Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Kerry went on to state from your link,

“Let’s be clear — the president’s vaguely stated plan does not strengthen our hand in the war on terror,” he said. “It in no way relieves the strain on our overextended military personnel. It doesn’t even begin until 2006 and it takes 10 years to achieve. And this hastily announced plan raises more doubts about our intentions and our commitments than it provides real answers.”

Seems a rational and reasonable line of political campaign reasoning to me. Given the barrages of misinformation being flung from both sides, this is hardly newsworthy.

Kerry was in a Republican zone, he had no chance of getting a standing ovation. It does bother me, though, he seemed to waffle between yesterdays indictment on the Bush proposal and just MONTHS ago. On Aug. 1st appearing on ABC’s “This Week”, he said:

“If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops not just there but elsewhere in the world, in the Korean peninsula, perhaps, in Europe, perhaps.”

So Bush will not begin until 2006 moving out troops. This all comes down to him not agreeing on foreign policy: attack it that way! Both of them would move troops similiarly, I’m sure.

> Is it just me or didn’t Kerry say the war on
> terror was primarily a law enforcement
> operation and not a military one?

It is just you (well, you and the rest of the misleading right). He said it was primarily a law enforcement AND intelligence operation, and that it was ALSO a military one (not, as you put it, “not a military one”).

“The war on terror is…occasionally military. … But it’s primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world.”

To suggest, as you apparently are, that the battle against terrorism is primarily military is, quite frankly, insane. If what you suggest were true, then we must invade Pakistan, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Germany, Britain, Canada and a half-dozen other countries immediately. The truth, thankfully, is that we are not invading those countries, as much as that probably disappoints you. We are, in fact, engaging those countries (both with and without their respective governments’ support) in primarily law enforcement and intelligence capacities. To argue otherwise is just crazy.

The way you guys twist Kerry’s words is totally shameless. Well, at least you had the decency to provide an actual link to the source site that contradicted your statement.

-Cf

> …”with scores of veterans sittings with their arms folded”

As I recall, all Democrats who speak at the VFW convention get this treatment from a certain faction of the audience. It’s like a ritual.

> to the Massachusets Senator ‘who served in Vietnam’.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you now implying that he wasn’t even in Vietnam at all?

-Cf

David,

Kerry went on to state from your link,

“Let’s be clear - the president’s vaguely stated plan does not strengthen our hand in the war on terror,” he said. “It in no way relieves the strain on our overextended military personnel. It doesn’t even begin until 2006 and it takes 10 years to achieve. And this hastily announced plan raises more doubts about our intentions and our commitments than it provides real answers.”

This only highlights the contradiction of Kerry’s apparent position on this. Kerry is saying this is a hasty, unilateral, and untimely plan, but Bush worked it out over the last three years with congress and our allies and gave them plenty of time to prepare and execute it. What exactly is Kerry upset about? Especially in light of the fact that he has talked about doing exactly the same thing if he were to become president. I want…

cf-

It is just you…

“It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.”

To suggest, as you apparently are, that the battle against terrorism is primarily military is, quite frankly, insane.

I am not suggesting that. The war on terror is all of those things. What I am suggesting is that Kerry is suggesting that the military is only a small part of the war on terror in order to contrast with Bush. The intelligence and law enforcement are less visible than the military actions by their nature. That’s why the left’s attack on Bush as if the military option is all of Bush’s strategy is disengenious. Bush cannot tout covert operations and investigations that are ongoing.

to the Massachusets Senator ‘who served in Vietnam’.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you now implying that he wasn’t even in Vietnam at all?

What it means is that Kerry ‘leaves no speech left behind’ without mentioning his service in Vietnam. That’s all.

Well, at least you had the decency to provide an actual link to the source site that contradicted your statement.

The contradiction highlighted is Kerry’s.

> Bush worked it out over the last three years
> with congress and our allies and gave them
> plenty of time to prepare and execute it.

Really? The way I heard it they just sprung it on Congress and our allies on Sunday. Surprise! No Congressional debate, no public discussion, nothing.

> What I am suggesting is that Kerry is
> suggesting that the military is only a
> small part of the war on terror in order
> to contrast with Bush. … the left’s
> attack on Bush as if the military option
> is all of Bush’s strategy is disengenious.

