Rudy Scores

Rudy Giuliani murders John Kerry. We will see if the media picks it up.

Relatedly, it seems that Kerry's interview with the NY Times magazine did not go as well as he might have hoped. However, we should note that the InstaPundit got results - Glenn was saying two months ago that Kerry should be talking about his BCCI investigatory days.

Comments

[Brian]

Ah, so Rudy runs with a false impression of Kerry's comments and he wins? Talk about grasping at straws.

[Tim]

Kerry's quote in the New York Times Magazine illustrates, perfectly, why he'll lose this election. Bush wins when an increasingly smaller pool of swing and other marginal voters realize Kerry and his voters hate Bush more than they do the terrorists. Terrorists who, according to the recently disclosed discovery of hard drives in Iraq, are planning to attack schools in the U.S. as they did in Beslan.

Americans aren't pussies, and they aren't going to vote for a pussy who thinks "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," as if the terrorists who plan to kill school children are simply a "nuisance." This is a strategy of acceptance, tolerance and, ultimately, appeasement.

Don't think so? Then let someone from the NAACP ask John Kerry how much lynching is simply a "nuisance," or someone from NOW how much date rape or wife beating is simply a "nuisance," or someone from the Sierra Club how much pollution is simply a "nuisance." So while liberal Democrats would never tolerate, let alone nominate a candidate who thinks that a certain level of racism, date rape, wife beating or pollution are simply reducable to a level of "nuisance," that's their candidate for President when it comes to terrorism.

Pathetic losers.

[Brian]

What a lovely fact-free analysis of the current electoral situation, Tim.

[mantis]

Actually Tim, "liberal democrats" have tolerated presidents who accept that crime (date rape, wife beating), prejudice, and pollution are merely reducible, and cannot be completely irradicated from society, much like terrorism in the age of technology. Their names have been Clinton, Bush, Reagan...
This is a realistic attitude, and one shared by the intelligence community, as well as law enforcement. Of course the ideal, the utopia, is to completely rid society of these things, but it's just not possible, and if you think it is, well, here's some more kool-aid.

[Mantis]

Furthermore, this tactic of zeroing in on one word or other out of context element and turning it into an entire platform just makes those who use it look retarded and unable to engage in any sort of discussion because they can only hear one word out of thousands. Every time I hear someone say global test or nuisance I immediately know I'm dealing with someone who probably while reading Shakespeare or Moby Dick in school read one page of the cliffs notes and thought they understood the entire text. In other words, a twit.

[Towering Barbarian]

Mantis, are you truly under the impression that one must recite an entire play of Shakesphere at a time or else not quote him at all? o_O

Like it or no phrases like "Global Test" and "nuisance" really did catch the essence of what Kerry was saying. The former was a good reminder that he favors sucking up to Old Europe while the latter did seems to imply that he be complacent in the face of widespread loss of human life so long as it's not anybody he knows. Sad but true. So perhaps it would be best for Democrats to just be grateful that these phrases have nudged "Seared, seared in my memory" from out of the public mind for the moment. ^_~

[Mantis]

I rest my case.

[Towering Barbarian]

In order to do that you must first have a case to rest. ^_^

[Cecil Turner]

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a candidate's position, or to dig through his public statements to try to decipher it. Kerry voted against the first Gulf War, and after voting for this one, is apparently against it. He brought up "global test" in the context of a go-to-war decision, and it is at best, obscure. At this point, I'd like a Cliffs Notes (or better yet, a crib sheet).

Similarly, his comments on terrorism appear to be talking around the subject trying to be all things to all men. If he wants to be taken seriously, he needs to stop claiming he has a plan, and lay a bit of it out for us. Analogies to victimless crimes do not impress.

And AFAICT, the only prominent Shakespeare quote in this election is "Band of Brothers" . . . the President's tend toward the biblical (e.g., "he who is not with me is against me"). Admittedly, both were out of context.

[Tim]

I fully appreciate the rest of us rubes are genetically unequipped to comprehend the manifest complexities of John Kerry's "plan" for defeating or, rather, dealing with terrorism as opposed to the manifestly superior intellects of Brian and "Mantis."

But here's the thing. The constitution and the laws of the nation and its constituent states provides us the right to vote, under certain conditions and constraints and, well, many of us plan to use that right, yet again. And, I know it's simplistic, so you'll have to excuse me, but we're at war. A real war, not a metaphorical war as Richard Holbrooke suggests, one in which there are real consequences, like dead Americans for instance, resulting from its waging.

