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

Admit a mistake? That is a great excuse for Kerry's stance on Iraq. Wow!

 

Some people have the integrity to admit their faults. Others are too scared to do so.

Which type of person should be in the White House?

 

The first type. The second type, ala Richard Nixon, only bring this country down.

 

Thing is...he doesn't admit the mistake. Doesn't say...based on the information we now know, it was a mistake to charge into war.

Instead he plays both sides. I'd have gone into iraq, he says, with a bigger army still...better funded...more soldiers...but this is the wrong war at the wrong time. But i certainly wouldn't have backed down.

Unless we believe he truly is a master diplomat who would have won over the UN, France, Russia et al...so we could all march in together...we should really look at what he's said about the role the US should play. And he's been clear (well...sort of) that he believes military action was warranted. I think?

Doesn't excuse Bush's fanatical zeal to stay the course...but the criticism is not just Rovisms either.

 

Points well taken.

 

Great post, CBFC. I've said from the start that Kerry's support of the war was intellectually dishonest and each of his statements after has been as well. Like Deckard, that's why I didn't support him in the primary season. He's been awful on Iraq -- every statement he's made on it has been dishonest, cynical and purely poll driven. I won't forgive him that and I'll hold my nose when I vote for him. For all the reasons posted over the last years though, he's still a million times better than Bush.

 

I don't really think that way basso -- I don't think in terms of a single issue especially now, because so many of them feed each other.

Terror, Iraq, the economy, civil liberties (not gay marriage - the ones directly threated by Patriot, etc.), the deficit and all the various, important, underfunded programs (education, health care, Medicare, Social Security, et al) are the most important issues to me. And they are each contingent on where we choose to spend the money and where we choose to send the troops.

I, like many others, believe spending blood and treasure in Iraq weakened our position in the WOT. Further, it cost us money we could have spent in Afghanistan or on, say, health care or shoring up SS.

On some days though, I just think Iraq is the greatest issue facing the US. Bigger even than terror, since more people are dying there and since our international good will (the most valuable commodity we have in the WOT) is still in clear and present danger.

The fact that I think Kerry has behaved in a cynical, unforgiveably political fashion on Iraq does not mean that I believe Bush wins the Iraq issue. Regardless of his votes, Kerry would never have gone it alone, would never have rushed to war, to the contempt of our closest allies. I know he wouldn't have because no other president would have.

There is a basic difference of opinion on how best to execute the WOT, even if you do believe that Iraq is a part of that war (a wholly indefensible position if you ask me, but just for the sake of argument). Bush and his team believe we have enough bullets that we can leave out hearts and minds. They seem to believe that we are so strong that we can combat terrorism with brute force. Kerry recognizes, like a lot of us do, that terrorism is a Hydra. For every head you cut off, two grow back. I think it was Karl Rove (if not, it was Wolfowitz) who said Abu Ghraib set our case in the Middle East back about ten years. That's LOSING the war on terror.

Kerry disengenuously voted to authorize this dangerous, elective war and I won't forgive that. But he would not have elected to go so fast or to go alone. We need our allies back -- for Iraq and for the WOT. They will not come back to Bush. He has alienated us to the world community like we've never been before, through sheer arrogance and awkwardness. They will come back when we have new leadership. It's as good a reason as any to vote for Kerry.

 

This may be a different thread, not to derail, but does anyone else hate the War on Terror? Have we been over this? In the spirit of not opinion-polling your own views, I'd like to go on record saying the War On Terror is a terribly misguided idea. This may have been hashed out before, feel free to skip if it has.

I dont think you can declare war against a tactic. Or a concept. You can declare war on Al Qaeda -- and we should. Or the Talbian or whoever. But this whole War On Terror business is bad news. Too much room for interpretation, no established guidelines for what exactly "terror" is, and no methodolgy to priororitize threats, explain the thinking behind the decisions, now way to measure success or failure, and so forth. A War ON Terror could mean anything. I mean, in a way, you could spin the assault weapons ban into the war on terror. Linguistically, its a disaster. If someone is murdered in 2084, have we lost the war on terror? Simplistic termonology for a very complex problem.

Why did we not declare war on Al Qaeda, then come up with some list of other potential threats to our security, prioritize in order of immeidacy of that threat, and then take care of them accordingly? Well, I know why -- because all people in power -- espcially our current administration -- want blank checks to do whatever they want to do. Nothing like an amorphous "War" to provide an umbrella for your agenda.

But in the spirit of this thread, here is my main question -- why did the Democrats, not come up with something better than this amorphous War On Terror? I mean, not to be too simplistic, but it does not even seem that hard:

A. Immediate Threats to the US
(Those who want to hurt us, and have the means to hurt us)

B. Gathering threats to the US
(Those who clearly want to hurt us and may or may not have the means to do it)

C. Scary regimes
(those who might want to hurt us and are gaining the tools to do so)

C. Immediate Threats to Allies
(Those who want to hurt Russia or whoever and have the means to do it)

D. Gathering threats to allies
(Those who would just kill all of us if they could)

Al Quada = A. Iraq = C. Weird militia types = B. Canada = B. Chechen Rebels = D. And so on.