You are once again conflating the Iraq invasion and the broader battle against terrorism, and you are using that conflation to build a little basket full of straw men.

First of all, where has Kerry ever criticised Bush for using the military to fight terrorism (besides Iraq)? He hasn’t. Straw man #1.

Secondly, where has Kerry said that military is a “small part” of the war against terrorism? “Occasionally military” he said… but even an “occasional” war isn’t “small”. Straw man #2.

Thirdly, just because Kerry said that the war on terror is primarily intelligence and law enforcement doesn’t mean that he’s drawing a distinction with Bush. He might just be straight up explaining his policy position. Straw man #3.

(Even if one swallows the idea that the Iraq invasion was part of the war on terrorism, it still doesn’t follow that the Iraq invasion was a major victory in that war. The major victories so far have occurred predominantly in the intelligence and law enforcement worlds, and militarily there have been some smaller victories in Afghanistan.)

In particular, the MSNBC link you provided had him defending his perfectly rational statement against slimy Republicans who were taking his words out of context in order to make it look like he thinks the military shouldn’t be used at all (you wrote “not a military one”) to fight terrorism. Kerry wasn’t proactively making any distinction at all — he was defending himself against partisans who would deliberately misrepresent and even misquote his statements for cheap political gain.

> The contradiction highlighted is Kerry’s.

Huh? Please name one thing Kerry says in this quote that you disagree with:

“The war on terror is…occasionally military. … But it’s primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world.”

How is this drawing a distinction with Bush? Do you disagree with this statement? Is the Bush Administration actually crazy enough to disagree with it?

-Cf

“to the Massachusets Senator ‘who served in Vietnam’.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you now implying that he wasn’t even in Vietnam at all?”

Wait a second here folks!
Are you people saying that Kerry served in Vietnam?!
I hadn’t heard that. Is this true? What was he doing in Vietnam? How long was he there?

Eric, I’m wondering why after half a year, we’re still having to discuss this point- It’s just plain a question of efficacy.

If you want to defeat a force of small groups, internationally distributed amongst allies, enemies and neutrals, then you employ appropriate means. Apparently your strategy is to hope we win enough military victories in the places you think have terrorists so you don’t have to deal with them in our own borders. Problem is, they’re already here, and they already know what they have to do. They also operate in other countries, good, bad, neutral, and just plain ugly, and we don’t always have a 100,000 troops to spare.

Additionally, even if we do, and even if we did have a clear target, they would quickly dissolve into and out of the societies in question, rendering the capabilities of a military designed to fight states and state supported militaries irrelevant.

You need the help of soft power, because it has more extensive and versatile reach, and because too many lives are in the balance to get overly focused on military solutions at the expense of working solutions.

Stephen, I agree with you that the only way to win the war on terror is to track down and capture/eliminate the problem. Kerry may have the right idea and Bush’s approach of fire and brimestone is as misleading policies as the Nixon Administration was in Vietnam.

You asked why the republicans are still focusing the debate on Kerry’s Service, could it be that they don’t want to face his (Kerry) and countless other Vets actions after Kent State when our parents found out that our government was lying and willing to use our troops against us to enforce their (Republican) policy? The one agrument that has divided this country ever since if your are to believe the political spinners Kerry’s stance against the war. The turth; however, goes alot deeper than that. For those that are not old enough to remimber and those who would choose to forget, all you have to do is take the issues of today and compare them to the issues, events, and facts back than. Do we really need double digit inflation, no fuel, and high interest rates.

If we are truely going to lead the world than atleast we can do it right. Would we expect anything less from our country. Yes, 9/11 did show us that our government was not prefect and that we already knew, but what makes this country great is that we hold our government accountable and demand that they (our political leaders) do what is right for the country regradless of the cost.

cf-

Really? The way I heard it they just sprung it on Congress and our allies on Sunday. Surprise! No Congressional debate, no public discussion, nothing.

Even Kerry has talked about it as I noted in my post. This is from a DoD transcript:

…the process for thinking about the realignment of our global defense posture has been under way for quite a bit of time now; certainly had its roots in the 2001 QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review], the president mentioned it in his National Security Strategy of 2002, and we’re now adding more detail as we go along. But this is something that we’ve had a good many discussions with you, and we’ll have more in the future as there are more details that we want to touch on.

