as if we have 40 years to expend on this endeavor. People are trying to kill us. How much time are you willing to give this manipulation project? 40 years? And you disregard the effort that Pakistan is doing now in that region as if it doesn’t matter that terrorists are being rounded up and systematically challenged and handcuffed around the world. This means nothing I suppose, at least to you. It does to me.

I do not want years of diplomacy that may or may not work. I am not willing to take that chance.

You think that somehow brute force can answer our terrorist problems each and everytime.

It is a far better cry than sitting around doublespeaking while plans are being made to destroy us. We tried that during the Clinton years. This diplomacy and doublespeak was used then and Bin Laden’s group took roots and embedded itself around the world. But you are willing to wait and at the same time risk the lives of millions of Americans here at home while other groups do the same.
These groups think we are fools for never retaliating. They laugh at us. They may still be laughing but they are doing it on the run and looking over their shoulders. Which is exactly the way I like it.

Posted by: MAW at August 12, 2004 01:23 PM

Are you saying that having troops in Saudi Arabia to protect them against an invasion by Saddam had nothing to do with Bin Laden and the attacks on the US since 1993 and the first WTC bombing that continued all the way through the attack on the USS Cole and the final attack on the WTC?

What George is saying is that having our troops in Saudi Arabia cost American lives. And this went on for years. The kind of diplomacy that you, Stephen and AP think we should re-adopt. A policy that got us here in the first place.

Are you saying that having troops in Saudi Arabia along with using our troops in the first war to drive Saddam out of Kuwait is not what caused him to attack us all through the 90s. Notwithstanding our support of Israel.

Just to be clear, am I to assume that you reject the idea that this was the cost of containment?

Posted by: MAW at August 12, 2004 01:49 PM

CF-

Yes I studied geography in school.

Bin Laden’s Arabian Peninsula comment was in reference to the Prince Sultan Airbase where the U.S. based its aircraft in support of the Iraqi No-Fly Zones. That base has been closed for about a year now.

The U.S. aircraft were at the Saudi base to enforce the U.N.-mandated Operation Southern Watch. That operation began 12 years ago at the end of the Persian Gulf War. In the beginning, U.S., British and French aircraft enforced the no-fly zone south of the 33rd parallel. France dropped out of that coalition years ago, but the U.S. and the U.K. pilots kept on. The necessity for that operation ended March 19 with the start of Iraqi Freedom.

Prince Sultan Air Base

Posted by: George at August 12, 2004 01:56 PM

And yes, CF, I consider the 1998 statement by Bin Laden, coupled with his 2001 murder of over 3,000 people, to be a “dare.”

Posted by: George at August 12, 2004 02:00 PM

Okay, I see the point. It’s a tenuous but legitimate “connection”: Stategically, the USA needs oil from the Middle East, so we have stationed troops in Saudi Arabia and other nations in the region to protect that supply from ruthless and volatile dictators like Saddam Hussein, enraging Islamic fundamentalists like bin Laden, causing them to attack us. Therefore, Iraq and 9/11 are “connected”.

It’s a pretty thin connection, but I don’t dispute that it exists. It’s not in the least bit a justification for war, however, insofar as it doesn’t even posit that our attack on Iraq made Al Qaeda any weaker or the USA any safer. One would assume that the only reason war supporters would mention the “connection” would be to argue that the connection has been severed. But no, this particular “connection” has been strengthened by our invasion, and irrevocably so.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 12, 2004 03:07 PM

MAW, I don’t want our president to vacillate on important issues, but I do want him to be capable of dealing with the political traps other countries and international groups lay down for him with great agility. Bush so far is like a cartoon character that stumbles through a room full of mousetraps and somehow manages to get caught in everyone.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 12, 2004 11:05 PM

Stephen,
I believe you misunderestimated the man!

Posted by: MAW at August 13, 2004 12:04 AM

These political traps Stephen mentions, which other countries and interest groups lay for the United States, are uniformly psychological. They succeed only to the extent that we, like a Victorian lady fainting when she sees a spider, choose to highlight and magnify them.