Now, we can all run down to the post-modern intellectual candy store and open up the jars of deconstruction or moral relevancy and find a neat theory to explain how those of us who want to take this war to our enemies are all wrong (or insult us in passing by telling us we're too stupid to understand their vacuous theories, but I digress...), but it distracts us from our job of killing terrorists before they kill us. We can deconstruct words like "nuisance" and "metaphor" and "grand coalition" to understand they are simply codes for "cutting and running," "quitting," "tolerate," and "appeasement."

So, at the end of the day, when it comes time to account for who is going to kill terrorists, we rubes know this: we have a choice between a president who sees the world as we do, and a pussy who does not. We aren't pussies, try as you might, so we aren't going to vote for your pussy. Oh, to be sure we'd like the French and the Germans to be by our side, and even the UN if that were possible, but we understand they are weak, venal, craven and corrupt, so that's not going to happen. We also know that every minute spent waiting for the weak, venal, craven and corrupt to come around to our point of view is a minute wasted from, if you'll excuse my bluntness, killing more terrorists.

So, John Kerry loses in the end because he's with the French, the Germans and the UN and not the American people. No sophisticated theory or complex psycho-political analysis is necessary for us to explain to ourselves why we will reject such a candidate but, if you should find one necessary, contemplate, or, if you prefer, deconstruct the difference between Churchill and Petain. Or, if that doesn't work for you, how about Licoln and McClellan.

It's that simple.

Pathetic losers.

[MaB]

I'll take Kerry's attenuated vision of what is possible to achieve in the war on terror over the frightening incompetence of the Bush administration as evidenced mist recently by the fact that they can't account for the nuclear material the IAEA had tagged and locked up before the invasion. What good is a "grand strategy" if they can't execute the fundamentals?

[Brainster]

Kerry seems to get himself in the most trouble when talking to a sympathetic interviewer. He lets his guard down and releases his inner lunatic leftie.

[Cecil Turner]

"they can't account for the nuclear material the IAEA had tagged and locked up before the invasion . . . can't execute the fundamentals"

In the first place, there's no way of keeping yellowcake out of the hands of terrorists (which was the vast majority of the material at Tuwaitha). It's the refining process that requires a national-level program and is beyond their capabilities. If we're evaluating nuclear threats, this one isn't in the big league.

In the second, an invasion tends to be a bit hectic, and there was no way of guarding every site in Iraq. Like the complaints about artifact looting, this isn't terribly compelling.

[Tim]

Absolutely. Vote for Kerry because he'll do nothing, and in doing nothing he won't fail, unlike that incompetent Bush. Just like the Brits should have voted against Churchill after the debacle at Dieppe, and the Americans against Roosevelt after the bloodbaths at Kasserine, Anzio and the Battle of the Bulge.

So after the ever-so-smug Monday morning quarterbacks give us Kerry, and he's busy doing nothing, the terrorists will busy themselves with plans to kill Americans on an order of magnitude that will make 9/11/01 pale in comparison.

Finally, it's awfully ironic for someone who's going to vote against Bush for failing to "execute the fundamentals" that his candidate fundamentally misunderstands the war itself. As for the rest of us, we'll vote for they guy who makes mistakes doing the right thing over the pussy who's afraid to do anything without passing the "global test" and, in that choice, will make the biggest mistake of all.

[MaB]

I guess guarding every nuclear material site in Iraq was kind of like the nuisance of combating organized crime and prostitution.

[Tim]

Yeah, it's pretty easy to win this arguement when your position is 1) Bush misled us into war since there were no WMDs, and 2) Bush is incompetent because coalition troops failed to secure every single last Iraqi nuclear site, therefore permitting precursers to WMDs to fall into the hands of terrorists.

[martin]

So is your position then Tim:
1) Bush did not mislead us into war since there were no WMDs 2)Bush is competent for failing to secure every single last Iraqi nuclear site?

[Tim]

No, there's much more to it than that, of course, but if you haven't got it figured out by now, nothing I could ever write would help you see it, even if you wanted to.