…not only has this involved a long and important set of deliberations within the Department of Defense, but these have been deliberations in the interagency; and most importantly, these have involved extensive deliberations with our allies, and that we have been at work with this consulting with our allies for some time and we will continue those consultations with our allies as we move forward.

…And the fifth and final point I would make is that the proposals that were captured in totality by the president this morning represents the best advice of the joint chiefs of staff and our combatant commanders. And they were not merely partners in this process; they were the authoritative voices in this process. The chiefs and the combatant commanders were really the source of the advice that was used by the secretary of Defense that he, in turn, took to the president. And this is advice that’s been, again, developing for a long period of time, as we’ve said.
defenselink.mil

cf, I think you may be overusing the ‘it’s a strawman argument’ defense.

For all of these points to be strawmen the following would have to be true:

1) Kerry has never ‘suggested’ that the the military was a small part of the war on terror
2) The left has never attacked Bush for only using the military in the war on terror.
3) Kerry is not drawing a distinction with Bush by saying the war on terror is not primarily a military one.

What I am suggesting is that Kerry is suggesting that the military is only a small part of the war on terror in order to contrast with Bush. … the left’s attack on Bush as if the military option is all of Bush’s strategy is disengenious.

You are once again conflating the Iraq invasion and the broader battle against terrorism, and you are using that conflation to build a little basket full of straw men.

First of all, where has Kerry ever criticised Bush for using the military to fight terrorism (besides Iraq)? He hasn’t. Straw man #1.

You yourself are creating a little straw man here. I never said that. I said:
1) Kerry is suggesting that the military is only a small part of the war on terror
2) The left has attacked Bush as if he has only used the military in the war on terror

#2 I’ll even grant you that ‘Kerry’ and ‘the left’ is interchangable. Kerry’s entire campaign is built on attacking Bush for using the military where Kerry doesn’t think it should be used. Part of my point is that Kerry doesn’t think Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror, but the President does. Kerry has also criticized Bush’s use of the military in Afghanistan, or ‘Misuse’ if you prefer. In a more broader context the left has been consistant in opposing any military actions whereever they may be… some even opposed invading Afghanistan. Both have used consistant criticism of Bush’s lack of intelligence and law enforcement in the war on terror. Or else why is Kerry using it as part of his campaign against Bush?

Secondly, where has Kerry said that military is a “small part” of the war against terrorism? “Occasionally military” he said… but even an “occasional” war isn’t “small”. Straw man #2.

#1 So when he says ‘not primarily’, and ‘only occasionally’, and ‘we’re spending far too much money on the battlefield’, what does he mean? Why would Kerry say, “Now, I’ve always said once you know where they are, will you use the Delta Force or SEALs or Rangers or Special Forces of some kind?” This suggests limited strikes, not invasions. The whole argument about using every means other than military doesn’t tip you off to the fact that the war on terror isn’t about a large use of military force but rather a small one?

Or is Kerry trying to walk the knife’s edge here too and have it both ways? If he is not trying to make this distinction between Bush’s reckless miltarism by accentuating the ‘power of his diplomacy’ what is he trying to do?

Thirdly, just because Kerry said that the war on terror is primarily intelligence and law enforcement doesn’t mean that he’s drawing a distinction with Bush. He might just be straight up explaining his policy position. Straw man #3.

Kerry says he will fight a smarter, more effective, more thoughtful, more sensitive, etc, etc, war on terror. More than whom? He is obviously contrasting his more thoughtful nuanced policies with Bush’s ‘failed’ policies. For Pete’s sake, one of the first questions of the interview begins with:

MR. RUSSERT: That sounds exactly like George Bush.

SEN. KERRY: It’s different. Let me explain the difference.

The entire point, by the way, that I was making about this issue is that Bush is pursueing the diplomatic, law enforcement, and intelligence aspects of the war on terror, as you even admit.

The truth, thankfully, is that we are not invading those countries, as much as that probably disappoints you. We are, in fact, engaging those countries (both with and without their respective governments’ support) in primarily law enforcement and intelligence capacities. To argue otherwise is just crazy.

