View Full Version : So who won the debate?
Prospero
10-01-04, 02:11 AM
I'm a strong Kerry supporter, and feel that he won the debate tonight, but didn't hit any home runs.
Bush stammered and seemed flustered at times, and Kerry was eloquent and well spoken, but also seemed kind of stiff (although not as much as usual).
I'm glad Kerry was able to effectively make the point that Osama bin Laden is still at large, and that the war on Iraq is not the same as the war on terrorism.
What did you think?
Piddzilla
10-01-04, 06:17 AM
I think that Kerry showed that he clearly is the better debater of the two candidates.
If I had to pick a winner, I'd pick Kerry. I don't believe it was the butt-kicking so many of his supporters seem to be saying it was, though.
I'll give Kerry the edge overall for his consistency. He remained collected and quick on his feet, and only made one real blunder that I can recall ("pass the global test"). I'll give Bush the award for best line of the night in response to Kerry's claims that Iraq was a "grand diversion" and that we need more allies on board ("What's he going to say? Join us for a grand diversion?").
Kerry's biggest achivement was in simply standing on equal footing with the incumbent and holding his own.
Bush's primary achievement was in highlighting Kerry's utterly convoluted stance on Iraq. He says Hussein was a threat that needs to be disarmed, but actually doing so is an unncessary diversion. A diversion he'll bring more allies in to help with. It was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, yet he'd still vote for it knowing what he knows now. The world is better with Saddam gone, but it's also less safe.
Here's why Kerry won, though: in the first 30 minutes, Bush did a good job of finding the holes in the mess of statements mentioned above. Kerry, however, talked past it and stayed on the offensive. Bush, probably straying from his gameplan, went on the defensive far too often, and it showed. During the first half-hour, Bush successfully demonstratated that Kerry has been unclear and inconsistent, but the next hour felt as if it consisted largely of Kerry peppering Bush with questions. He was setting the tone for the debate down the stretch.
At this point, I'm going to predict double-upsets: Kerry wins this debate on foreign policy (considered by many to be Bush's strongest topic), but Bush wins on domestic policy (which many consider to be his weakest).
r3port3r66
10-01-04, 11:38 AM
This seemed less like a debate and more like a cat fight. It seemed like the issues brought up by Kerry (whom I support) were less "This is how I will resolve them" and more, " It's all basically his [Bush] fault." I came away from the debate thinking, "Yeah Kerry you show him!", but also with no real insight on what will happen if Kerry becomes the most powerful man in the world.
linespalsy
10-01-04, 11:40 AM
I wasn't under the impression that Bush's strong point was considered foreign policy.
In any case I'll agree with Yoda that Kerry won last nights debate but also that how much a victory it is in the long run remains to be seen. A couple points:
- Kerry's biggest weakness going into the debate was that up to now he'd allowed his opponents to define his political character for him. Last night he stayed consistent and on message for the most part and as Yoda points out didn't let Bush set the tone of the debate.
- Most polls showed Bush leading going into the debate, plus he's the incumbent which makes things easier on him. As if that weren't enough, I think most people already have relatively low expectations for the prez when it comes to speaking publicly, let alone debating.
With these two things in mind I think it's safe to say that Kerry won if we just look at the debate in a vacume. That is, with these other factors you could look at it and say that really the only way for it to be considered a decisive victory would have been for Bush to resort to a screaming tantrum or some such humiliation. Bush played it safe and sometimes looked a little foolish; he fumbled around a bit for the last half; but I think we sort of expect that from him. In fact his own people have never sold him as a great talker or a man of much cleverness (which of course doesn't say anything necessarily about how clever 'the real Bush' may be) but as someone who "gets things done" (whatever that little truism means.) So I think Bush and his people went into the debate planning to be on defense and it was probably a prudent choice -- he didn't say anything too embarasing. With the debate Kerry advanced a half-step but he's still a long way from winning an election as Bush is still treading on in his fashion too.
I think it is pretty obvious that Kerry did win and I wouldn't be surprised if his points go up in the polls, but he didn't knock 'em dead or anything, he was just better than Bush was.
I thought Kerry rocked the debate, but it still didn't change that I really don't care for him whatsoever. I'm going to be voting for him because he represents more of the ideals I believe in than Bush does, but he is just another politician to me. I think he is just as much of a log as Gore was. Kerry just has colorful fungi growing on him, whereas Gore was just a chunk of dead wood. And Bush is just a squirrel that doesn't care about anything but gathering more nuts. They both suck, one just slightly less than the other.
Oh and Jim Lear(spelling?) looks like a raccoon.
chicagofrog
10-01-04, 11:56 AM
Yep, Kerry definitely. a bit shy maybe, but at least he's not the one ignoring everything people know in the meanwhile, for example when Bush says after sooooooooooo much time and information (movies too, know what i mean?) the US were attacked by Iraq... does he really believe in his lies himself? and he straightforwardly and unashamed ignores the questions he doesn't wanna answer to, e.g. why attack Iraq and not Afghanistan if the army and government and HIM, ALL knew terrorists were there? (and oil, no no sir, didn't ever play a role in all those *deaths*!!!! of course... "sir")
so, if honesty counts for something, Kerry won.
I'll give Kerry the edge overall for his consistency. He remained collected and quick on his feet, and only made one real blunder that I can recall ("pass the global test").
That struck me as a blunder in terms of presentation, but not of substance. Were you thinking mainly in presentation terms? :)
By using that little punchy phrase, he wasn't able to qualify it as being about gaining consensus where consensus is necessary (and played into Bush's traditional response of 'the-US-needn't-consult-others-concerning-it's-own-security' [despite the lack of evidence of a threat to the US ;)])
It's this tricky-to-communicate strategy that he could've done with 'sound-biting' a bit more effectively (although he hit on a lot of the issues afterwards). It's especially tricky to communicate, tho, in the face of Bush's deliberately simplistic/black-and-white presentation of the issues. (Kerry fell into that presentation trap again when he said 'There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with Saddam' - to my mind he should have said 'There are right ways and wrong ways...', and that Bush chose one of the wrong ways. That way he wouldn't have fallen into the trap of appearing to be against everything Bush has done on that score - i.e. his prefered approach would've involved invasion too etc, and resolute stance post invasion.
That's the advantage of the Bush admin's approach and presentation. It's been simplistic and inflexible while using the 'war' on 'terror' to make it seem that all its actions must be good. (And Bush loves to spin it that way. i.e. the... 'We're fighting terror - i'm going to keep fighting terror - how can that be wrong?' spin he loves so much).
As Kerry pointed out, that kind of dogma on its own is no guarantee of being right ;)
Bush's primary achievement was in highlighting Kerry's utterly convoluted stance on Iraq.
Most of these apparent contradictions are resolved if you look at his general stance (which is shared by just about all the [non-pacifist] objectors to war-in-this-way ;)).....
He says Hussein was a threat that needs to be disarmed, but actually doing so is an unncessary diversion. A diversion he'll bring more allies in to help with.
He says it's only a diversion if done in such a way that resources are drawn away from other key areas in the fight on terrorism [Afghanistan etc]. IE The unilateral way which spread unsupported US forces too thinly. That is what Bush has done. (We can argue about the whys/hows of him not gaining multilateral supprot on the other thread Yodles ;) - There's still much to discuss :))
The world is better with Saddam gone, but it's also less safe.
Has he actually said that the world is better, or just that removing Saddam is the right thing to do (so long as we don't lose sight of more pertinent/wide-reaching terror issues along the way)?