Since there are domestic political interests that may have something to gain by saying that these “traps” have succeeded, they will be said to have succeeded. Since their success is only psychological, this is the only way—-American cooperation—of them to have their intended psychological effect (or shall we pretend that all we have suffered matterially as well, that we sorely miss all those fierce French, Danish and Bangledeshi warriors that Bush’s diplomacy has deprived us of?).

Those who have “laid traps” for the United States have suffered immensely more for doing so than we have. France and Germany find themselves increasingly isolated internationally, unable to work their will over even tiny former Eastern Bloc
countries next door that do have US support in the myriad ecomomic and political matters that actually matter.

Since France adores Islam so much, we’ve successfully pressured them to start the process of bringing Turkey into the EU, which they were fiercely opposed to because of the decrease in French influence Turkey would represent in the EU. If THEIR diplomacy had been better, if they had supported us, we’d never have rocked their world in this fashion. THEY screwed up, and now they get to feel the pinch. And their punishment is real and tangible—not like our punishment, a bunch of editorials in left wing newspapers and futile marches through the streets of irrelevant European capitals.

Posted by: Martin at August 13, 2004 12:50 AM

An admiral trait which I will define as doublespeak

MAW, slap whatever label you want on it, but it’s not doublespeak, and the two statements are not inconsistent or contradictory.

Martin, there’s no doubt that the United States had the power to invade Iraq without allies. But without the democratic allies who share our values, the United States’ ability to influence global events is limited to our ability to project overwhelming military force around the world. Is that really your vision of America’s future?

Posted by: American Pundit at August 13, 2004 02:36 AM

Yes Martin those political traps that Stephen suggests were laid out in order for Bush to ineptly step into may well be rooted in jealousy. Simple unadulterated jealousy of American military power. Which manifested itself into a ridiculous display of France, and Germany to a lesser degree, blatantly maneuvering countries into not accepting a final resolution that clearly outlined the invasion and removal of Saddam.

If there were any doubt that France, Germany and Russia were irrelevant, it was succinctly removed when the US took bold action and circumvented the UN and at the same time remained on a legal status by the prior unanimous adoption of 1441. Which only served to highlight their irrelevancy further.

And to think, we made Chirac mad at us. And all the left can do is point to 3 insignificant countries and continue the mantra of Kerry and others about how we should have waited or taken more steps to gather a wider multi national coalition. And then what, would those pesky old stockpiles of WMDs suddenly have appeared? Not likely!

But then who would they have to blame? Because this rhetoric has nothing to do with invading Iraq, or waiting to gather more support, or better planning, or an exit strategy. This is nothing more than political fodder so they can latch on to any insignificant tidbit just to say, ‘see we told you so’ or ‘if he had only done it the right way, our way’, things would have been much better. They can then point to the distorted picture they have laid out for us and say things are a mess when in actuality it is better than what is portrayed each night with the help of left leaning evening news outlets.

And at what cost? The cost of American lives. But then it is all about power, isn’t it. And we have gone full circle and Kerry is back doing what he started out doing in the late 60s, only this time with a suit and the title of Senator rather than a insignificant radical left wing protestor. And they are all exposed for what they truly are, poor sports and idealists that want power more than the security of our country.

This cartoonish picture that Stephen so vividly describes may well be George Bush as the Roadrunner and the insignificant bunch as Wile E. Coyote.

Posted by: MAW at August 13, 2004 03:07 AM

MAW, I have no idea what the point of that was. France, Germany, and Russia are inconsequential because they were right to doubt Bush’s intelligence on Iraq’s WMDs? Things are hunky-dory in Iraq because the media is just showing the same troopers getting blown up over and over? Or is it all Hollywood effects? Europe is jealous of US military might because… I can’t even guess why you’d think that.

MAW, I think this is more about Bush fans rooting for their team regardless of how much they stink. It’s certainly not about what’s best for the United States.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 13, 2004 07:01 AM

MAW, I have no idea what the point of that was. France, Germany, and Russia are inconsequential because they were right to doubt Bush’s intelligence on Iraq’s WMDs?

They had the same intelligence. Russia even reported more specific threat of Iraq’s intention to harm the US. Did you miss that one?

Things are hunky-dory in Iraq because the media is just showing the same troopers getting blown up over and over?