I am saying that Kerry is attacking Bush on these issues exactly because Bush cannot fight back on them because the nature of those operations would be compromised by doing so. They go on behind the scenes and are not as public as the military aspects.

Bush is persuing a diplomatic solution in North Korea? By what? Rewarding North Korea for it’s Nuclear program?

Eric, you defend Bush while mischaracterizing Kerry’s position as usual. Kerry has never stated military action is not an option.Kerry has not shelved military action to a minor roll. That only occurs in the usual straw man arguments and simple simonton logic. Sorry had to say it.

The reason Vietnam and the Military keep coming up in this election is because of Kerry’s repeated mentions of his 4 months of service, and his questionable military record afterwards. The fact that Kerry returned form Vietnam and turned on his former comrades claiming they were committing heinous war crimes is appalling. The Kerry camp has done everything they can to focus on 4 months in Vietnam, and hiding or ignoring the decades afterwards. Kerry’s Senate testimony as the leader of the Vietnam Veterans against the war was filled with rumors, lies and false accusations that Kerry can only now say he ‘regrets the language he used’. Sorry, that’s not good enough.

I’ve got good friends in the military. Their scared to death that Kerry will win, and they’ll be hung out to dry. They fear having a commander and chief that so easily accused the military of war crimes then. They don’t know what to expect of him now. Maybe 8 years ago it was acceptable to have a person like Kerry in the white house, but today, when we’re at a very real war, we can’t have a leader whose intentions the military can’t trust much less the rest of the country.

People with Kerry’s past, and Kerry’s temperament have a place, even in government, as an oversight. They don’t belong at the head of our military. Go ahead, question Bush’s Vietnam service compare it to Kerry’s, it doesn’t matter. What matters is what he’s proved in the last 4 years. For that answer, ask the men and women the serve under him, the ones in battle. They still like him, trust him and will follow him for another 4.

-D

> #2 I’ll even grant you that ‘Kerry’ and
> ‘the left’ is interchangable.

You’ll grant me that? How generous of you to “grant” me a point of view I do not ascribe to.

> For all of these points to be strawmen
> the following would have to be true:
>
> 1) Kerry has never ‘suggested’ that the
> the military was a small part of the war
> on terror

He has not even so much as suggested, hinted, insinuated, or alluded to anything like that. More on this below.

> 2) The left has never attacked Bush for
> only using the military in the war on
> terror.

Given that you’re “granting” me the left=Kerry equivalency, I suppose you think this is a rational argument. But if you see things like I do, where “another person” does not equal “John Kerry”, then you’ll see that John Kerry has never “attacked” Bush for only using the military in the war on terror. If anything, he’s attacked Bush for (a) using the military for operations unrelated to the war on terrorism (Iraq) and (b) not using the military quite enough for operations critical to the war on terrorism (Afghanistan).

> 3) Kerry is not drawing a distinction
> with Bush by saying the war on terror
> is not primarily a military one.

No, he’s not. This is your paranoia example coming in, where a simple policy statement sounds to you like an attack. If you think that Iraq was a battleground against terrorism (which John Kerry and I don’t), then I can understand how you would see his statement as a distinction from Bush. But since Kerry doesn’t think Iraq was part of a war on terrorism at all, then obviously his statements about the military’s role in the war on terrorism can’t be based on his opinion of the invasion of Iraq. If you put yourself in the shoes of someone who honestly thinks Iraq war was a distraction from the war on terrorism, then you’ll see that his statement was not intended as a critique. In fact, the only critique implicit in his statements is precisely this: that Iraq is not part of the war on terrorism. The military should be used in the war on terrorism, but the Iraq war was not part of that war. It’s not that complex.

It’s true that Kerry thinks that Bush has not put a big enough focus on law enforcement and intelligence, in particular using these tools in cooperation with foreign counterparts (“requires cooperation around the world”). He is definately making a distinction here - as President, he would put more focus on cooperating with friendly nations to coordinate law enforcement and intelligence operations. The 9/11 terrorists trained and plotted in a dozen foreign nations and eluded security agents in all of them. The open contempt we have shown to France and Germany (and the arrogance we have shown to Russia, Turkey, Jordan, and others) before during and after the invasion of Iraq cannot have helped us in our important cooperation with those nations regarding intelligence and law enforcement. That’s a distinction.