It was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, yet he'd still vote for it knowing what he knows now.
That, i must admit, is the perplexing one. And the one i'm gonna try and track down on that damn montage of his stances that i still haven't watched... ;)
This seemed less like a debate and more like a cat fight. It seemed like the issues brought up by Kerry (whom I support) were less "This is how I will resolve them" and more, " It's all basically his [Bush] fault." I came away from the debate thinking, "Yeah Kerry you show him!", but also with no real insight on what will happen if Kerry becomes the most powerful man in the world. I think that's a fair assessment. The debate was less about how to proceed, and more about how we got where we are. I imagine that criticizing Bush on that front will do plenty to rile up his supporters, but less to persuade undecideds, who presumably care most about what each candidate would do from here on out.
Kerry kept bragging about Vietnam. Sure he did a brave thing and I completely respect him for it, but he doesn't really have to whore it out. And Bush doesn't need to keep complaining about how hard his job is. Buncha whinners.
2wrongs
10-01-04, 12:53 PM
Here's how it works:
It's an easier stance to be the Joe that gets to say in a debate setting what he's going to do once he's president. It's harder to be the Joe that has to defend himself for actions already commited as the current president. Kerry can call up all of Bush's 'mistakes' and Bush has to defend them. All Bush has, really, is Kerry's tendancy to 'flip-flop' and he used that WAY too often. It was repetitive.
Piddzilla
10-01-04, 01:32 PM
I disagree about that it was a catfight and about how America got where it's at today and whose "fault" that is. And let's not forget that the moderator asked the kind of questions that wanted answers about that kind of stuff.
Kerry surprised me in that he was much more clear and consistent and aggressive (without being offensive or nasty) than I expected. Bush surprised me too in that it almost appeared as he didn't know about the debate until five mins before the thing started. If there was a catfight I think he stood for that contribution. To generalize a bit his answers and rebuttals were a lot of "No, I didn't" and "No, you don't". I just think he came through as badly prepared for a debate between presidential candidates.
I do think Kerry presented a different strategy regarding how to deal with Iraq. It's what I have thought was the right thing to do the whole time and that is to let the entire world community play a much greater and more important role in Iraq.I do believe this is something that is typical for Kerry althrough his foreign politics - to regain the trust and understanding of the rest of the world, something that Bush lost during his period as president. Considering the way that the whole free world plus a few more other countries stood behind USA after 9-11 and how Bush fumbled all of that support away AND today is refusing to see the relevance of global cooperation, this is a vital issue that Kerry should be and is offering an alternative to. And I think he did an above average job bringing that message out last night. I just wonder why Kerry didn't bring up the crisis between USA and Europe during the start of the war when Bush denied that there is a schism dividing USA from the rest of the world, a schism that he helped create.
I am looking forward to the other debates, especially the second one between Bush and Kerry since it will be about domestic politics. I had expected that Bush would win this first one considering what the campaign has been about the last weeks. Now I think that this may all turn when Kerry will be even more secure when he is on his own turf so to speak.
The fact that Bush seemed to be kind of lost will perhaps work in his favour. Maybe "ordinary people" found Kerry a bit too academic or a know-it-all (even if I thought he kept pretty clear and very focused) while Bush, more than ever, came out as the people's guy who sees things in simple ways.
2wrongs
10-01-04, 01:44 PM
Bush looked bad? Kerry is just plain silly looking. He has those hairy turds for eyebrows and the long chin...
I think Bush is kinda handsome. I like his straight, petite nose.
From what I hear Kerry won it, and even the Repubs there agreed. Bush never was, and never will be an orator.
Here's how it works:
It's an easier stance to be the Joe that gets to say in a debate setting what he's going to do once he's president. It's harder to be the Joe that has to defend himself for actions already commited as the current president. You've convinced me; I'm voting for Joe. Who's with me?
2wrongs
10-01-04, 01:55 PM
Yoda, you mean the Joe. He doesn't like to be lumped in with all those poser Joes. ;)
Bush looked bad? Kerry is just plain silly looking. He has those hairy turds for eyebrows and the long chin...
I think Bush is kinda handsome. I like his straight, petite nose.
heh, I didn't mean physically lol. Bush looked unprepared and nervous.
Sorry for shortliners..really busy today
2wrongs
10-01-04, 02:05 PM
heh, I didn't mean physically lol. Bush looked unprepared and nervous.
Sorry for shortliners..really busy today
Oh.
heh heh.
:blush:
Nervous isn't the right word. What would he be nervous about? Unprepared? That would be weird to be unprepared when you're the president of the United States and you have a VERY important debate coming up and you didn't prepare for it? No. These men spent the last couple of weeks OVERpreparing. After the debate the little spin doctors for each party said that the canidates were expecting to talk about specific topics that never came up. Perhaps Bush was annoyed with Kerry's one-trick-pony antics and vice versa?
starrdarcy
10-01-04, 06:23 PM
Most say that John Kerry won the debate, but i say that it was too close to say. Both ahd strong arguments and weaknesses. I'm getting excited just thinking about the final days of the election!!
Godsend
10-01-04, 06:45 PM
Kerry won, Bush lost it...
at the closing statements, Bush threw out an ACCEPTIONAL speech that made my jaw drop. No hesitation, no mistakes...just flawless!
That raised him a mm in my book.
Other then that, Kerry took it. Not the show, but he took it with a little bit of attributes left.
I remember I had the same face as Kerry when Bush stated something like, "I know Osama attacked us! I know he did." We both threw out the "Oh really?" faces.
Other then that, Kerry expressed some good views...especially Nuclear Pliferation (sp...) I loved how Kerry bit out of Bush by stating that "We went into war to rid of WMD, but we continue to fund and make them in our OWN country." or something like that.
We went onto the table, and I threw the paper into the middle. Sat down and they had their faces on it. Guys came over and we started to talk. I expressed my opinions and said that they both sucked. Someone asked me if I was a "Kerry-fairy". Now, IMO, that's dense.
The fact that most of these people pick their views is from mommy and daddy. These people can't choose for themselves, it's sad.
Well I can say that I'd choose Kerry over Bush any time.
Though I like how Bush threw out the my opponent was given the same intelligence ordeal. I would of gone with that. Though the thing is that I hate is that he kept this whole thing going.
I'm a strong Kerry supporter, and feel that he won the debate tonight, but didn't hit any home runs.
Bush stammered and seemed flustered at times, and Kerry was eloquent and well spoken, but also seemed kind of stiff (although not as much as usual).
I'm glad Kerry was able to effectively make the point that Osama bin Laden is still at large, and that the war on Iraq is not the same as the war on terrorism.
What did you think?
I agree, Kerry would get my vote. Not that it matters who I would support since I am Canadian. But most people know how I feel about Bush already. I feel that Kerry was the better speaker. I watched the debate, had a few chuckles at Bush. Overall I felt that it was a fair debate. I was hoping for some name calling and hair flying, but hearing Bush struggle for words and look all flustered was good enough.
Nothing really enlightning in this debate. No suprises from either Kerry or Bush. I give an edge to Kerry but I saw nothing that will change any voters mind. I did notice that Bush is still sticking to his guns and has not waivered in his resolve concerning Iraq and terroism. Like him or not at least you know what you get. This is not an insult to Kerry as I have yet to decide who I am voting for, but I am leaning towards Bush at the moment and this debate had nothing to do with that.
http://myweb.cableone.net/wrex/images/bushspad.jpg
I live in Canada and so I say, who cares who won? Neither are sufficient to be President of the godd@mn U.S of A. Kerry’s only working off the flaws of Bush and has nothing else to go on. Meaning, he has no solid plans or ideas for the future. He's got nothing! Bush, well... he's got those flaws. I think the debate was a draw. And I feel sorry for you poor bastards living down South. You just have to pick the lesser of two evils... or the least dumbest.
