Can Kerry come through on his promise?

I don't really know he can, but I do think he has a better chance than Bush does. Even if France, Germany, and the UN wanted to send forces and help rebuild, they would never do it just because they would lose face. At least Kerry can come from a neutral position and say "Hey, we all have stakes in this, it's in your best interest to help."

Iraq is a big mess right now, and neither candidate will be able to totally fix it. In a way this is worse than vietnam because we don't really have any allies over there and our enemies are crazier and harder to locate.

 

Good questions, GriffinFan.

On the allies thing:

First, of course, there's no guarantee that Kerry will be successful in bringing more allies to Iraq, but I think there's a strong case that he has a better chance at success there than Bush. The way the war began significantly alienated several allies that went with us to Afghanistan. Part of that was Bush's repeated insistence that if certain allies (or the UN) wouldn't go, we would go alone. Another part was Bush's failure to convince the allies of a meaningful threat or to tie the war in Iraq to the war on terror. These guys are with us against terror, as evidenced by Afghanistan. Bush promised to make that case and several of the countries that supported us in Afghanistan felt he didn't make it. After the initial alienation, Bush went further by ridiculing France, Germany and Russia and by publically announcing we wouldn't look at reconstruction bids from any country that wasn't with us from the start.

Kerry comes without that baggage. He can say to these countries, "Look, we all have an interest in cleaning up the situation in Iraq and we all have an interest in combatting terrorism. Whether or not there was a meaningful threat before the war -- with regard to terror and with regard to stability in the Middle East -- there is one now. We can all agree on that. So success there is crucial to all of us. As we did in Afghanistan, as we did in the first Gulf War, as we've done many times before, let's do this together. It is also in our common interest to rebuild alliances that may have become strained over the last couple of years. Let's start fresh. Let's work together toward a more stable Middle East and a lesser terrorist threat."

There were polls of European countries around the start of the war that identified the US as a greater threat to world peace than Iraq. There have also been polls showing US approval worldwide, among our allies and otherwise, to be at an all time low. That after we enjoyed near universal empathy after 9/11. This has happened on Bush's watch and through his dealings with, and his words about, our allies. It was no surprise to me that a recent global poll showed Kerry beating Bush in a massive landslide. With one or two exceptions, Kerry won in each of our allied countries. Most of these countries are democracies in which the leaders are accountable to the voters, so it's not a great leap to believe the leaders would be more succeptible to cooperating with Kerry, whom their people support, than with Bush, whom they do not.

You asked if any of these countries had already made a commitment to go over there under a Kerry admin and the answer is a definitive no. That would be the case with any challenger. It would be unthinkable for Kerry or any of those leaders to negotiate such an agreement in advance of the election.

On your second question about the 87 billion:

Kerry wasn't working on a bill that was never written. The bill was written and voted down. It approved the 87 billion but required that the funding come from a rollback of tax cuts for people making over $200,000. His argument was that during war time it was reasonable to ask the wealthiest Americans to share the sacrifice in order to fund the war, especially since this is the only time (in modern times at least) that we've cut taxes while engaged in a war. The Democratic bill, requiring the White House to roll back some tax cuts and actually say where the money would come from, was voted down. Kerry voted for that one. The Republican bill, which offered no explanation of how to pay the 87 billion except to add it to an already historic deficit, passed. Kerry voted against that one. That's why Kerry said he voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it.

 

this is one of the most ridiculous things you've ever written. there is no way france or germany contributes troops to iRaq. No Way. what's kerry's arguement going to be? uhmmm, mon cher, je sais que c'est la guerre fausse, a la place fausse, a la temps fausse, mais, s'il te plait, veuillez envoyer L'Armée Grande en Irak?

They'd laugh in his face.

 

Well, of course I didn't write that they would, but why should that stop you? Your side does nothing so much anymore than distort the other side's argument. Nothing I said in my post was controversial or in any way different than the conventional wisdom with regard to Kerry and allied forces. I also began my post by saying there's no guarantee he'd bring anyone -- only that he has grounds for arguing he'd be more successful than Bush there. Easy as hell for you to go back to the France card instead of considering Russia, various Arab countries or any of the other allies that joined us in Afghanistan or in Gulf War I but wouldn't join us in a preemptive invasion of Iraq.