You want to compare it to Vietnam, which it isn’t and will never be. Secondly, you only see the fighting. If the things that happened here were only shown abroad such as people killing their families, pregnant wives, drive by shootings, killings over tennis shoes and game boys it would certainly be a distortion of the common life in the US.

Europe is jealous of US military might because… I can’t even guess why you’d think that.

Even liberal thinking Americans are embarrassed by US military might. Chirac intentions are to use the UN to bring the US down to their level. Which did not quite work. Where was the diplomacy on Chirac’s part?

MAW, I think this is more about Bush fans rooting for their team regardless of how much they stink.

Ditto where sKerry is concerned. Nobody is voting for the guy, they are voting against the incumbent and out of hatred for 2000. I have not seen an election yet where the challenger won because his supporters hated the opponent. Kerry just fell out of a pack of 8 or 9 like loose pocket change.

Didn’t work with McGovern or Dukakis. Think it will work here? Don’t think so.

Posted by: MAW at August 13, 2004 11:33 AM

They had the same intelligence. Russia even reported more specific threat of Iraq’s intention to harm the US. Did you miss that one?

No. I’m still not sure what your point is. Is it that they had the brains to wait for confirmation of the that same dubious intelligence before running off half-cocked?

You want to compare it to Vietnam, which it isn’t and will never be. Secondly, you only see the fighting

First, I’ve never compared it to Vietnam. Second, there’s no way you can deny that the occupation could have been better planned and implemented. The UN is the ideal organization for rebuilding Iraq, yet Bush won’t invite them in as partners.

Even liberal thinking Americans are embarrassed by US military might.

And I care about a few peacenik wackos because…

Where was the diplomacy on Chirac’s part?

Bingo! Finally some substance! Chirac screwed up. Schroeder screwed up. Bush screwed up. The bickering and posturing should never have taken place in public. It prevented all of them from being more flexible and coming to an agreement. Kerry has already noted that he’ll never make that mistake.

Nobody is voting for the guy, they are voting against the incumbent and out of hatred for 2000.

I’m voting for Kerry. I like his foreign policy, I like his energy policy, I like his healthcare policy, and I like his economic policy. No hatred here.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 13, 2004 12:14 PM

> I have not seen an election yet where
> the challenger won because his
> supporters hated the opponent

How about Ford? Carter? Bush 41?

Hoover? (okay, I know you’re not that old!)

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 13, 2004 12:26 PM

Martin, the Europeans marching in their streets are not dying in Baghdad’s like our soldiers are. Seems to me suffering and dying are worse than marching and publishing.

We sent our soldiers to war to oppose a threat that never materialized. Now, we sit in control of a nation we cannot justify having invaded to anybody but your right-wing friends. Because you do not have the evidence to tie Iraq and Al Quaeda together in collaboration, you are forced to tie them together by some vague standard of politics and religion you call Islamofascism.

This Islamofascism allows you to blur the lines, tossing the secular arab socialist dictator that was Saddam Hussein in with the radical, puritanical, Islamist Bin Laden. Do you have any idea how much these two sides of arab culture hate each other? Your people point out connections to genuine terrorist groups, and you say that this proves the kind of connection that you allege. Only trouble is, the kinds of groups Saddam was giving safe harbor to were those allied to his politics and his religious attitudes. I mean if you were such a expert middle East, would I have to point out to you that Abu Nidal and his group were radical socialists? Meanwhile, the kinds of terrorist that we were attacked by, the much more disciplined and patient Islamists of Al Quaeda were shut out of the place.

If you were to read the congressional report on the intelligence concerning Al Quaeda and Iraq, you would know that Osama only contacted Iraq at the urging of the Sudanese government. The phone call, or whatever message was sent was not replied to. The reason that Hussein never replied is the same reason that Turabi would eventually kick his friend over to Afghanistan.

Simply put, Bin Laden intends to take over whatever government, whatever area he settles into. His groups name is arabic for “the base” or “the foundation”. If you’ve read enough about his group, you’d know their intent was to take over a country and use it as a base for creating a new Islamic empire, not unlike that of the Caliphate of old times.

For Hussein, letting Bin Laden in would be allowing a rival to set up shop within his own borders. Even you would be hard pressed to disagree with the portrait of Saddam Hussein as a man who suffered rivals poorly. Why would he invite one in?