Krackalackin
10-01-04, 10:33 PM
I agree and disagree with some of you. I'm a Pro-Bush and I personally think Kerry won the debate just by his consistancy alone to to keep talking. Kerry seemed more ready to go from the beginning even though he said some stupid things. The first thing he said of the night was pretty stupid. "Yes I do Jim, but first I want to tell you how much I..." Oh god. He took his big opportunity to really hit it home and ruined it with sympathy crap. I'm not saying he's gonna win but if I were running for President, that's where I would've struck and it was the first damn question. He kinda danced around it and shrugged it off. Bush said a couple things too that I didn't agree with like how Saddam would've been more powerful if we didn't invade. Arguably no, he wouldn't have but he would've killed more people to say the least. If he would've killed more than the Iranian-sent insurgents, we'll never know but I really don't think Kerry sees the big picture like Bush does. Besides me not agreeing on many of his stances (Ex: "We'll lead a more sensitive war" ha ha ha) Kerry has seemed to be from the start the big Incumbent Basher where everything the President does is wrong even when he himself changes his own positions radically. That would make the normal Joe knowing both of these that both are wrong. We're not that naive and we can do our homework on what the truth is but Kerry did put on a good show instead of saying a bunch of crap that made no sense. So to the normal person, by performance, I'd say Kerry won the debate but by what each of them said, it was a draw, and what each of them said that will/can actually be done in their term, Bush won because he's much more honest than Kerry is. Kerry promised the world and would probably settle for giving money to dictators, stahling the war and raising taxes. My opinion ofcourse.
starrdarcy
10-04-04, 06:29 PM
I live in Canada and so I say, who cares who won?...
The president has all sorts of effects here in canada, we should care who gets to be the next pres, or not
It was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, yet he'd still vote for it knowing what he knows now.
That, i must admit, is the perplexing one. And the one i'm gonna try and track down on that damn montage of his stances that i still haven't watched...
Done some tracking :) [not on that damn montage tho ;)]
Transcript: Kerry Is Interviewed on MSNBC's 'Imus in the Morning'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24469-2004Sep15_2.html
IMUS: You said, Senator Kerry [...] knowing what you know now [...] you would have still voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, which doesn't make any sense to me.
KERRY: Yes, it actually does make sense.
IMUS: Explain it. Help me out here.
KERRY: Let me explain it to you.
I felt in 1998, and I said that Clinton ought to have the power, the authority to use force, in order to force Saddam Hussein to have inspectors, to be able to disarm. The only way to get the inspectors in was to be tough, to have the threat of force and the authority to use force.
I was prepared to use the force if he didn't do what he needed to do. But I warned the president, as did many people, take the time to build up the international coalition, don't rush to war, because the most difficult part is not winning the military part of the war; it's winning the peace.
The president ignored that. And what he basically did was cut off the inspection process and rush to war. Now, I believe that Saddam Hussein was sufficiently duplicitous and, you know, couldn't obviously -- you don't trust him, so you needed that threat to be able to make certain you had the inspectors and were going through a process to hold him accountable.
Want some more? Ok. He sure does like to talk doesn't he ;). This is how he continues....
KERRY: But we could have held him accountable. We had him -- you know, we had two-thirds of that country in a no-fly zone on day one. And the fact is that what the president wanted to do was just get in there and go do it. And he did it in such a rushed way that he ignored what the consequences would be.
It was wrong to rush to war without a better understanding of what you'd confront in a hostile, postwar Iraq. It was wrong to rush to war without a better understanding of Iraqi nationalism and Iraqi tribal separatism. And it was wrong to have no plan except the initial military victory. So when they won, they didn't even guard the ammunition dumps, which now are the weapons that are being used against our soldiers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, Cheney and co have been busy trying to reinforce misrepresentations of Kerry's stance, arguments and consistancy.
They focused on a slip he made about the time he made the "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" statement, all the while trying to misrepresent both the logic behind that sentiment and his current stance (which are one and the same ;)). The majority of the press focused on the time slip, rather than this latest example of 'consistant' spin (:p) ...
CHENEY DISTORTS KERRY'S DIANE SAWYER INTERVIEW: " ... when asked if he, knowing everything he knows now, would he have voted the way he did then. He said 'yes'. This morning Diane Sawyer interviewed him on 'Good Morning America,' and asked the same question, knowing everything you know now, would you have voted that way, and he said 'no'. He's changed his mind on many occasions," Vice President Cheney says in Duluth, MN.
WHAT KERRY WAS ACTUALLY ASKED: "Was the war in Iraq worth it?"
WHAT KERRY REALLY SAID: "It was a mistake to do what he did," Kerry said, referring to President Bush's decision to start the war. "But we have to succeed now that we've done what he's - I mean look - we have to succeed."
So Yodles, better move to domestic if you wanna find inconsistancies in Kerry's position [coz on Iraq he seems to be the most sensible of the two - applying his approach to either past or present ;)]. We'll see how he fares in the next debate ;).
IMUS: You said, Senator Kerry [...] knowing what you know now [...] you would have still voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, which doesn't make any sense to me.
KERRY: Yes, it actually does make sense.
IMUS: Explain it. Help me out here.
KERRY: Let me explain it to you.
I felt in 1998, and I said that Clinton ought to have the power, the authority to use force, in order to force Saddam Hussein to have inspectors, to be able to disarm. The only way to get the inspectors in was to be tough, to have the threat of force and the authority to use force. Kerry's trying to pull a fast one when he says that he only voted for the authorization of force, and did not actually vote for war. At the time, it was well understood what a "yes" vote entailed. We know Kerry's capable of grasping this, because he commented publicly on the vote of authorization for the first Iraq war a decade ago, and essentially said the same thing.
Let's follow Kerry's logic here: if you vote for the authorization to go to war, but don't believe we should yet be going to war, then you're effectively voting to bluff. I imagine we'd both agree that you don't want to be in the habit of threatening the use of force and not following through.
Kerry's rationale is that the threat of force was necessary to make Saddam comply. But we did threaten force, and Saddam didn't comply. So where would Kerry have differed?
Ah yes: allies! He'd have brought on allies! Though if he thinks having allies on board is so vitally important to the war effort, how does he justify calling our current coalition of allies in Iraq a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed"? And how would he get them on board, I wonder? Through the sheer force of his personality? He's offered just one method: reconstruction contracts. Wouldn't that constitute a form of indirect bribery, too, though?
Surely you can admit that Kerry's all over the map on this one.
I was prepared to use the force if he didn't do what he needed to do. But I warned the president, as did many people, take the time to build up the international coalition, don't rush to war, because the most difficult part is not winning the military part of the war; it's winning the peace. Yes, this is another one of Kerry's lines of opposition: we "rushed" to war. The thing is, though, that we didn't invade until a full six months after the vote for the authorization of force.
The president ignored that. And what he basically did was cut off the inspection process and rush to war. Now, I believe that Saddam Hussein was sufficiently duplicitous and, you know, couldn't obviously -- you don't trust him, so you needed that threat to be able to make certain you had the inspectors and were going through a process to hold him accountable. Kerry's basically assuming that there's a clean, easy way to do this. While I'm sure several things could have been executed better than they were, I'm by no means convinced that Kerry is any more capable of that execution than Bush is. He's been going on about "fresh credibility" and "changing the situation on the ground," but never goes beyond that. He's giving off the impression that a lot of these problems will magically disappear if we just change the name on the Oval Office letterhead.