If you'd like to actually read and respond to the post rather than calling it ridiculous out of hand and following up with another tired France bashing joke (are they still our allies, basso?), you might begin by explaining why Kerry couldn't expect to assemble a coalition in Iraq that resembles the one in Afghanistan.

I didn't post in this thread to have a flame war. Sorry, I'm off those. I was answering GriffinFan's questions to the best of my ability given what I've read these last years on the subject. I think you're more than capable of responding in a like fashion if you want to.

 

i thought i was. if you're contending that now, after 18 months of a war that they didn't support, that their populaces don't support, and which the new prseident has spent the past 2 years trashing in every imaginable forum (except when he wasn't), that somehow, through the shear force of his personality, kerry could convince, france, germany, russia, syria, egypt, etc. to send troops to iraq, all the while drawing down US troop strength, well....you're deluding yourself. what would they have to gain? if kerry offered them incentives, wouldn't they then become part of the coalition of the bribed and coerced?

 

Kerry today:

"But I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere."

uhmm, where's "elsewhere?"

 

The easy answer is yes, for a couple of reasons.

Kerry did know the bill would pass and he knew his no vote wouldn't deny the troops funding. He has also characterized it as a protest vote, so we don't really know how he might have voted if his vote could break a tie.

The other thing is that Kerry was involved in a tough primary fight with Dean and he made a political calculation, as he often does (often to my chagrin). I also thought the first vote authorizing Bush to use force was a political one and I heartily opposed it as much for what I perceived to be the cynicism of it as for the vote itself. Whatever. There are a lot of things I don't like about Kerry, but that's not what you asked. The flip side of the cynicism of these political votes is that Kerry wasn't the difference maker in either of them and to suggest that Kerry's vote somehow threatened the troops is disingenuous at best. He knew they'd get the money and he wanted the American people (yes, certainly including Dem primary voters) to know he stridently opposed funding the effort with more deficit spending while continuing to gift tax cuts to those who needed them the least.

Bush's worst line in the debate was when he said of Kerry's homeland security proposals, "I don't think we want to talk about how we'd actually fund all these proposals" or whatever, especially given the fact that Bush specifically chose tax cuts for the rich OVER funding those proposals. On the 87 billion, he did it again. I can't remember whether it was Will or Jon Stewart or someone else who said, "Better to tax and spend than to not tax and still spend." Bush has a lot of nerve talking about how we're going to pay for stuff when he's presided over the largest government, the most government spending and the largest deficits in our HISTORY, all while providing the largest tax cuts for the rich in our history.

 

basso, I know you're smarter than this.

There is a difference between Bush and a handful of allies making a mess with an unnecessary invasion and Kerry and more allies necessarily cleaning up that mess. There is no leap of logic at all in recognizing a need in Iraq today that was not there before the invasion. Each of the countries you listed has a stake in a stable Iraq and in defeating terrorism. Terrorism was not a serious issue in Iraq before the war -- it is now and these countries know that. It's no surprise that they might be more likely to follow the guy who favored their involvement in the first place to the one who's spent the last two years denigrating them, insulting them and telling them we don't need them there in the first place. They hate Bush because he has made them hate him. They do not hate America and they do not hate Kerry.

You're right that Kerry has called this the wrong war at the wrong time. You're wrong to insinuate that means he isn't serious about fixing it.

 

well, the first FOUR posts in this thread looked like it was shaping up to be a promising, civil discussion

... basso, why not just post (on all 4 non-basso threads):

KERRY SUCKS, LIBERALS HATE AMERICA... OUT!!!!

 

I think you can do better than a third rate Bushism.

The "global war" argument is a lie and you know it. And if by some incredible chance you don't, how bout I let Will explain it to you. You'd do really well to go to the actual article and click the hyperlinks for background:

http://slate.com/id/2107690/

The Global Test
It's called reality.
By William Saletan
Posted Monday, Oct. 4, 2004, at 3:49 AM PT




Listen to this story on NPR's Day to Day.