Your label would have these men as allies, but the truth is they’re rivals, and always would be. Each works from a set of values that would require one to eventually destroy the other, and both knew it.

That’s the thing. You are so intent on having yourselves a unified cold-war-style enemy, that you’re willing to more or less gloss over all the crucial, salient differences in religious and political views throughout the region.

Frankly, that sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. We will alienate those who we could ally to ourselves, and we will take on allies who validate the old saying “with friends like these, who needs enemies?”. We will not improve the situation acting in ignorance of its facts.

I would not have us fight our wars half-heartedly, but I will not have us fight them half-witted. If you want to waste resources and soldiers lives proving you’ll back away from no challenge, then you will get us stuck fighting half heartedly in battles that were a mistake to get into in the first place. We cannot afford your president’s kind of “Charge of the Light Brigade” leadership. We need a leader who, when he sends us to war, sends us with true purpose and wisdom to back us up.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 13, 2004 01:16 PM

AP,

First, I’ve never compared it to Vietnam. Second, there’s no way you can deny that the occupation could have been better planned and implemented. The UN is the ideal organization for rebuilding Iraq, yet Bush won’t invite them in as partners.

Anything can be planned and implemented better. Even building a bird house. What is so significant about that statement. You are like a Monday morning quarterback with all the boisterous opinions of one as well, with the possible exception of beer and pretzels. Notice I said possible.
Yes, the UN is the ideal organization for rebuilding any country. In fact that is the only thing they do well. And Bush has invited them, on his terms, which does not make a poor leader or rigid or unbending as your thinking would suggest.

Kerry has already noted that he’ll never make that mistake.

Well that’s rich! I can make a promise that I will never swear again. Or get angry, or drop a fork. Making promises are about all he can do since he has no record to be judged on. With the possible exception of wanting to negotiate with enemies. And not just the likes of the Viet Cong or North Vietnamese but more in keeping with his meeting with Daniel Ortega under the guise of a fact-finding tour with the sole purpose of effecting the support of the Contras. Another policy he was on the wrong side. For goodness sakes. How many mistakes and misjudgments does the man have to make before you are convinced that he is just plain wrong. Wrong for this country. I am afraid your hatred of Bush is simply not enough

I’m voting for Kerry. I like his foreign policy, I like his energy policy, I like his healthcare policy, and I like his economic policy. No hatred here.

Foreign Policy translation, Neville Chamberlain

Energy Policy translation, Do as I say, Not as I do!

Healthcare Policy translation, 70% tax rate on income for the
“Wealthy” but not my wife and her tax free bonds.

Economic Policy translation, redistribute the wealth, choke the
economy and pander to the little people all the while
maintaining his 5 mansions.

And from your writings I certainly don’t see any hatred there. Nosiree!

Posted by: MAW at August 13, 2004 03:35 PM

CF

How about Ford? Carter? Bush 41?

Those campaigns were never about hate. Ford just never caught on or was revered by the populace. Double digit interest rates, inflation, gas lines, pandering to Iran and Panama were Carters undoing. Bush 41 was never hated. Clinton had a lot of Charisma still does. He even fooled me. I voted for him. Once!

Hoover? (okay, I know you’re not that old!)

I’ll take that as a compliment and thanks very much.

Posted by: MAW at August 13, 2004 03:49 PM

Anyone,

Since the topic is inconsistency. Explain this one to me. I would love to hear it.

‘Jan 30, 1992” (in regards to the Clinton presidential campaign)” I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.” blah blah blah “We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?” congressional record

And what does he do now. OH YES! He uses Vietnam, all 4 months, 3 scratches and a bruise! What a hypocrite!

Yesiree, no inconsistency there! Absolutely Unbelievable!

Posted by: MAW at August 13, 2004 04:07 PM

That’s pathetic, MAW.

To minimize the man’s service to his country that way. Three scratches? Are you denying that he faced enemy fire on numerous occasions? That his position was one of the most vulnerable and dangerous in the war? Is it your contention that he faced no real danger during four months in Vietnam?

If you are, you’re alone, because not even the Swifties who oppose his candidacy are claiming that.