Meanwhile, Cheney and co have been busy trying to reinforce misrepresentations of Kerry's stance, arguments and consistancy.
They focused on a slip he made about the time he made the "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" statement, all the while trying to misrepresent both the logic behind that sentiment and his current stance (which are one and the same ;)). The majority of the press focused on the time slip, rather than this latest example of 'consistant' spin (:p) ... Oh, there's no doubt that the exploitation of the "I actually did vote it before I voted against it" line is pure politics. It was a verbal misstep by Kerry, and the Bush campaign has jumped all over it. I'm not going to pretend that it's actually significant in terms of policy; in my mind, it's not that much different from the many Bushisms floating around. At the same time, I don't really blame Republicans for harping on it. I expect the two camps to pounce on each other's mistakes.
So Yodles, better move to domestic if you wanna find inconsistancies in Kerry's position [coz on Iraq he seems to be the most sensible of the two - applying his approach to either past or present ;)]. We'll see how he fares in the next debate ;). I really don't think anything's been done here to refute the notion that Kerry's position on Iraq has been inconsistent. You've produced some shameless spin from Cheney (which doesn't really settle the matter), and you've produced some statements from Kerry. I'm not denying that those particular statements are straightforward; the claim is not that he's never said anything understandable. It's that he's said conflicting things. Producing one of those things in no way demonstrates that he's been consistent.
In my mind, there's really no leg to stand on. Kerry says the world is better off without Saddam, but we're also less safe. He says we should not have gone to war without more allies, but also says his choices will not be contingent on foreign approval. He says Saddam was a "threat" that "had to be disarmed," yet calls the war a "grand diversion."
Are these outright contradictions? No, I don't think so. But do they require reconciling? Absolutely. Kerry's position on this most crucial of matters should not have to be interpreted or divined somehow.
The majority of the apparent contradictions you are talking about are resolved by Kerry's stance. (and the others could well be - i just don't know all the details. I'm investigating tho :))
His consistant stance:
That invasion had to be threatened, and potentially enacted, but ONLY if there was a broad enough coalition to make the regime-change sustainable.
Kerry's trying to pull a fast one when he says that he only voted for the authorization of force, and did not actually vote for war. At the time, it was well understood what a "yes" vote entailed. We know Kerry's capable of grasping this, because he commented publicly on the vote of authorization for the first Iraq war a decade ago, and essentially said the same thing.
What did he say exactly? I'd like to know. :)
It seems to me that:
a) the possiblity of an invasion based on a broad coalition (his desired route) was still open at that point - and could not get rolling without primary US participation in resolution-enforcement/potential-invasion.
and
b) Invasion was not an inevitable application of the forces he was agreeing should be sent [see arguments below]
He wasn't to know the Bush-admin would act as unwisely as it did :p
Let's follow Kerry's logic here: if you vote for the authorization to go to war, but don't believe we should yet be going to war, then you're effectively voting to bluff. I imagine we'd both agree that you don't want to be in the habit of threatening the use of force and not following through.
Again, it's not as simple as that. (You're guilty of painting to black-and-white a picture :p ;))
Kerry voted for mobilising the military (as i understand it). Even without invading, the military's presence helps enforce existing 'smart' sanctions. (It also proves to allies that you're able to take action if necessary, and provides the framework for organising and assembling a broader political and military coalition too, of course)
So already, it's not a bluff, it's performing a purpose. Even if a broad-coalition proved impossible to form, the less effective route of sanctions could still be persued without loss of 'face' and with some degree of effectiveness. A military presence reinforcing border checks and keeping an eye on those borders it cannot cover would still issue a strong message that Saddam had to be both contained and punished for non-compliance with UN demands.
But the fact is that there should be loads of potential allies for this action. Only hamfisted handling by the Bush admin could've messed up the push for wide international support.
(we're debating the whys/wherefores on another thread yeah? ;))
[having a caveat for a pre-emptive invasion, even a difficult one like establishing a broad-enough coalition, is not unreasonable. Especially considering even the most extreme assessments of future Iraqi WMD potential set the deadline at about a year into the future. There was time. The Bush-admin chose to rush in half-arsed instead]
]Kerry's rationale is that the threat of force was necessary to make Saddam comply. But we did threaten force, and Saddam didn't comply. So where would Kerry have differed?
Time. Time spent gaining the forces that made occupation a valid/tenable option. :p
Ah yes: allies! He'd have brought on allies! Though if he thinks having allies on board is so vitally important to the war effort, how does he justify calling our current coalition of allies in Iraq a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed"?
He can belittle it coz it simply isn't broad enough to provide the financial and military input required.
And how would he get them on board, I wonder? Through the sheer force of his personality? He's offered just one method: reconstruction contracts. Wouldn't that constitute a form of indirect bribery, too, though?
A bribe of sorts, but one that benefits all, and involves negotiation :p. But it's not so much a bribe as a bit of preemptive 'sharing' ;).
Surely you can admit that Kerry's all over the map on this one.
Nope. I hope you can see why.
Yes, this is another one of Kerry's lines of opposition: we "rushed" to war. The thing is, though, that we didn't invade until a full six months after the vote for the authorization of force.
Erm, and you/we weren't ready. That's become absolutely crystal clear.
Even without the vital input of other allies, the occupation planning and handling has been woeful.
Kerry's basically assuming that there's a clean, easy way to do this.
Oh come on Yods. He fully recognises that dedicating yourself to occupying and reforming a nation is about one of the most difficult things you could do. Otherwise he wouldn't be so het up about providing the right resources to make it achievable. It's what his whole argument is about.
That was a silly statement i'm afraid.
While I'm sure several things could have been executed better than they were, I'm by no means convinced that Kerry is any more capable of that execution than Bush is. He's been going on about "fresh credibility" and "changing the situation on the ground," but never goes beyond that. He's giving off the impression that a lot of these problems will magically disappear if we just change the name on the Oval Office letterhead.
That's the big issue -whether he can bring (or could've brought) in a broader group of allies- and one that leaves us wallowing in suppositions nutil he gets a chance to try ;).
Personally, i think his consistant dedication to the principle of 'real politic' being necessary in this venture bodes well for his potential presidency and continuation of the occupation.
On a simple presentational note tho, a change at the top in the US that was followed by actual success in bringing in allies would have a marked effect on islamic-'Arabic' perceptions of the US. It could rectify some of the errors the Bush camp had made. It would give the 'islamic-Arabic' moderates more reason to believe in the US as a potential force for good.
I really don't think anything's been done here to refute the notion that Kerry's position on Iraq has been inconsistent.
Aside from showing that his one central argument explains nigh on all the inconsistancies you've mentioned :rolleyes: ;) (with the exception of one or two things below, which it could explain, but i'm looking into the details to see what's what ;))
You've produced some shameless spin from Cheney (which doesn't really settle the matter),
Doesn't help matters either - considering it concerns the assertion of 'flip-flopping' where there isn't any.
and you've produced some statements from Kerry. I'm not denying that those particular statements are straightforward; the claim is not that he's never said anything understandable. It's that he's said conflicting things. Producing one of those things in no way demonstrates that he's been consistent.
That exposition covers his central argument that an invasion had to have broad support to be successful. That deals with the majority of the inconsistancies that you've mentioned.
In my mind, there's really no leg to stand on. Kerry says the world is better off without Saddam, but we're also less safe.
