Originally Posted by Yoda
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...
Originally Posted by Yoda
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)
Originally Posted by Yoda
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).
Originally Posted by Yoda
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
)
Originally Posted by Yoda
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.
Originally Posted by Yoda
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.
Originally Posted by Yoda
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.
Originally Posted by Yoda
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
)
Originally Posted by Yoda
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
)
Originally Posted by Yoda
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.
Originally Posted by Yoda
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)
Originally Posted by Yoda
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. [i'm really not trying to idealise the guy. It just genuinely seems to me that he's known for a long time how he thinks Iraq should've been handled, and he's been arguing for it all the while].
Originally Posted by Yoda
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:
"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.