Your use of “blah, blah, blah” in the quote above is enough to prove that you have no sense of objectivity or fairness about the man or this campaign. You clearly have no interest in what he says other than to use it as a way to twist his position to say what you want it to be.

As for explaining the quote, you can argue that Kerry has injected the issue of Vietnam into the campaign. He’s certainly using his service to his political advantage. But by the same token, when has Kerry ever questioned Bush’s service? If anything, the Kerry campaign has simply stated the truth: if Kerry’s opponents want to compare how the two men served their country during Vietnam, they would welcome the comparison. Otherwise, Bush’s service is not an issue.

I’m hoping you regretted posting this the second you hit the button. If not…let’s just assume I’m restraining myself from attacking the messenger.

Posted by: Jerome Guerra at August 13, 2004 05:02 PM

American pundit wrote:

I’m voting for Kerry. I like his foreign policy, I like his energy policy, I like his healthcare policy, and I like his economic policy. No hatred here.

That makes at least two of us who are voting for Kerry, not because of hatred of George W. Bush, but because John Kerry is the better man for the job.

Posted by: Jerome Guerra at August 13, 2004 05:06 PM

MAW: The point is that it’s okay not to serve in the military, that lots of great people don’t serve, but that it’s those who do serve their country deserve extra respect automatically. The argument above is intended to counter those who, in 1992, were arguing that because Clinton did not serve that he was a coward and that he was unpatriotic. GHW Bush and Bob Dole did get extra bonus points from me for serving their country. Not once, not once did a Democrat actually try to smear these men for their service.

Kerry’s supporters take the same stance now, exactly the same, no change, no inconsistecy: Being a civilian is not being a coward, but being a soldier makes a person special. I’ve always believed that, haven’t you? How complicated is that?

> 3 scratches and a bruise

Every time I hear you people say this I want so very badly to hear you say this to one of the millions of American veterans with Purple Hearts for minor injuries, or to hear you say it to your own fathers and grandfathers who may also have “scratches” and “bruises” from their time at war.

Kerry’s “bruises and scratches” are the result of him being in a WAR ZONE with people SHOOTING AT HIM and MORTARS EXPLODING NEAR HIM and PEOPLE DYING AROUND HIM. If an American soldier or sailor gets even a pinprick from a firefight with an enemy (a deadly situation that you callously mock and laugh at), then I say that they very much deserve a Purple Heart. The fact that you make jokes about wounds received by American soldiers who are risking their lives in the most deadly and dangerous places for their country, well, it’s truly disgusting and shameful.

And you have the temerity to call anti-war protesters shameful, you who would mock the scars of war!

I think of my late paternal grandfather who lost his middle finger and his hearing in WWII and Korea (respectively), and I am enraged by your heartless comments. I think of my maternal grandfather who still has shrapnel in his back from Iwo Jima and I think of what he would think if, like you, I mockingly asked to see his wounds or scoffingly demanded that he show me his medical records.

I would like to ask you to please read this article about my grandfather, written by my mother for Veterans Day a few years ago. I hope you read it and think very hard about what it means for a young person to be in a war, to be injured because you put your own body in harm’s way for your country. I hope you also think hard about why it is so easy for you to make fun of a soldier’s wounds.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 13, 2004 05:34 PM

GHW Bush and Bob Dole did get extra bonus points from me for serving their country. Not once, not once did a Democrat actually try to smear these men for their service.

They never participated in Anti-War activities, which some at the time described as Anti-American, such as Kerry. Or collaborated with enemies.

They also never wrapped themselves in a war flag or discounted 20 years of their lives to point at their military service.

Kerry’s supporters take the same stance now, exactly the same, no change, no inconsistecy: Being a civilian is not being a coward, but being a soldier makes a person special. I’ve always believed that, haven’t you? How complicated is that?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and make the Grand Assumption that Terry McAuliff is a Kerry supporter. Given that premise, how many times did he ridicule the President’s time in the National Guard to the point that he called him a deserter? This is a question and would appreciate a response to McAuliff’s actions. The one you deny happened.

Every time I hear you people say this I want so very badly to hear you say this to one of the millions of American veterans with Purple Hearts for minor injuries, or to hear you say it to your own fathers and grandfathers who may also have “scratches” and “bruises” from their time at war.