He says we should not have gone to war without more allies, but also says his choices will not be contingent on foreign approval.
These are the two i'm checking on still [context of quotes etc]. I can imagine ways the both of them could make sense within his stance, but i don't want to pre-judge ;).
Both of them make me suspect he's caved in to political/presentational considerations (like not wanting to be presented as a 'Saddam lover' or a lacky of foreigners ;)).
I'll get back to you ;).
He says Saddam was a "threat" that "had to be disarmed," yet calls the war a "grand diversion."
Come on, this one's easy. It's diverted troops and intelligence experts away from Afghanistan and the like. The way he was disarmed undermines the validity of trying to disarm him. [if you keep repeating these easily explained pseudo-contradictions, then i'll keep repeating Kerry's central stance that show's they're consistant :p]
Are these outright contradictions? No, I don't think so. But do they require reconciling? Absolutely. Kerry's position on this most crucial of matters should not have to be interpreted or divined somehow.
Sure.
But the Bush-admin should be castigated for the poor handling of the war their simplistic presentational and operational 'certainty' has brought about :p
Glad Wolfowitz agrees, don't you ;). [oh, and i could quote loads more stuff which demonstrates deficiencies of the basically-unilateral appraoch which would'nt have occured under Kerry's. But, you know, space, time. All these considerations ;))
Tea Barking
10-06-04, 11:33 AM
If ya ask me (which no one did) theres 200 odd million people in the us and these muppets are the best there is? Excuse me as i make a big sigh.
If i was an american i wouldnt give a crap about iraq, the war in iraq is over already nothing more has to be said. I'd want to know how they would make my life better, but that is just me.
Seems to me kerry is just jumping on the bandwagon, goin on about iraq beacuse he has sod else to say.
And bush? Well judge him on wether hes making the us a better place to live, if not what can ya do? Will kerry make a diffrence? I think not.
2wrongs
10-06-04, 02:41 PM
Oh come on Yods. He fully recognises that dedicating yourself to occupying and reforming a nation is about one of the most difficult things you could do. Otherwise he wouldn't be so het up about providing the right resources to make it achievable. It's what his whole argument is about.
So according to Kerry this will take...what did he propose? Oh yeah, 6 months. Hmmm...right.
So according to Kerry this will take...what did he propose? Oh yeah, 6 months. Hmmm...right.
Last i heard, he was suggesting a mass decrease of the number of US troops within 1 year of his election - on the understanding that international troops moved in.
Not the same as what you're suggesting. (whether he's downgraded that to 6 months i don't know. Not my country ;). Still... got any quotes/proof? :))
(Incidently, considering the Bush-admin's approach is so inept it looks likely to suffer a major set-back within the next six months - even more so than the ones it's encountered so far - a rethink in those terms doesn't seem so foolish now does it? :p)
The majority of the apparent contradictions you are talking about are resolved by Kerry's stance. (and the others could well be - i just don't know all the details. I'm investigating tho :))
His consistant stance:
That invasion had to be threatened, and potentially enacted, but ONLY if there was a broad enough coalition to make the regime-change sustainable. That has NOT been his "consistent stance." He said that "had to be disarmed," not that he "had to be threatened."
He's also made it clear that, while he strongly desired a broad coalition, that invasion should not be contingent on it. This is from an op-ed piece Kerry wrote to The New York Times in September of 2002:
"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."
This quote was, admittedly, surrounded by all kinds of qualifiers; ifs and buts as far as the eye can see. That's standard operating procedure for Kerry: "we need to do X. But we should also do Y." Then, if X goes well, he said we should do it all along. If it goes badly, well, he can fall back on us not doing Y; or not doing Y the way he thinks we ought to have done it. Regardless, he clearly was not making invasion contingent on any level of international approval, which is what you say his stance is.
What did he say exactly? I'd like to know. :) He said that "It is a vote about war because whether or not the president exercises his power, we will have no further say after this vote." And he's right. The vote did not contain provisions, and though it's impossible to technically prove that it was understood what a "yes" vote meant, I think it was clear, for the aforementioned Kerry-provided reasons.
Time. Time spent gaining the forces that made occupation a valid/tenable option. :p Time? Six months passed between the vote for the authorization of force, and our invasion. Over a dozen UN resolutions had passed, and Saddam had not complied with any of them. What more could a weakened but still ambitious tyrant want other than time? Senator Kerry agrees with me; the following exchange took place on 2/5/02:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think that the problem we have with Iraq is real and it can be reduced to a diplomatic problem. Can we get this guy to accept inspections if there's WMD potentially, and get past a possible war with him?
JOHN KERRY: Outside chance, Chris, could it be done, the answer is yes, but he would view himself only as buying time and playing a game in my judgement. Kerry, of course, said we needed to play that game anyway.
He can belittle it coz it simply isn't broad enough to provide the financial and military input required. So, it's okay for a potential President to effectively spit on countries he does not deem useful at the moment?
Oh come on Yods. He fully recognises that dedicating yourself to occupying and reforming a nation is about one of the most difficult things you could do. Otherwise he wouldn't be so het up about providing the right resources to make it achievable. It's what his whole argument is about.
That was a silly statement i'm afraid. Is it? His rhetoric implies exactly what I'm saying:
"I have a plan for Iraq. I believe we can be successful. I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning. And we need a fresh start, a new credibility, a President who can bring allies to our side."
He used the words "fresh" and "credibility" in conjunction with one another three times during last Thursday's debate. He's mentioned many times that he has "a plan" for Iraq, but the only details he divulges are a) sharing reconstruction contracts and b) holding a summit. Yes, another meeting! That'll solve everything.
Kerry has made this idea of "fresh credibility" a cornerstone in moving forward, as if countries have ceased to act in their own self-interested because they don't like Bush on a personal level. Now that's a silly statement.
That's the big issue -whether he can bring (or could've brought) in a broader group of allies- and one that leaves us wallowing in suppositions nutil he gets a chance to try ;).
Personally, i think his consistant dedication to the principle of 'real politic' being necessary in this venture bodes well for his potential presidency and continuation of the occupation.
On a simple presentational note tho, a change at the top in the US that was followed by actual success in bringing in allies would have a marked effect on islamic-'Arabic' perceptions of the US. It could rectify some of the errors the Bush camp had made. It would give the 'islamic-Arabic' moderates more reason to believe in the US as a potential force for good. Exactly: that is the big issue. I think it's fair to say that most of Kerry's campaign is based around the idea that we should've had a larger coalition before going into Iraq. Given that he's made this the centerpiece of his opposition, it's only reasonable to ask: how?
And that's where Kerry's position begins to break down. He offers vague, tenuous statements about holding summits and "reaching out," and other things that might work with your best friend, but won't work with a nation protecting its interests.
What's more, since Thursday's debate we've had statements trickling in from European leaders, blunting the expectation that they'll get involved. We can argue quite a bit about how we got here, but on the more important issue of how we should handle it now that we're there, I just don't see anything both appreciably different AND realistic coming out of the Kerry campaign.
Doesn't help matters either - considering it concerns the assertion of 'flip-flopping' where there isn't any. Kerry is most definitely guilty of "flip-flopping" on any number of issues, but I'll readily admit it's been exaggerated by the Bush campaign. That's what Presidential campaigns do: take a picture, and turn it into a caricature.
That exposition covers his central argument that an invasion had to have broad support to be successful. That deals with the majority of the inconsistancies that you've mentioned. See, there it is again: the idea that if he speaks clearly in one instance, all past contradictions and convolutions should be ignored. At this point, you're not arguing whether or not Kerry has been consistent; you're just arguing on behalf that one statement of his.