Kerry can increase America’s focus on and be smarter about intelligence and law enforcement, particularly in cooperation with foreign governments, without lessening his committment to use the military when necessary or useful. There is much room for improvement.

>> First of all, where has Kerry ever
>> criticised Bush for using the military
>> to fight terrorism (besides Iraq)?
>> He hasn’t. Straw man #1.
>
> You yourself are creating a little straw
> man here. I never said that.

I never said you said that. I was in fact giving you wide leeway to find me an example of where Kerry has ever criticised Bush’s for using the military in the war against terrorism. Ever. If you can’t name an example ever where Kerry has criticised Bush for using the military in the war against terrorism, then how can you argue that his “primarily intelligence and law enforcement” statement is part of a pattern of attack in which Kerry makes a distinction between his view of the military and Bush’s view of the military. You contend that there is a radical difference in strategy, I contend that, Iraq aside, the difference is not in priorities but in method.

> Why would Kerry say, “Now, I’ve always said
> once you know where they are, will you use
> the Delta Force or SEALs or Rangers or
> Special Forces of some kind?” This suggests
> limited strikes, not invasions.

You think that a Delta Force strike is something “small”? That when the Rangers attack it’s something “small”? Does it take an invasion to register as something significant? If Kerry says he’s willing to use these forces - presumably to use them in countries in which the regime has not invited us - that’s pretty significant.

> #1 So when he says ‘not primarily’, and ‘only
> occasionally’, and ‘we’re spending far too much
> money on the battlefield’, what does he mean?

By “not primarily” and “only occasionally” he means that he’s not going to invade Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. He is just speaking common sense there, and only making a distinction between his point of view and the straw man Russert was presenting him (Russert was essentially asking a trick question: “Why did you say that the military isn’t a tool in the war on terrorism?”).

With regards to “too much money on the battlefield” line, well, I think that’s an allusion to Iraq, which is the only distinction that exists here.

> If he is not trying to make this distinction
> between Bush’s reckless miltarism by
> accentuating the ‘power of his diplomacy’
> what is he trying to do?

I think that’s exactly what he’s doing, but again, only with regards to Iraq, not the war against terrorism.

I see your point of view, though, insofar as you actually seem to think that invading Iraq was a major operation in the war on terrorism. Kerry is arguing that invading countries that have nothing to do with the war on terrorism (and in fact, causing terrorism to increase as a result of your invasion) is a poor use of the military and is in general a bad strategy for the war on terrorism. In that sense, he is clearly making a distinction with Bush, who would have us think that he beleives that Iraq is the front line in our war against terrorism.

My core argument, however, is that when you take Kerry’s statements and simplify them to “primarily a law enforcement operation and not a military one”, you suggest that Kerry thinks that the the Police Department and the District Attorney are the only tools we need to fight terrorism.

That’s your big straw man. That’s what I object to about your misrepresentation of Kerry’s opinions. You say you only object to Kerry criticising Bush for putting too much focus on the military, but what you are really saying is that Kerry would put less focus on the military. You are blatantly suggesting that Kerry is soft, that he’s weak, that he’s doesn’t have the guts for invasion, that he’d only use pinprick Delta Force operations, that he’d rely on cops and lawyers instead of cruise missiles and Marine battallions. Fact it, that’s your point. You are the one on the attack.

-Cf

> For that answer, ask the men and women the
> serve under him, the ones in battle. They
> still like him, trust him and will follow
> him for another 4.

Is that true? Do the soldiers who are in battle in Iraq right now still trust Bush?

-Cf

As Bush said, “results matter” and yet this moron has done worse than nothing. In every imaginable way we are worse off than when he took office. Terrorism is up, the economy is down…… Some people believe that Bush has a better plan to beat terrorism and crime but no evidence supports that position. #43 certainly talks tough, but terrorism and crime are both up. Which goes to the point that politics is nothing but spin and advertising dollars. It’s silly to worry about Kerry when a ham sandwich could do better than #43. The only person in America capable of doing worse than Bush is Cheney, so we must pray that nothing happens to Bush in the near future.

