John Kerry: John Kerry doesn't have the judgement to be President

So we have to follow shrub who admitted that he has made "some "mistakes",who clearly never,ever had a plan on combating terrorism or bringing peace to the middle east. Unless your idea of doing that is bombing your enemies into oblivion,which is next to impossible (this ain't the USSR,bud).
I would really really want to believe that as a country we could somehow defeat terrorism, but as this problem affects the whole world ( if you think it doesn't than you're more ignorant than I thought) we need as many allies as possible. If you think shrub can defeat terrorism or come close to defeating terrorism,will you please tell me how he plans to do this? I mean you guys sound
fairly positive that he is the one for the job.
please make me understand how one of the least popular leaders in the world will triumph over global terror.

 

Kerry in many ways is his own worst enemy and the problem with this election is that Kerry's flips and waffles have become more magnified while GW Bush and his campaign had done a much better job of hiding his.

IMO though since GW Bush has been President his are much worse but in the battle of perception they have successfully painted the image of Bush's consitencty versus Kerry's waffling when a close examination of recent history might show otherwise.

 

They did fully authorize going into Afghanistan.

 

The UN is alright, just kick 1 or 2 European "big-shot" countries out, and we can get more things accomplished...

 

Wow, what courage that took........ The UN is a waste of time and money and the sooner we get out, the better.

 

Then why was the GW Bush Admin. practically begging the UN to get back into Iraq in the past 6 months.

 

Ignoring them is less work.

 

It is telling that this is the kind of "evidence" you use to "prove" that Bush should be reelected. While Kerry talks about a million jobs lost, rollbacks of our environmental regulations, a needless elective war, inadequate health insurance, and other important issues, you keep jabbing at 35 year old medals and verbal gaffes that don't even begin to compare to those made by GWB.

Telling.

 

Can someone explain why we do not exploit this loophole in suicidal terrorist ideaology? If certain religious zealots, of any faith, want to die martyrs, it seems like we could put together a very attractive package for them. So : suicide is a sin, but dying a martyr gets you a season pass to 72VirginsWorld? Dude, let's make a deal! you give us a location and a time, we'll priceline a few tickets out there, you come after us, and then we -- your enemies -- will totally kill you. It will be very swift, and we will apparently be doing you a favor. None of this waiting around to die, stuff, we will get you there pretty much by the end of the week. You can plan your trip to the great beyond so you never have to see the premiere of "Joey." How could you say no?

Basso -- have you seen Fog Of War, the Errol Morris documentary of Bob McNamara, Defense Secretary during Vietnam? It's a beautiful moive, please see it if you have not. One of his "lessons" is about allies; he has a compelling passage in there, basically 'when allies with simlilar values and goals are not with you, you need to check yourself.' "(Military action) should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community." He really hits that home in the movie -- to better understand what seems like a "fetish," that film may be a better illustration. To me, it's not being a p****, it's being strategic in terms of costs, perceived legitimacy, strength, and chance for sustainable success. Or, as I recently quoted Hendrick Herzberg in another thread, my belief that "the world will be policed collectively or not policed at all."

THis question made me think long and hard. Not because I was about to switch to Bush, but because i had not really come up with a coherent justification as to why I will support Kerry, just in case someone asked. Which you did. So here is what I have got.

Kerry is less dangerous to the long stability of our interests than Bush, and here is why. There is a meta-issue to this campaign, i think, which is even bigger than the War on Terror / IRaq / Al Qaeda / Canada. That issue is this: The process by which monumentally important decisions are made.

To begin: this election is about Bush versus Kerry. But we all know that each president presides over an administration, and it is really more of a team than one man. Yes, that man is the most powerful, and his traits rub off and so forth. But this is about a Bush Administration and a Kerry Administration. That's why their respective past military service records are not THAT important to me in determining who will be a better commander in chief. John Kerry's service in Vietnam does not guarantee he will get better intelligence, nor do Bush's party days mean his administration will encourage cocaine use. The flavor of an administration is hugely influenced by the proceess and the people who surround the president.