I don’t know any either that tell me about it all the time and they are not even running for President.

The fact that you make jokes about wounds received by American soldiers who are risking their lives in the most deadly and dangerous places for their country, well, it’s truly disgusting and shameful.

The fact that Kerry didn’t put a band-aid on his boo-boo and get back out there only proves to me that his self-induced wounds were just a sham. I had suspicions before as did many. It denigrates the service of thousands of military men that lost limbs and suffered real honest to goodness casualties.

But these new revelations have brought it to the forefront and he can not run from it. Instead he sends out his goons to do his bidding for him. Unlike Michael Moore, O’Neill lobs accusations and stands before every TV audience, even hostile ones, such as James Carvell, Lanny Davis and Chris Mathews to defend his position . When is Michael Moore going to go before TV audiences and back up his gross allegations? No he hides and refuses to back his up accusations behind a fakery of calling it a documentary and poor dimwitted people believe it as gospel. When is he going to defend his accusations? And when is Kerry going to denounce his Op-Ed piece like you guys are calling for President Bush to do concerning SBVT in spite of the fact that he legally can not.

The duplicity of your attitudes concerning accusations made by one side and not the other is simply amazing and is simply politics at its worst.

The fact that you make jokes about wounds received by American soldiers who are risking their lives in the most deadly and dangerous places for their country, well, it’s truly disgusting and shameful.

To accuse me of not caring about American Soldiers is absolutely the worst vitriol a person can use when they have no grounding to stand on. Liberals do this often and with impunity. They resort to accusations as despicable as that one. You should be ashamed. Not me.

I support our troops, you on the other hand support an anti-war protestor that got many of them killed, spit at and dishonored. Believe that! It is absolutely the truth and many are around to remember!

I hope the Democrats don’t find another way to disregard the military vote this year like 2000 when they threw out 900 of them and then cried disenfranchisement for felons. Typical Democrat spin.

Did your late paternal grandfather run for political office? He may have despised Kerry as well. You do not know. And he, unlike Kerry, would most certainly release his medical records. He could put all this to rest by releasing them and his DoD records. And don’t send me to some site that has a recap on his record. I want to see actual medical records and DoD records. But that is only for people like Linda Tripp a bane to Democrats. Her records get leaked. How strange is that?

You forget, I went to school with brave soldiers that went to Vietnam and some never returned. I knew them personally and had long childhood friendships with them. And the ones that returned did not trump up 3 Purple Hearts to get out of staying and abandon their fellow soldiers. Be patient it will all be coming out soon.

So don’t you ever, ever accuse me of being insensitive to American Soldiers. If you despise me for a simple statement like that and you support Kerry and his actions during and after the war is simply biased an inexcusable. Your Paternal Grandfather and his brave actions and service to this country is an honor and I am proud of him unlike Kerry who would have inspired people to spit at him and call him names.

And this is the man you want for Commander in Chief? Absolutely preposterous!

Posted by: MAW at August 13, 2004 06:48 PM

To minimize the man’s service to his country that way. Three scratches? Are you denying that he faced enemy fire on numerous occasions? That his position was one of the most vulnerable and dangerous in the war? Is it your contention that he faced no real danger during four months in Vietnam?

My contention is that he got a draft notice and enlisted in the Navy instead of having the draft board decide for him. A common practice during those days, I might add. The Navy is where anyone went that wanted to hide from the real war. I also am contending that he figured out after one tour that there was nothing remarkable in which he could hang his hat on when he would decide to run for office. Thus volunteering for duty on Swift Boats, where he immediately remained aloof and was disliked by many of the men he served with. This is my contention. Sorry if it displeases you. Well maybe I am not that sorry.

And yes, maybe I am alone in thinking this way, but I seriously doubt it. I for one am not going to be politically correct and fall into the trap that he behaved oh so valiantly. Not when I have not seen medical records that his wounds required nothing more than iodine and a band-aid. When I do, then I will apologize. So it would behoove all of you to join in and call for those records to be released so the truth is there and we can all shut up about it.

He’s certainly using his service to his political advantage.

I hope he is prepared for it to be his disadvantage and undoing!