These are the two i'm checking on still [context of quotes etc]. I can imagine ways the both of them could make sense within his stance, but i don't want to pre-judge ;).
Both of them make me suspect he's caved in to political/presentational considerations (like not wanting to be presented as a 'Saddam lover' or a lacky of foreigners ;)).
I'll get back to you ;). Fair enough.
Yes, I believe he has caved a bit for political considerations. The timeline is pretty convincing, I think: Howard Dean -- who's been very consistently anti-war since the very beginning -- was hailed almost unanimously as the frontrunner in the Democratic primaries. Kerry ran to the right of Dean in regards to the war, stating the following in a multi-candidate Democratic debate:
"George, I said at the time I would've 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."
This was said on May 3rd of 2003. A month after we began to invade. At this time, we'd already made our case to the UN, and we already knew who was on board with us. And Kerry stood by the decision. I don't see ANY way to reconcile this with what Kerry's saying now, nor with what you're saying his position is.
Last i heard, he was suggesting a mass decrease of the number of US troops within 1 year of his election - on the understanding that international troops moved in.
Not the same as what you're suggesting. (whether he's downgraded that to 6 months i don't know. Not my country ;). Still... got any quotes/proof? :)) Actually, you do. :) Here's part of the IMUS IN THE MORNING transcript you quoted earlier:
IMUS: You know, Senator Kerry, you say you have this plan to get out of Iraq in your first term, which, barring some scandal, would be four years. (LAUGHTER)
I've known you a long time, Senator Kerry.
KERRY: That's counting correctly. That's counting correctly.
IMUS: What is this plan you have?
KERRY: Well, the plan gets more complicated every single day because the president...
IMUS: Try to simplify it for me so I can understand it.
KERRY: I'm going to just tell you why.
IMUS: OK.
KERRY: Because about -- I can't remember whether it's -- several months ago, I said, "This may the president's last chance to get it right in Iraq." That's what I said. And I said, as Joe Biden did and others did, "Mr. President, you've got to lead. You've got to get the international community at the table." The president has never done that. Now it's obviously, with the situation on the ground, much more complicated; I have to acknowledge that. It is more complicated. But I would immediately call a summit meeting of the European community. They haven't lived up to the obligations of their own resolution that they passed at the U.N. It is important to do much more rapid training. Senator Biden came back from over there, other experts have observed they're not doing the training that's necessary, at a pace that's necessary, in a way that's necessary to establish the security. And it is going to be critical to accelerate that kind of training.
But look, I have to look and see what I have on January 20. At the rate the president's going, nobody can predict what will happen on January 20. I'll tell you this: A new president, with new credibility, with a fresh start, who listens to the military leaders, doesn't fire them, like General Shinseki, when they give him advice they don't like, a new president who has credibility with the foreign leaders, will have the opportunity to isolate the extremists and to bring people to the table in different ways: for border security, for training, and to do the things necessary to provide stability. I'm committed to providing that stability, but I'll tell you, this president is making it tougher every single day by just not understanding and not being honest about what's going on.
IMUS: But it sounds -- that may or may not be a good plan, but meanwhile, we had three soldiers dead in Iraq yesterday and how many die before -- wind up over there in the rehab room at Walter Reed before a plan like this kicks into effect? Also, I was talking to...
KERRY: Well, Don, I realize that, but the fact is that the president is the president. I mean, what you ought to be doing and what everybody in America ought to be doing today is not asking me; they ought to be asking the president, What is your plan? What's your plan, Mr. President, to stop these kids from being killed? What's your plan, Mr. President, to get the other countries in there? What's your plan to have 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost being carried by America? I mean, he is the president today, and we have given him advice from day one; from day one, from the floor of the Senate when we debated it where I said don't -- you know, you've got to have other countries with you, don't make an end runaround the U.N., the difficulty is not winning the military, it's winning the peace; and he ignored it. And others -- the bipartisan, Dick Lugar, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Joe Biden, and the Foreign Relations Committee gave him advice that he chose to ignore. And since then, many times we've stood up and said, "Mr. President, this is what you have to do." He's chosen not to do those things.
IMUS: We're asking you because you want to be president.
KERRY: That's correct. But I can't...
IMUS: He's not going to answer any questions.
KERRY: I can't tell you what I'm going to find on the ground on January 20th. This strikes me as pretty meaningless. Both candidates can say "gee, if everything goes well, American troops can come home." That's not new information, nor is it exclusive to either candidate.
I also find it interesting that Kerry knows more than enough to criticize the decisions being made, and more than enough to know he'd do things differently, but not enough to judge exactly what he ought to do differently when asked directly. Which is it? Are there crucial things he doesn't know and therefore can't commit to, or does he know enough to declare the administration incompetent?
(Incidently, considering the Bush-admin's approach is so inept it looks likely to suffer a major set-back within the next six months - even more so than the ones it's encountered so far - a rethink in those terms doesn't seem so foolish now does it? :p) I'm reserving judgement, personally. There was much talk about Afghanistan devolving into chaos as well, and 2 and a half years later, as Cheney mentioned (finally!), it's shown tremendous progress.
Piddzilla
10-07-04, 04:42 AM
So according to Kerry this will take...what did he propose? Oh yeah, 6 months. Hmmm...right.
During the debate Kerry said, if my memory serves me right, that after six months with him as president USA would be able to start bringing some of the troops out of [edit]Iraq. If he wants to send them to Afghanistan or to some other place or even home is another question. In any case, he didn't say that the war would be over in six months. And I think his strategy is that the american troops taken out of Iraq is supposed to be replaced by troops from other countries.
2wrongs
10-07-04, 01:04 PM
During the debate Kerry said, if my memory serves me right, that after six months with him as president USA would be able to start bringing some of the troops out of USA. If he wants to send them to Afghanistan or to some other place or even home is another question. In any case, he didn't say that the war would be over in six months. And I think his strategy is that the american troops taken out of Iraq is supposed to be replaced by troops from other countries.
KERRY: The time line that I've set out -- and again, I want to correct the president, because he's misled again this evening on what I've said. I didn't say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months.
What does "draw the troops down" mean? He then went on to say that he wants to establish peace as quickly as possible so that we can get out of there. He scolded the Pres. for being there this long. I think the Senetor is a fool if he thinks he can just "make peace" and go home. What is he saying Bush is doing different? Bush must just be sittin' around with his thumb up his you-know-what, right?
Piddzilla
10-07-04, 02:55 PM
KERRY: The time line that I've set out -- and again, I want to correct the president, because he's misled again this evening on what I've said. I didn't say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months.
What does "draw the troops down" mean? He then went on to say that he wants to establish peace as quickly as possible so that we can get out of there. He scolded the Pres. for being there this long. I think the Senetor is a fool if he thinks he can just "make peace" and go home. What is he saying Bush is doing different? Bush must just be sittin' around with his thumb up his you-know-what, right?
First, when I wrote "start bringing some of the troops out of USA" I meant "out of Iraq" of course. Sorry....
"draw the troops down" probably means just what it is - to begin to decrease the number of american soldiers stationed in Iraq. I too think the Senator is a fool if he thinks he can just "make peace" and then go home. But I think his plan is to make the world community play a greater part in Iraq and I think that is the right way to go if you want a solution at all to the problem. A lot of experts have said that for gaining and keeping control over the entire Iraq we'll need more troops - not fewer. And Kerry knows that USA alone is not capable of doing this on its own, plus he doesn't want the entire american army in Iraq.