DelZario- You can ask them. You just won’t be asking anybody in the SwiftVets. As for the SwiftVets, they’re alternatively people who only know him for his stance on ending the war when he got home, people who served above him who might have felt betrayed by him not toeing the line on the war, and paid hacks of the Republican party.

Why should we trust an Organization that is 0 for 2 on his main metals, which John McCain and the guy who was saved by Kerry have denounced?

Your friends in the military should worry about four more years of Bush. He’s put them in the crosshairs, made them the face of his foreign policy mistake. He’s turned them into crusader targets for terrorists and insurgents like Al Sadr. The Republicans complain that Kerry didn’t vote for a bill that gave soldiers armor and supplies. Nevermind he did vote for a bill that would have done that, and that a bill would have been passed no matter what. Nevermind that Kerry was trying to force Bush’s hand to get them help, and to stop burdening their children with the bill for this war, with interest added.

Fact is, that bill needed to be passed in the first place, because Bush didn’t ask for the supplies needed to fight the war right in the first place. He lowballed the estimate, made assumptions about how easy the operation was going to be, and didn’t draw up a plan to organize post-war reconstruction and security. Y’all shouldn’t be complaining about Kerry might leave you out to dry, you should be complaing about how Bush did leave you out to dry.

Eric-
Oh, hell. My impression of what I got from your link, is that this whole thing is about Transformation, the policy of reducing troop numbers by using our high tech gadgetry. I can’t freaking believe this. You would think they would learn the lessons of going in light from Iraq, but apparently, Bush’s people still think that Armies out there won’t catch on to the weaknesses of this kind of strategy.

From what I understand, we don’t have a big enough footprint to allow us to keep a lid on things. We can do lots of surgical strikes, quick invasions and strikes, but we can’t occupy large areas of land, and we can’t secure borders as well. This kind of forces is vulnerable to precisely the kinds of tactics terrorists excell at. It may be good when our enemy is coming after us in helicopters, but against IEDs, suicide bombers and those who don’t use electronic communications, it presents an inviting target.

I may be wrong, may have skimmed through the double-talk too fast, but that’s the picture I’m getting off of this. In short, as with many fronts of this War on Terrorism, your people seem to be operating on unproven theory rather than practical experience. Oh, but never mind, our forces are meant to prove theories, not win battles, right?

Your line of logic is hard to follow, but from what I gather you’re still operating on the canard that opposition to methods entails opposition to the enterprises the methods are used within. Reality is, nobody wants to lose Iraq, or be seen as losing it.

As for publicity on the more secret operations of the War on terror, what have all these terror alerts with specific information been about? Is this your idea of secrecy and discretion?

CF-

As it is difficut to poll men in combat this will have to serve as a indicator.

Thursday August 05, 2004—A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that military veterans prefer George W. Bush over John Kerry by a 58% to 35% margin. Those with no military service favor Kerry by ten percentage points, 51% to 41%.

The potential grassroots impact of the war issue is highlighted by the fact that 48% of Americans say they know someone who is currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Among these voters, Bush currently has a ten-point advantage in the poll. Fifty-four percent (54%) of veterans know someone serving in these war zones.

The rest of the data/article

In a time when we ask much of our men and women in service, I think we ought to listen to them when it comes to who leads them.

-D

Stephen-

The military likes Bush because he give them the mission, then lets them plan and execute it without micromanaging it. Bush went into Iraq with the people he did, but cause that’s what the military wanted. They ask for more people, they get more people. I don’t even fault Kerry for his vote against the funding for the war (except it sends the wrong message to the troops, and that’s what matters). I just question wear his heart is. Does he see the military as the honorable men and women that they are, or does he still see everything in shades of Vietnam. I fear it’s the later, and so does the military.

-D

“Does he see the military as the honorable men and women that they are, or does he..”

If he didn’t, then why did he approve of the military action in Iraq to begin with? If he really had no faith in the military we should have heard these reservations come out in the multiple senate votes and discussions during the last two years- I have heard no such statements or implications.

“I don’t even fault Kerry for his vote against the funding for the war..”

