...so they b****-slapped us on iRaq. http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/09/kerrys-confusing-mtv-interview.html -- Q: Your exit strategy for Iraq is based on the idea that if you're elected, you'll be able to bring all of our traditional allies back to the table to help our cause. But what if they say no to you? Kerry: Well, I have a lot of tools available to me. This president has not done the statesmanship and has not shown the leadership necessary to bring other countries to us. Iraq, and their resistance to Iraq, is not only based on Iraq. It's based on the fact that we walked away from the global warming treaty and we dissed 160 nations that worked 10 years to try to build a cooperative attitude. Only the U.S. said no and walked away. In addition, the president has done almost nothing to reduce the increasing clash of radical Islam with moderate Islam and the rest of the world's religions. We need to reach out to people and isolate the fundamentalist extremists, not have them isolate us. That's a big difference. I'll conduct a foreign policy that lives up to America's values. I'll conduct a war that makes America safer. And I will win friends and allies to our side.
Fabulous. Was that your point? Should I post something about Bush trying to look like a cowboy or are we just about done here?
The Kyoto Pact was never going to amount to anything anyway. It basically benefitted much in the world and adversely affected the US. It was just sitting there on the sidelines with no one signing it (except the countries that had to make no changes to sign it). Bush then said we weren't signing it at all. It was blunt as he tends to be, and may have angered people, but signing Kyoto would be silly for the US. Many of the creators of Kyoto had their own agenda. If the US worked to decrease its carbon emissions that meant less energy demand by the US. That would lower world oil and energy prices which would make the energy prices cheaper for Japan and the other Kyoto supporters. Follow the money.. Kudos to Bush for not signing this, and its speaks about Kerry's ignorance to state its benefits. *I was in a lecture with the head of Energy Economics from the Federal Reserve bank (Dallas) and this topic even came up.
His point is Kerry will try to morph himself into something he is not every chance he gets. I'd love to hear THK say "you go girl" or "fo shizzle" at her next speech.
I don't comprehend why this is bad for the U.S. - though I never claimed to be that intelligent. Is the argument that it helps strengthening other economies while doing little to ours except improving the environment? Why is that bad?
uhmm, no. he's suggesting france, germany, and (big laugh) russia stonewalled us on iRaq as payback for Kyoto. that may have been an excuse, but it's not the reason.
Kerry isn't "morphing" into something he isn't...he's doing exactly what he does. This is exactly why many people (Democrats) like John Kerry. It highlights the fundamental difference between the two candidates. GWB is narrow-minded, focused, stubborn, resistant to change, etc. JFK is open to suggestions, willing to talk about a variety of opinions, etc. The Republicans claim JFK's persona implies he can't be a strong leader. The Democrats claim GWB's persona implies America may be (or is) going down the wrong path and there is little to no chance for change.
OK, Khan, thanks for talking about the issues. I appreciate it very much. Some foreign policy experts would disagree with the assessment that the Kyoto Treaty is still bad for the U.S. An article on East West Center .org states that: link In fact in December 1997, President Clinton did not want to sign the treaty either, unless it was changed, stating that it was bad for US Business interests. It has since been changed and Bush should sign it.
He's suggesting that it's a reason, not the reason. And, he's pointing it out in the context of the Bush Administration failing to work cooperatively with other countries in an issue that has worldwide importance. Kerry believes it's important for the U.S. to forge strong bonds with the world by cooperating with the international community, and Kerry also believes he would perform this duty better than the Bush Administration has to date. Seems pretty right on to me. The Bush Administration are str8 up haters, who diss the world when they see fit. Fo' reals, yo. (Frankly, I'd love to hear THK say "fo' shizzle." It'd be the funniest thing ever.)
I wish people wouldn't refer to Kerry as "JFK." It just makes me cringe, and I'm a Democrat. If any other members here feel the same way, regardless of your affiliations, please chime in. It really bugs the hell out of me. There was one JFK. I got to watch him speak, in person, and, my friends, Kerry is no JFK. Thank you. And vote for John Kerry for President... JFK is dead.
so, to clarify kerry's remarks further: "we dissed 'em on Kyoto, so they b****ed-slapped us on iRaq. i'd take us to war in a different way...by not signing Kyoto?" WTF is he saying? they dissed us because we showed the world no respect, but i wouldn't do anything differently, except, well, think different?
Thanks Mulder: Seems a little odd to bring up Kyoto as a dissin' of other nations when you agree with the stance? (the general gist of the quote is dead on -- but a very curious example to bring up). Kerry's getting a very easy ride from the "left." Wouldn't it be cool if he had the earn their vote instead of getting it by default.