USA being, generally speaking, alone in Iraq results in an army too small for keeping control over Iraq. Instead it leads to a much longer conflict, and perhaps even to a conflict without an end - that is not unlikely at all with Bush's politics. It also leads to a concentration of the american army to one single area, more or less. In my opinion though the biggest problem for USA is that being alone in Iraq also results in all anger and hate because of the occupation of Iraq will be directed towards USA. I.e. the risk for new terror attacks is greater with George W Bush as Commander in Chief, than with John Kerry in office.
That has NOT been his "consistent stance." ...
He's also made it clear that, while he strongly desired a broad coalition, that invasion should not be contingent on it.
Fair enough - i didn't realise what his stance was on going it alone if all else failed. I shouldn't have said he'd "ONLY" go with a broad coalition (;)) - just that he thinks the US MUST do everything to construct one. :)
And this is where things get a bit murky - coz we can only conjecture about why the Bush-admin failed to achieve this. But it's the most central point, and one well worth discussing...
He said that "It is a vote about war because whether or not the president exercises his power, we will have no further say after this vote." And he's right. The vote did not contain provisions, and though it's impossible to technically prove that it was understood what a "yes" vote meant, I think it was clear, for the aforementioned Kerry-provided reasons.
Can't agree with you on this one. He says you can have no influence over whether the Pres uses the power granted him - but that's not the same as saying you can't try and influence how he applies it.
Kerry's reference to voting for 'force', not rushed invasion, obviously pertains to his preferred approach to this occupation (one which he obviously hoped would either be persued by the Pres, or could be recommended strongly to him, and might be listened to, or could be bargained for in later contingent votes)
Time? Six months passed between the vote for the authorization of force, and our invasion. Over a dozen UN resolutions had passed, and Saddam had not complied with any of them. What more could a weakened but still ambitious tyrant want other than time?
Well, as Blix and co were saying the whole way, he was most likely contained, so that time would benefit him little. (As the final investigators report has just confirmed. He was not only weakend, but weakening under sanctions).
Kerry, of course, said we needed to play that game anyway.
If it brings about the best outcome for iraq and those involved, then that's the game you have to play. (Reagan-and-CIA-boss-Bush-Snr were happy to play multiple games with Saddam, including providing him with dual-use materials at the same time as saying publically, and privately to him, that they didn't condone his use of chemical weapons. Funny old game international politics eh? Well, no, not really. It's just the way Bush Jnr tell's it ;) :rolleyes: )
So, it's okay for a potential President to effectively spit on countries he does not deem useful at the moment?
Well, i live in one of those countries, the most fundamentally involved one in fact, and i didn't feel spat on at all by that comment. But that's partially coz the 'bribe' in question has been so inherent in Britlands 'special relationship' with you guys for so long. The fact is that it's a fair comment. We profit by maintaining good relations with the US (where they would otherwise have been lost). In the case of the smaller countries, that patronage is vital. In the case of Britland and Australia, it's just very very important ;).
All those that opposed are on pretty poor terms already with you guys, so had less to lose.
Is it? His rhetoric implies exactly what I'm saying:
"I have a plan for Iraq. I believe we can be successful. I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning. And we need a fresh start, a new credibility, a President who can bring allies to our side."
He used the words "fresh" and "credibility" in conjunction with one another three times during last Thursday's debate.
I don't see how these two rhetorical terms imply 'ease' to anywhere near the degree you're suggesting.
He's mentioned many times that he has "a plan" for Iraq, but the only details he divulges are a) sharing reconstruction contracts and b) holding a summit. Yes, another meeting! That'll solve everything.
That's because those are the two fundamental things Bush has failed to do, and the ones that are necessary to establish a broad coalition. i.e.:
(a) Share the inherent profit in this occupation (i.e. influence over the trade/distribution of the second largest national oil supply in the world)
and
(b) Establish a consensus on how to use iraq's geopolitical position to influence the middle-east for the best.
Kerry has made this idea of "fresh credibility" a cornerstone in moving forward, as if countries have ceased to act in their own self-interested because they don't like Bush on a personal level. Now that's a silly statement.
I really don't see why you're equating 'credibility' with personality. In the context of Kerry's broader argument it clearly means 'real politic' credibility - which Bush has lost by consistantly pursuing a unilateralist agenda. Even now, he could rectify that (as Kerry hopes to), but he doesn't.
I understand why.
It'd be very freaking difficult.
But it's still the wisest long-term choice, for Iraq [and the future 'bloodcount' there], for West/'Arab' relations [and the accompanying extremism problem], for international trade stability, and potentially for the US ;) (though the current potentates obviously see the gains as worth the losses in these areas :( )
Exactly: that is the big issue. I think it's fair to say that most of Kerry's campaign is based around the idea that we should've had a larger coalition before going into Iraq. Given that he's made this the centerpiece of his opposition, it's only reasonable to ask: how?
And that's where Kerry's position begins to break down. He offers vague, tenuous statements about holding summits and "reaching out," and other things that might work with your best friend, but won't work with a nation protecting its interests.
That's coz he's never going to talk about some of the fundamental, nasty, geopolitical issues driving this, just as Bush hasn't. (Hopefully he won't continue Bush's vague and tenuous 'terrorism' justifications tho :p)
What's more, since Thursday's debate we've had statements trickling in from European leaders, blunting the expectation that they'll get involved. We can argue quite a bit about how we got here, but on the more important issue of how we should handle it now that we're there, I just don't see anything both appreciably different AND realistic coming out of the Kerry campaign.
Another reason he's not going to flag up what the negotiations will involve is that they'll involve the US voluntarily handing back a lot of the control they've gained (which can be seen as legitimate financial and political payback for the investment of lives and materials)
That's not gonna go down well. It's gonna look like 'we did all the hard work, now others get the contracts' - when really it's gonna be about making the near impossible job, which is yet to be completed, into just a hard job.
Kerry is most definitely guilty of "flip-flopping" on any number of issues, but I'll readily admit it's been exaggerated by the Bush campaign. That's what Presidential campaigns do: take a picture, and turn it into a caricature.
On the playground name-calling, sure.
But to be honest, on iraq, i'm satisfied that he's been consistant-enough in ideology and actions, if not always his presentation ;).
For example: I don't see his emphasis on invasion-as-the-last-resort as in any way incompatible with the his equal emphasis on gaining a broad coalition. (If anything, i suspect that being able to follow through on the threat of invasion could be vital if the negotiations are truly intractable. IE if the impediment to a broad coalition was actually complete intransigence on the part of Russia/France/China, and that they decided to play the US's bluff, knowing that a unilateral invasion would be disastrous, then you have to prove it's not a bluff. But you also then have to make the greater political sacrifice of allowing the others in to help with the occupation/rebuilding, despite them not helping with the invasion or initial peacekeeping. - So, ironically, invading with an inadequate coalition could still be used to create a broad one - and indeed, needs to be an option if you're going to persue the invasion technique)
See, there it is again: the idea that if he speaks clearly in one instance, all past contradictions and convolutions should be ignored. At this point, you're not arguing whether or not Kerry has been consistent; you're just arguing on behalf that one statement of his.
Well, i don't get the exposure you guys get, but it seems to me that that the approach he outlines there has consistantly underpinned his the majority of his arguments and actions. .
Fair enough.
Yes, I believe he has caved a bit for political considerations...
Kerry ran to the right of Dean in regards to the war, stating the following in a multi-candidate Democratic debate:
[i]"George, I said at the time I would've 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."