And again, he didn’t vote against the funding. He voted against the method of funding. Finances are very important in todays economic climate, and even our military efforts cannot afford to be left out of the economic picture. Kerry wanted to alter the funding method, but it didn’t happen. I’m sure everyone knows this by know, but just to clarify so that old assumptions don’t start to reappear.

peezee-

I understand why he voted no in the end. The fight to change the method of funding should have been made before it came up for a final vote. Once the method has been decided he should have voted for it, to send the right message to the troops. That’s a vote he wouldn’t have to explain now.

I’d argue that his senate voting record does in fact leave many questions about how he views the military. There does not seem to be a clear reason to explain his votes. Why vote for Kosovo, but against the first gulf war. These inconsistencies make me, and others, nervous.

-D

> A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that
> military veterans prefer George W. Bush
> over John Kerry by a 58% to 35% margin.

That doesn’t seem much different than the Democratic/Republican divide seen in every election. Can you show that this number is any different than it was in 2000?

-Cf

cf-

My core argument, however, is that when you take Kerry’s statements and simplify them to “primarily a law enforcement operation and not a military one”, you suggest that Kerry thinks that the the Police Department and the District Attorney are the only tools we need to fight terrorism.

That is not a misrepresentation of Kerry’s position. It is a holistic view of it. Of course you can find Kerry on both sides of the issue. He’s always on both sides of an issue. It’s what he said Christopher! I can’t help that your candidate is all over the planet on this stuff.

That’s your big straw man. That’s what I object to about your misrepresentation of Kerry’s opinions. You say you only object to Kerry criticising Bush for putting too much focus on the military, but what you are really saying is that Kerry would put less focus on the military. You are blatantly suggesting that Kerry is soft, that he’s weak, that he’s doesn’t have the guts for invasion, that he’d only use pinprick Delta Force operations, that he’d rely on cops and lawyers instead of cruise missiles and Marine battallions. Fact it, that’s your point. You are the one on the attack.

That’s the trouble with Kerry’s nuance— What is he saying then? If not that he will not rely PRIMARILY on the military in the war on terror? Do words not mean anything anymore? Do we have to parse everything Kerry as if he were Clinton for the meaning of what the word is is? And if we need annotated versions of Kerry’s interviews and speeches what good is what he says?

The whole point of the post is that Kerry himself has said he will consider pulling out troops from North Korea. Then when Bush announces that they’ve studied the idea and will actually do it, it’s dangerous. Kerry is a walking contradiction.

Charging that I am distorting and misrepresenting Kerry’s words is not in itself a defence. After all Kerry’s own words contradict his own words.

Given that you’re “granting” me the left=Kerry equivalency, I suppose you think this is a rational argument. But if you see things like I do, where “another person” does not equal “John Kerry”, then you’ll see that John Kerry has never “attacked” Bush for only using the military in the war on terror. If anything, he’s attacked Bush for (a) using the military for operations unrelated to the war on terrorism (Iraq) and (b) not using the military quite enough for operations critical to the war on terrorism (Afghanistan).

I’m granting you that because you mixed up the two in what I actually said. In the statement you quoted I said two separate things:

1) Kerry is suggesting that the military is only a small part of the war on terror
2) The left has attacked Bush as if he has only used the military in the war on terror

Since we have to devolve into semantics here what does small mean?

small ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smôl)
adj. small·er, small·est
1. Being below the average in size or magnitude.
2. Limited in importance or significance; trivial: a small matter.
3. Limited in degree or scope: small farm operations.
4. Lacking position, influence, or status; minor: “A crowd of small writers had vainly attempted to rival Addison” (Thomas Macaulay).
5. Unpretentious; modest: made a small living; helped the cause in my own small way.
6. Not fully grown; very young.
7. Narrow in outlook; petty: a small mind.
8. Having been belittled; humiliated: Their comments made me feel small.
9. Diluted; weak. Used of alcoholic beverages.
10. Lacking force or volume: a small voice.

In plain english here’s the section of the transcript with more context.