But by the same token, when has Kerry ever questioned Bush’s service? If anything, the Kerry campaign has simply stated the truth:

No he sends out his goons to do it for him. You don’t see him saying the same thing now that he did when Clinton was running. If he did then I could truly respect him. But he does nothing of the sort.

You can certainly see my post to Chris for more about how I feel.

I’m hoping you regretted posting this the second you hit the button. If not…let’s just assume I’m restraining myself from attacking the messenger.

I regret nothing! And you should be ashamed to support a man that did nothing but bring dishonor and death to thousands that were serving. Think again my friend. I was there and I remember the feelings. I am assuming you could not have been around those years as you would have known just as I do the feeling in this country during those years and all the men that died in vain because of his actions.

Posted by: MAW at August 13, 2004 07:11 PM

You say this:

where he immediately remained aloof and was disliked by many of the men he served with

Someone who actually served with him says this:

To the men who served with him, John Kerry was “one of the most daring skippers in the US Navy, relentlessly and courageously engaging the enemy,” according to The Boston Globe. William Zaladonis, who served under Kerry on a Swift Boat, said that he was more interested than some other commanding officers in his crewmates’ lives, hopes, and dreams. John Kerry put his crewmates at ease, telling them to “call me John - you don’t have to call me sir.” When “we were out on patrol,” Zaladonis recalls, “we were a family.”

I was around back then and I remember how it was. And after all I’ve read from you, I’ll join Christopher in saying that you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You slander a man who volunteered to serve in Vietnam, in combat, because you’re angry that he protested against the war that he saw first-hand. It appears that you also dislike Kerry because you disagree with his politics.

The records from the U.S. Navy and the men who actually served with John Kerry say you’re wrong about him. I choose to believe recorded history and the men who knew him best, rather than this “dishonest and dishonorable” movement to discredit a man who served his country as long and as well as John Kerry has.

Posted by: Jerome Guerra at August 13, 2004 08:06 PM

Jerome,

You are correct! And as soon as he releases his Department of Defense records and his medical records we will know for certain.

His 3 1/2 month tour of duty means nothing to me, his scratches or his bruise either. His actions when he returned home and stood side by side with Hanoi Jane has certainly earned him the honor of Hanoi John. This, plus his cavorting with Viet Cong, North Vietnamese and the likes of Daniel Ortega will make him the most disrespected man to fill the office of Commander in Chief..

I am certain that he will have all this information made available to the public as quickly as possible. Because he is an honorable man. Correct?

And because he told people to call him John and not sir, that means what exactly? Isn’t that special! Call me John. Noble isn’t it. You may be impressed with that statement. I can only say; is that all you got?

Oh, and I will take the word of the other 60 men that served with him until he makes everything available and not sweep this under the rug or send out his goons to do his bidding for him.

Posted by: MAW at August 13, 2004 09:01 PM

So what exactly is it that you want from him? A video record of his every move from 1967 to today? He’s released his military records. His doctor has told you that he’s healthy, though he has a piece of shrapnel remaining in his leg from an battle injury that you seem to think was inconsequential.

So what more do you want from this guy? Blood?

Oh, yeah. He already gave you that and it wasn’t enough.

Posted by: Jerome Guerra at August 13, 2004 09:28 PM

A revealing comparison from a posting I found on Fark.com on Michael Moore’s well timed release of footage on Porter Goss:

This is tangentially relevant but Farkers might be interested in this juxtaposition that I assembled today:

“I saw an airplane hit the tower — the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, ‘well, there’s one terrible pilot’. I said, ‘it must have been a horrible accident’.”
-George W. Bush
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

“I knew instantaneously with the first. I’m a pilot, and I looked at the weather, and it’s what we call in pilot lingo CAVU, ceiling and visibility unlimited. And I knew that that plane did not fly into that building accidentally, as people were speculating. It just doesn’t happen, could not, under those circumstances. So I knew it was deliberate, whether it was suicide, whether it was something — I couldn’t tell.”
- John Kerry
“>http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/08/lkl.00.html

Which man strikes you as the more “sensitive” observer?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 13, 2004 10:04 PM

We should be glad that Bush is such a deep thinker on such subjects. If you’re reading, Michael Moore, I think I have the a