As Bush himself said at the convention" you and I have gotten to know each other over the past few years... you know where I stand." words to that effect.

After getting to know Bush for four years, I think he relies on "received wisdom" to make his decisions; I think his administration makes decisions before they have command of the facts, and they (incredibly shrewdly) sell it as being decisive. But being 'decisive' before knowing you have command of the facts is, of course, very unhealthy for this country. I think he has a very forceful group of advisiors, of a certain idealogical bent, who steer this administration. And I think they cherry pick facts, are reckless with the unintended consequences of their actions, and have a very brawn-over-brains approach to most things. And I think the element of "faith" is a euphemism for "we pray things will go our way because we get the sense we are infalible." Obviously, I don't think they say that verbatim, but its an attitude that makes me very uncomfortable. I just think historically, it is the most precise recipe for disaster there is. Hubris, simple-mindedness, faux-strength, not admitting shortcomings, not criticially evaluating success, being defensive, mocking, etc. And to my eyes, I see that in their economic policy (tax cuts, deficits), the war on terror (WMDs), science (stem cell) on down the line. It's an administrative flavor that I am allergic to. Not because it's too strong. Because it is weak. I don't want a government that relies of Received wisdom or faith.

So that bring us to Kerry. Kerry, as a leader, is pale. He can't read a room, he can't connect with the masses, and I find him about as inspirational as a Glenn Frey album. Which is to say not very. And I think its important to put together a coherent argument for your voting record on a complicated issue like this war, and it is important to galvanize the nation around your plan, vision, etc. And I know very few people who would argue that Kerry has done that.

But in the final analysis, I do not believe Kerry administration will do nearly the damage that Bush 2 has. The "decisiveness" that Bush sells is fools gold (side point: if Bush 2 was a senator for 20 years, you think he would not have flip flopped?). Forget that I agree with Kerry on stem cell, supreme court justices, and so forth -- I think Kerry he is much better equipped to handle the unknown -- which essentially accounts for most of the variables in the WOT at this point -- than Bush, who is completely intoxicated with this bravado that is already killing our soldires, weakening our economy, and tempting too many of us into a state of denial about the complexity an seriousness of our problems. The Bush administration is, in my opinion, chronically contorting facts and unknowns to fit a narrower, simpler worldview than is the case (see: Iraq, deficit, jobs, health care)-- some find that worldview attractive, and I can see why. But I dont think it working militarily, economically, socically or even ideoligcally, and I think numbers bear it out. Kerry is a better choice, to me, primarily because he is not infected with the false confidence that is making our country very vulnerable. Is he flawed? Massively. But I believe that Kerry will listen, will deliberate, and will absolutely make better decisions.

On a different note: Basso, I totally credit you with asking respectful and pointed questions in this thread, and appreciate your kind words at the beginning of the thread. The discussion has made me think and I truly appreciate you taking the first step on making this thread work. Notice there are not as many turds in this punchbowl. I appreciate it --

regards,
CBFC

 

me too!

(i was going to resist the 'good post' pile on, but that piece was just too good to leave alone).

well done chucky! You've joined my list of "must-read" members.

 

CBFC - very, VERY well said. This may be the first post in the D&D that I've agreed with in entirety. Thanks.

(And the bit about "Joey"? Well done!)

On a related note, McNamara himself came to where I work for a premiere showing of "The Fog of War" and he discussed some of those lessons. He really drove home the lesson on using the inclinations of allies with similar interests/values as a gauge for the strategic benefit of your own actions, and I find that particularly apt to our current situation. It was easy to take to heart because there are few people that experienced hubris like McNamara.

I'll see if I can dig up his lessons.

EDIT: the lessons are below. Please see this movie if you're even remotely interested, it's quite well done.

1. Empathize with your enemy
2. Rationality will not save us
3. There's something beyond one's self
4. Maximize efficiency
5. Proportionality should be a guideline in war
6. Get the data
7. Belief and seeing are both often wrong
8. Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning
9. In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil
10. Never say never
11. You can't change human nature

 

You need to post more often, dude!