MR. RUSSERT: The war on terror is a law enforcement, not military…

SEN. KERRY: No. I said “primarily.” And here’s why. If you don’t know—if you’re going to fight an intelligent war on terror, you don’t want to fight it here in America. You do want to fight it abroad. You want to fight it where the cells are originating. And in order to know who they are, where they are, what they’re planning and be able to go get them before they get us, you need the best intelligence, best law enforcement cooperation in the world. Now, I’ve always said once you know where they are, will you use the Delta Force or SEALs or Rangers or Special Forces of some kind? Absolutely. And I will not hesitate to use those forces effectively.

In fact, this administration—I was the one who pointed out they failed to use our forces effectively in Afghanistan. We had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora. Rather than deploy the 10th Mountain Division or the 101st Airborne or the Marines, rather than use the best military in the world to go kill the world’s number-one terrorist, what did we do? This administration held them back. They sent the Afghans up into the mountains who a week earlier had been on the other side, and they let him escape.

I think that I can fight a far more effective war on terror. I will build alliances and ooperation. I will make America safer. But I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It’s an intelligence gathering, law enforcement, public diplomacy effort, and we’re putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight.

MR. RUSSERT: You’ve been, obviously, extremely critical of President Bush’s handling of foreign policy and his role as commander in chief. A year ago in March you made a commitment, and this is what you said. You “voted to authorize military action but has accused President Bush of rushing into war, [but he] said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. `It’s what you owe the troops,’ said a statement from Kerry. `I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won’t speak a word without measuring how it will sound to the guys doing the fighting when they’re listening to their radios in the desert.’”

Kerry is contrasting his ‘future’ policy with the present Bush policy. The present Bush policy includes Iraq, does it not? Kerry is accentuating that he will use intelligence, and law enforcement cooperation INSTEAD of it being a primarily military operation. The suggestion is that Bush, in primarily using the military in the war on terror, has erred.

That is my point.

> If not that he will not rely PRIMARILY on
> the military in the war on terror?

He is saying he would not rely primarily on the military!!!

> The suggestion is that Bush, in primarily
> using the military in the war on terror,
> has erred.

It’s crazy for anyone to think that Bush is primarily using the military in the war on terror. Do you really think that Kerry is that crazy?

I think we are arguing semantics, but I stand by my charge that you have falsely paraphrased Kerry’s words in order to make the outrageous suggestion that Kerry will not use the military at all to fight terror. He will use the military to fight terrorism. Period.

-Cf

Eric, your point is well taken. However, Bush has made the mistake in using all out military to fight the war on terror. As far as Iraq goes and the policies for over the last year has not been on fighting for Iraq, but in keeping the peace in Iraq. For that as can be seen everyday his policy of strong hand one day and being sensitive the next has put many lifes unnecessarly at risk.

Kerry on the other hand wants to use intellegence and police swat teams to take out individuals involved in terrorism and use our military special forces and troops only when their fire power is required.

Therefore, you could paraphase the two sides argument as follows;
Bush wants to bomb the enemy and Kerry wants to hunt the enemey and capture/kill them (sort of like Great Britan M-5).

Which one is better? Probably a combination; however I do know that if we are serious about taken terrorism out than America and the rest of the world leaders must do what Italy did with the Mafia in the 80’s and 90’s. Same type of enemy just a different name. Anything less is pissing in the wind.

Sorry Eric, but it’s a s t r e t c h to get from what Kerry said to your assertion. He was speaking english, not some other worldly expansion of one word to reach your conclusions.

Your argument kind of reminds of the Clintonesque use of the word “is”.

Sorry Eric, but it’s a s t r e t c h to get from what Kerry said to your assertion. He was speaking english, not some other worldly expansion of one word to reach your conclusions.

Sorry Greg, but I don’t know how much clearer it could be. Chris is hung up on a semantic argument. And it is beside the point I was making. The following is what I said:

Is it just me or didn’t Kerry say the war on terror was primarily a law enforcement operation and not a military one? How then does any force realignment affect the war on terror in Kerry’s mind?

Here’s what Kerry said:

But I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It’s an intelligence gathering, law enforcement, public diplomacy effort, and we’re putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight.

If the war on terror is not primarily military, meaning it is primarily law enforcement officers and intelligence operatives needed to do the job, why would bringing troops home from Europe affect that? And affect it dangerously?