This was said on May 3rd of 2003. A month after we began to invade. At this time, we'd already made our case to the UN, and we already knew who was on board with us. And Kerry stood by the decision. I don't see ANY way to reconcile this with what Kerry's saying now, nor with what you're saying his position is.
This is certainly a presentational f-up, to an extent, in terms of his current 'rush' criticisms. But as i outlined above, this can still be reconciled with a long-term game-plan to involve a broad-coalition. It's just the worst case scenario.
I think, as you say, that he presenting himself to the 'right' of Dean, and as such this could explain why he doesn't criticise the timing/'rush' as he's doing now, but showed only his willingness to invade instead.
Anyways - all i can say is that the invasion technique was an extreme approach in the first place. But what's done is done. Of the two candidates, i see Kerry as being the only one proposing a solution, and not trying to deny and obscure the downsides of the current situation.
Bush looked bad? Kerry is just plain silly looking. He has those hairy turds for eyebrows and the long chin...
I think Bush is kinda handsome. I like his straight, petite nose.
well done champ lets all vote for whos better looking
:rolleyes:
and i how can a debate be scripted? to me this was not much more than a gong show. btw kerry came out on top but only because bush isnt smart enough to make a proper and snappy rebuttle
I don't take these televised debates seriously. I'm not a political buff, or a master debater (lol, good times...), but my impressions was that neither "won". But they did make their stances fairly clear. A good candidate doesn’t badger his opponent but faces the task at hand, focusing on what he (...and maybe some day she) will do that will be better or how they may excel the current state of affairs. But what do I know… lol… master debater…
2wrongs
10-13-04, 04:14 PM
well done champ lets all vote for whos better looking
:rolleyes:
Yeah. That's all I've ever been about too. Don't bother to read through a whole thread or anything...
MovingOn.org...
I think the last debate went very well for Bush. I like that he was firm in his convictions on what's right and wrong and I think he did a good job bringing to light the fact that Kerry is very, very preoccupied with being popular.
I like that Bush is not the most 'schooled' debater. He certainly isn't good with putting on a poker-face and restraining himself to the format of the debate.
I think he was passionate, strong-willed and determined. That's what I want in a leader. Someone who isn't going to cave under the pressure of popularity.
Bush has come a bit in his percentages since this last debate.
People recognize this president's concern for the people.
Jackie Malfoy
10-14-04, 10:16 AM
I would love to say bush but that would not be fair.After all the first debate goes to Kerry however in the second debate I think bush did a better job and last time I checked he is on the top of the polls.
Anyone beside me think this is going to be a close elecation?I don't care if it is but I would not the same Fla thing again it was so annoying.
:o See you around!JM :cool:
This strikes me as pretty meaningless. Both candidates can say "gee, if everything goes well, American troops can come home." That's not new information, nor is it exclusive to either candidate.
Sure. The desire to reduce troop numbers has been expressed by both. (the difference is that Kerry has proposed a strategy whereby they could actually do so without making the country even less stable ;). Bush has only cited moving troops from european countries etc as a way of taking up the slack - which i understand is considered insufficient to resolve the problems with troop numbers/quality etc)
I also find it interesting that Kerry knows more than enough to criticize the decisions being made, and more than enough to know he'd do things differently, but not enough to judge exactly what he ought to do differently when asked directly. Which is it? Are there crucial things he doesn't know and therefore can't commit to, or does he know enough to declare the administration incompetent?
I think he's stated his case clearly enough conceerning what he'd do differently from Bush (i.e.the contract sharing and return to multilateral 'realpolitik', as mentioned in the post above ;)).
I'm sure there are things he doesn't know - such as exactly what the Bush admin offered potential allies (and/or opponents ;)) in terms of power-and-responsability sharing in Iraq (he obviously suspects, as i do, that the Bushies wanted a US-controlled affair, and so wouldn't have offered much). He also can't know with any certainty how the stand-offish countries like Russia etc will react to any future offer of significant power-and-responsability share.
Kerry mentioned a defence department memo to the NATO meeting in the 2nd debate (the one outlining a policy of refusing aid from any country not from the original coalition) which was interesting. It seemed to back up the idea that the Bush-admin has certainly closed the door on getting meaningful international support in, if it hadn't already at the outset
I'm reserving judgement, personally. There was much talk about Afghanistan devolving into chaos as well, and 2 and a half years later, as Cheney mentioned (finally!), it's shown tremendous progress.
Hmm, yes, a country with a fully involved NATO contingent.
Notice the difference with Iraq? ;)
(i don't think you'd argue with the assertion that the current forces in Iraq are failing to deal with both reconstruction and security issues simultaneously, and that this is jeapordising Iraq's potential to become a safe place for its residents, and its neighbours)
Intersting thread guys :yup:
Anyone can say they are going to do this or do that. Getting it done is a lot harder than talking about it. Kerry has a lot of good ideas, I have to say, but they are unrealistic and he knows it. He is out to win votes and say whatever it takes to do so. I believe he wants to do what he is promising, but it will not happen. Sorry thats just how I see it at this point. Unless something drastic happens I will probably vote for Bush. The debates swayed me in no way.
I believe he wants to do what he is promising, but it will not happen.
Are you talking about the multilateral approach to Iraq?
I agree that it would be very tough to achieve, but i don't see on what grounds you can say it categorically wouldn't happen if attempted.
If nothing else, making renewed attempts to get some other 'big guns' (if you'll excuse the expression) on side seems like the only way to bring military forces in iraq up to effective levels.
The Bushies seems to be actively against the idea (if we can trust Kerry's claim about a point-blank refusal from the White House, via the Defence Department, to offers of help with troop-training from non-coalition countries).
But whether or not they're actively opposing broader engagement these days, the Bushies don't have a feasible solution to the poor troop numbers problem.
[i'm assuming you won't disagree that there is a problem with the quantity and quality of the troops, which is affecting both security and reconstruction issues]
Are you talking about the multilateral approach to Iraq?
I agree that it would be very tough to achieve, but i don't see on what grounds you can say it categorically wouldn't happen if attempted.
If nothing else, making renewed attempts to get some other 'big guns' (if you'll excuse the expression) on side seems like the only way to bring military forces in iraq up to effective levels.
The Bushies seems to be actively against the idea (if we can trust Kerry's claim about a point-blank refusal from the White House, via the Defence Department, to offers of help with troop-training from non-coalition countries).
But whether or not they're actively opposing broader engagement these days, the Bushies don't have a feasible solution to the poor troop numbers problem.
[i'm assuming you won't disagree that there is a problem with the quantity and quality of the troops, which is affecting both security and reconstruction issues]
Sorry I should have been more clear, I have been posting in a hurry lately due to work work work. I was speaking domestically. I actually do not agree with most of his foreign policy ideas. I think you know from the past why I feel this way, but if you would like me to be more specifc I would be happy too.;)
Sorry I should have been more clear, I have been posting in a hurry lately due to work work work.
Tell me about it ;)
I was speaking domestically.
Mmm. Not hugely impressed with some of his domestic and international-trade stuff, from what i know of them. But, i'm not blown away by most of the Bushies' stances either.
I'm guessing you're thinking his promises won't come to fruition coz: some of them are just pre-election posturing, while others will be prevented by a Republican-dominated Senate and spending concerns.
I actually do not agree with most of his foreign policy ideas. I think you know from the past why I feel this way, but if you would like me to be more specifc I would be happy too.;)
I'd be interested to hear, coz I'm not clear about why you think Bush's approach is preferable.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.