The bottom line is this: most Americans favor fighting this war on the offense; some Americans favor joining hands with the French, the Germans and the U.N. and singing a secularized chorus of "Kumbaya," hoping the terrorists will simply leave us alone. Those who favor fighting the war aggressively will vote for Bush; the appeasers will vote for Kerry. Bush wins. Kerry and the terrorists lose.

[Cecil Turner]

"I guess guarding every nuclear material site in Iraq was kind of like the nuisance of combating organized crime and prostitution."

That's a Kerry talking point for ya. Confused, and nicely obtuse. In any event, the Kay and Duelfer reports make clear that the bulk of the "looting" was systematic destruction by the former regime as the war was ongoing.

But it does touch on the point. The "nuclear material" in Iraq isn't a significant threat (though the enriched stuff taken away by the DOE was more of a concern). The rest was useless for a nuclear weapon, and according to the IAEA, there wasn't enough to make even a "dirty bomb."

"The UN's atomic watchdog says it is confident there is not enough radioactive material missing in Iraq to make a nuclear 'dirty bomb'."

[SaveFarris]

I guess guarding every nuclear material site in Iraq...

Wait, Iraq had nuclear material? I guess that makes Senator "Iraq had no nuke capabilities" Kerry full of crap!

[Slartibartfast]

Yellowcake is simply unrefined uranium oxide, which is quite common. Much more difficult is separating out the U235 from the other isotopes. Tons of yellowcake is fairly unthreatening, except anyone attempting to buy that much sort of implicitly has some purpose in mind for it, and uranium's fairly useless for anything else. Although it was once used to glaze pottery. No more, it goes without saying.

[Mantis]

Tim, you are hilarious. You go after me for claiming you aren't smart enough to understand Kerry's positions (which, of course, I never said. I just get annoyed when people can't talk about anything substantive, and instead insist on focusing on one word and pounding it into the ground. The left does this as well, and it annoys me then too), then you proceed to do exactly what I was complaining about (Ahhh! Global Test!! That's his foreign policy!! Ah!!! He thinks terrorism is a nuisance!!!). I didn't say it and I don't think it, but if you act simplisticly, people will think you're simple.
And after whining that I claim to have a superior intellect (I don't claim that) and that I say you are too stupid to understand (I don't, however you clearly need to work on your deconstruction), you then proceed to call people pussies and pathetic losers. So we see where you're coming from.

Cecil, I certainly think its reasonable to ask a candidates position and to look through public statements he/she has made. However when you cherry pick certain words, take them out of context, and then claim they are the candidate's entire platform that's just simplistic and wrong. I could do the same with Bush, but I won't. And if you wanted to understand Kerry's positions, it would not be hard, but that is just not in your interests, is it?

[Cecil Turner]

"However when you cherry pick certain words, take them out of context, and then claim they are the candidate's entire platform that's just simplistic and wrong."

What context? "I would have voted for the authority"? (He's got Edwards saying it now, too.) The Senator will not give a straight answer on Iraq, and by extension, when he'd use military force. He came up with "global test" all by himself (and amplified it with "prove to the world you did it for legitimate reasons . . .") I'm not sure what he meant, but I'm pretty sure I don't agree with it.

Comparing terrorism to prostitution, and even saying the word "nuisance" in that context, is idiotic. We're in the middle of a war here, and he doesn't appear to take it seriously. That's a major failing in a prospective CinC--especially one with a history, which he's reinforcing.

[Paul Zrimsek]

If zeroing in on specific words is so bad, where do you get off saying things like "Every time I hear someone say global test or nuisance I immediately know I'm dealing with someone who probably while reading Shakespeare or Moby Dick in school read one page of the cliffs notes...."? Formidable though Kerry's gift for self-contradiction is, he usually manages to avoid doing it in successive sentences.

[Mantis]

So Cecil, you're not taking things out of context because there is no context? Or that you should put one quote in the context of something said on another day about a different subject? I think he has given a straight answer on Iraq. And as far as global test, you can tell he said that as a kind of aside, just part of his larger point that we need to consider how our military actions are going to affect the world (i.e. diplomacy, alliances, increase/decrease of terrorism). Thinking about consequences on a global scale is the "global test". If you listen to what he said seconds before that you would see it. And the nuisance, again, part of his larger point that he wants to get us to a place where terrorism is not the focal part of our lives. That means decreasing terrorism. What's wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with it, but there are people who wish to just look at one word as if it meant everything. He said the word nuisance so he doesn't take the "war on terrorism" (how do you fight a concept?) seriously. Come on, this is very simplistic thinking.