We've just reached the crux of the presidential campaign—the moment in which one candidate, purporting to expose the other's fatal flaw, has instead exposed his own.

Saturday morning, President Bush attacked John Kerry for a comment Kerry made in Thursday night's debate. Here's how Bush described Kerry's remark:

"He said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. That's what he said. Think about this. Sen. Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions. I have a different view. When our country is in danger, the president's job is not to take an international poll. The president's job is to defend America. I'll continue to work every day with our friends and allies for the sake of freedom and peace. But our national security decisions will be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals."

This description, which Bush continues to repeat at campaign stops and in television ads, is plainly false. In his first answer of the debate, Kerry said, "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security." But if that isn't what Kerry meant by a "global test," what did he mean? Let's go back and look at Kerry's words.

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who's had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy, in the Cuban missile crisis, sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with [French President Charles] de Gaulle, and in the middle of the discussion to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, [the secretary of state] said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And de Gaulle waved them off, and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me." How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way?"

It's clear from Kerry's first sentence that the "global test" doesn't prevent unilateral action to protect ourselves. But notice what else Kerry says. The test includes convincing "your countrymen" that your reasons are clear and sound. Kerry isn't just talking about satisfying France. He's talking about satisfying Ohio. He's talking about you.

What do you have in common with a Frenchman? Look again at Kerry's words. He says the test is to "prove" that our reasons for attacking were legitimate. In the next sentence, he gives an example of someone failing that test: Colin Powell's February 2003 presentation to the United Nations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What did Powell apologize for? The inaccuracy of our intelligence. Kerry contrasts this with the trust France once placed in American spy photos.

Proof, intelligence, spy photos. The pattern is obvious. The test isn't moral. It's factual. What you and the Frenchman share is the evidence of your senses. The global test is the measurement of the president's assertions against the real world, the world you and I can see.

This is the test Bush has failed. He has failed to produce evidence for his prewar claims of Iraqi WMD and operational ties to al-Qaida, or for his postwar claims of success against the insurgency. Now he's going further. He's not simply failing the test. He's refusing to take it.

Listen to Bush's words again. "The president's job is not to take an international poll," he says. "Our national security decisions will be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals." Bush doesn't say these decisions belong to the United States. He says they belong to the Oval Office. He frames this as patriotism, boasting that he doesn't care whether he offers evidence sufficient to convince people in France. He shows no awareness or concern that evidence is also necessary to convince people in Ohio. He says it isn't his job to take a "poll," to hear what others think. He needs no validation.

Bush pretends he's just blowing off the French. But his comments show a pattern of blowing off external feedback in general. He shrugs off information that debunks his claims about WMD, arguing that it's more important for a president to understand the overall nature of the world. He defines credibility as agreement with himself. He reinterprets evidence of policy mistakes in postwar Iraq as evidence of success. In Thursday's debate, he dismissed unwelcome reports from that country as too offensive to heed. And according to Sunday's New York Times, he and his aides exaggerated Iraq's nuclear capability, ignoring warnings from "the government's foremost nuclear experts."

Bush claims he has done all this to protect you. But that claim is precisely what's challenged by the evidence he conceals or disregards. What he's protecting you from is the ability to measure his assertions against the world that you and I can see. That's the global test he's mocking. And he expects you to applaud him for it, because he thinks you resent the French so much you'd rather have a president accountable to no one.

 

basso, et al after reading this article without their right-wing talking points available

 

fine, so he brings in france and germany. i suppose he'll say goodbye to britain, australia, and poland at the same time? after all, he's been denigrating them for the past two years to the same extent busg denigrated france and germany before the invasion. what's the improvement?

 

That's bull. Kerry has denigrated the idea of this being a meaningful coalition. Bush has turned France into a punchline and he has turned his distaste for France (and Kerry's openness to them) into a major talking point. Show me anything Kerry's said against England, Australia or Poland that approximates Freedom Fries, I hear France is nice this time of year, surrender monkeys or any of the other America first cultural warfare this president's engendered.