I don't know, I am not an expert on these countries, but just from a resource managment perspective, it seems like we are more efficient when we prioritize and have some sort of rhyme or reason to what we do. Some sort of transparent rhyme or reason, mind you, with accountability when we mis-prioritize, and some sort of yardstick to measure success. I think fighting terrorism is obviously difficult and complicated, but not SO difficult and complicated that you can't organize, plan, measure, have meaningful debate and discussion and be accountable for success and failure. Our current War On Terror, it seems to me, is a very vague, sprawling and easily-maniuplated carte blanche that we pray prevents another 9/11. Long term, it does not seem at all sustainable or wise.

PS. To answer a question you did not ask me, basso, I think the biggest issue facing our nation BY A MILE is how we fight terrorism.

 

CINCINNATI, OH - 9/8/04: Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA) speaks during a rally September 8, 2004 in Cincinnati, Ohio. Kerry criticized President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq.

Kerry blasts Bush for 'wrong choices'
Dem says billions spent on war could have gone elsewhere
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:59 p.m. ET Sept. 8, 2004CINCINNATI -

John Kerry, at a site where President Bush made his case that Iraq was a threat to the United States, argued Wednesday that the president left a trail of broken promises on the path to war and has squandered money that could be put to better use for health care, education and jobs.

“George W. Bush’s wrong choices have led America in the wrong direction on Iraq and left America without the resources we need here at home,” the Democratic presidential candidate said. “The cost of the president’s go-it-alone policy in Iraq is now $200 billion and counting.”

Kerry said the “hard reality” is that Bush’s choices have led to “spreading violence, growing extremism, havens for terrorists that weren’t there before.”

“I call this course a catastrophic choice that has cost us $200 billion because we went it alone, and we’ve paid an even more unbearable price in young American lives.”

The speech showed Kerry shifting from a defensive stance fending off charges of inconsistencies on the war to an aggressive challenge of Bush’s decisions in the run-up and aftermath of the U.S. invasion.

Linking the choice to go to war with budgetary consequences, Kerry sought to tie Iraq to health care, education, jobs and other areas where he says the administration followed a misguided path.

“$200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford after-school programs for our children; $200 billion in Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford health care for our veterans; $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford to keep the 100,000 police officers we put on the street,” Kerry said.

“He doesn’t believe that America can be strong in the world while we also make progress here at home. He believes we have to choose one or he other. That’s a false choice, and I reject it.”

In a speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center in 2002, Bush made a case for removing Saddam Hussein from power. He called the Iraqi leader a “murderous tyrant” who may be plotting to attack the United States with biological and chemical weapons.

The address opened debate in Congress that eventually led to a vote authorizing the president to use force against Iraq, a resolution that Kerry supported.

U.S. military deaths in the Iraq fighting passed 1,000 on Tuesday.

A protester stood at the beginning of Kerry’s speech on Wednesday and started to yell, but a man sitting next to him wearing a T-shirt from the Sheet Metal Workers union grabbed him and put him in a headlock. Two other men sitting nearby joined the fray and pushed him to the ground.

Secret Service agents escorted the man outside the building. Reporters who tried to talk to the man were ordered to return inside. Officials said he was complaining that he was assaulted and they were investigating.

The Kerry campaign said Bush’s argument for war was laced with assertions later ignored or proved untrue.

Bush said he would pursue diplomatic solutions in Iraq; Kerry says he rushed to war. Bush said he would build a coalition of allies; Kerry says the United States bears virtually all the war’s cost, in lives lost and dollars spent.

Bush said Iraq was developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, but U.S. forces have not found stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Bush said Iraq supported al-Qaida’s designs against the United States, but the Sept. 11 commission found no active collaboration.

On the other hand, the Bush-Cheney campaign said Kerry has taken multiple, inconsistent positions on the war.

“John Kerry voted for the war but voted against funding for combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said spokesman Steve Schmidt. “This is another example of John Kerry’s indecision, vacillation and political gamesmanship.”

In conjunction with the speech, Kerry was unveiling an ad that accuses Bush of squandering $200 billion on Iraq while the United States suffers “lost jobs” and “rising health care costs.” The commercial claims, “George Bush’s wrong choices have weakened us here at home.”

© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5941108/

 

I don't think the lack of specificity in the terms of the "War on Terror" is the result of either poor judgment or inadequate planning - I think it's intended by those who started using the phrase. When one looks at it from the perspective of the average person (as most of us do), it can look like a mish-mash with no clear beginning or end - but when one looks at it from the quite different perspective of those who are currently in power, every apparent irrationality of the "War on Terror" ends up making perfect sense.

Funny how that works.

 

I haven't read or seen Kerry's speech basso, but I'm glad to hear he's finally reading my posts.

I hardly think you can accuse me of parroting Kerry's lines, if that's what's intended. I've been hard on Kerry since he announced for president. I think he's been wrong on Iraq and that he's run an awful campaign. I'm glad he's getting back on track.

I understand that you're busy now, but I'd prefer to hear your response to the meat of my post rather than the fact that it parallels Kerry's speech.

 

Canada = B?

 

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. I'm still laughing.

 

Either B+ or A-. I don't think we should straight up invade, but probably get a UN resolution renouncing their WMDs (You Can't Do That On Television; Bryan Adams, etc.) and then lead a mulitnational coalition to liberate and give them a government worthy of the fine people of Canada. And look, when invading Canada we should not alienate our allies. We will need the Frenchies to translate and the Russians to figure out the climate. We must not go it alone. This does not make us weak -- it just makes us smart.

 

Blame Canada,
Blame Canada,
With their hockey hullabaloo...

 

I call your Kerry quote and raise you a Bushism.