The thing is, I know you are capable of making credible arguments for Bush's re-election. I am baffled that you're choosing instead to repeat his campaign of willful misinterpretation and diversion. I don't believe for a minute you don't know what Kerry meant by "global test," I don't believe for a minute you don't know the difference between an invasion and cleaning up after that invasion and I don't believe for a minute that you equate Kerry's words about the "willing" with Bush's about the "unwilling." Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe any of those things. Take it as a compliment.

 

the president of poland thinks kerry has denigrated his country's sacrifices:

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84693

--
"It's sad that a Senator with twenty years of experience does not appreciate Polish sacrifice. . . . I don't think it's a question of ignorance. One thing has to be said very clearly: this Coalition is not just the United States, Great Britain and Australia, but there's also contribution of Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Spanish soldiers who died in Iraq. It's immoral to not see this involvement we undertook because we believe that we have to fight terrorism together, that we need to show international solidarity, that Saddam Hussein is a danger to the world.

"From such a perspective, you can say we are disappointed that our stance and the sacrifice of our soldiers is so marginalised. I blame it on electioneering--and a message, indirectly expressed by Senator Kerry--that he thinks more of a coalition that would put the United States together with France and Germany, that is those who in the matter of Iraq said 'no.'

"President Bush is behaving like a true Texan gentleman--he's fighting for the recognition of other countries' contribution in the Coalition."

 

I'll give you Poland, basso. I saw that article earlier today. I won't give you England or Australia and I won't give you the concept that Kerry's denigrated any of these countries to the degree that Bush has France (or Germany). Interesting to note that Poland is also the only country among the coalition that favors Bush's re-election over Kerry (Bush 31-Kerry 26). The populace of ever other coalition ally favors Kerry over Bush.

 

You'll have to give me Australia to, since Kerry's surrogates have told the Aussies their alliance with the US has made them less safe:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10797507%5E2703,00.html

--
US 'endangers Australians'
Roy Eccleston, Washington correspondent

JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.

Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.

"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."

Ms Kerry, who taught school in Indonesia for 15 years until 2000, is heading a campaign called Americans Overseas for Kerry which aims to secure the votes of Americans abroad -- including the more than 100,000 living in Australia.

In the 2000 election, analysts say absentee votes cast overseas tipped the balance to Mr Bush in the decisive state of Florida. Domestic votes put Mr Gore ahead by a few hundred votes, but Mr Bush won by 537 after overseas ballots were included.

In this election, which is decided according to the states won, the Kerry campaign says overseas votes could also determine the result given there are a dozen states where victory might be measured by a few hundred to a few thousand votes. About 5million American voters live overseas and interest in this election was high, Ms Kerry said. About 350,000 absentee ballots were distributed in 2000, but more than a million had been sought this time.

"My belief is US citizens living overseas are very concerned about the current direction of the US, particularly in regard to international affairs," she claimed. "They are on the front lines of the decline of US respect and reputation; they hear it and feel it on a daily basis."

A poll by the Washington-based Pew Centre for People and the Press found that in March this year only 58 per cent of Britons, 37 per cent of French and 38 per cent of Germans had favourable opinions of America, down by more than 20 percentage points in each country from before the Iraq war.

Quizzed on US opinion polls that showed Senator Kerry's campaign flagged through August and that he was now running behind Mr Bush, Ms Kerry said her brother would win the November 2 election.

"He responds well to challenges and has the reputation of fighting well from behind," she said.

 

No I won't have to give you Australia. You're just being silly now. Your assertion was that Kerry had denigrated England, Australia and Poland as much as Bush had France and Germany. That's patently false and you know it. I don't agree with you on Poland either, but I'll give you the fact that Poland's president was offended. There's nothing like that in the Australia article. Australia's association with the US DOES put them in greater danger of a terrorist attack. Any country that allies itself with another country's war effort assumes its allies' enemies. How the recognition of that plain fact spins into "denigrating" them is beyond me.