[Mantis]

It's a different idea, Paul. It's the constant din of repetition with no substance that makes me realize I'm dealing with someone who clearly isn't interested in the bigger picture.

[Mantis]

Plus, Paul, we can actually have a discussion here. I'm not taking one word you say and then running to another blog and claiming that one word explains your entire viewpoint. There is a difference.

[Paul Zrimsek]

Of course, Mantis. When it's your noble self that's rushing to be dismissive... well, that's got to be different, hasn't it?

It is all right. I don't think I'll have a bigger laugh between now and Nov. 2 than I've gotten from this notion that we the electorate have a duty to invent waffling bafflegab on Kerry's behalf whenever he fails to provide enough of it on his own.

[Mantis]

I claim no nobility Paul, and I don't necessarily think I'm right. I just happend to like a discussion about substantive things, and in fact am quite capable of changing my mind. It just seems to me that this administration, and some of it's supporters, seem to think that the world is a static place and we should never change our thinking about anything. I happen to think the world is complicated and ever-changing, and we should adjust our viewpoint accordingly.

[fantasticstapler]

Yeah, Murders it for those already wholeheartedly endorsing the current president.
Guiliani took a quote and totally misconstrued it.
If thats what constitues a 'win' for the Bush camp, then so be it.
Seems rather silly to me.

[SaveFarris]

"I think he has given a straight answer on Iraq."

Then perhaps you can share it with us. I can only follow him right up to the point where he says inspections should have been given more time (Clearly, 12 years is insufficient!) After that, Kerry just dissolves into:
*"Saddam was a threat"
*"Iraq was not a threat"
*"There were no weapons"
*"Bush didn't guard the weapons"
*"Iraq is a diversion"
*"Soliders in Iraq died fighting the war on terror"
*"As CinC, I would not take any options off the table"
*"... except nuclear bunker busters"
*"We went in unilateraly without our allies like in 1991"
*"... except I didn't vote for that either"
*"... but I did support Bosnia, which was even more unilateral and less of a threat"

If you can weave a coherent policy out of all that, be my guest!

"And as far as global test, you can tell he said that as a kind of aside, just part of his larger point that we need to consider how our military actions are going to affect the world..."

And that's where the candidate's platforms diverge. Bush bases his stragegy on how our military actions are going to affect *THE USA*. By saying "Well Jacques, you certainly have a right to an opinion about how we handle our foreign policy", Kerry is handing over veto power, despite his (and your) protestations to the contrary.

"And the nuisance, again, part of his larger point that he wants to get us to a place where terrorism is not the focal part of our lives. That means decreasing terrorism."

As a certain presidential candidate would say: "Not Necessarily." By using the phrase "go back to the times", Kerry is explicitly saying we should revert to a 90's-style mentality where terrorism exists but we just ignore it. And above all else, don't do anything that would piss off terrorists and make them want to hit you (harder than they already are, natch.) Bush's policy certainly means to decrease terrorism, but in an explicitly different way, by killing bad guys.

[Tim]

Actually, this is quite simple. It could hardly be simpler. This election is, for better or worse, a referendum on fighting the war against terror. It is abundantly clear that at their core, one candidate and his voters’ favor fighting the war; the other, sadly, does not.

One candidate speaks clearly, without ambiguity, about fighting the war, aggressively. We, our allies, the non-aligned, the bribed and the appeasers as well as our enemies understand, unequivocally, what he and we stand for, and what we'll do to win.

The other candidate speaks in garbled code, disparaging and disrespecting our allies, pandering to those who aren't with us, and suggesting a deal for our enemies (or how else do you characterize Kerry’s promised bribe for No. Korea and Iran?). Given his record since returning from Vietnam, our enemies and we both understand who he is and what he stands for. It too could hardly be clearer. The difference is Americans will not elect this candidate while the terrorists hope he wins.

You surely disagree. And, to be sure, the appeaser candidate tries to hide his position behind the curtains of "nuance" and "complexity," and tough talk and empty promises about "killing terrorists" albeit only after they attack us; yet we aren't so blind to see anything but a man who will seek any excuse, any rational and any opportunity to not fight this war.

For when it is all said and done, all of the appeaser's talk of "meeting a global test," and seeing "nuance" and "complexity" and building a "grand alliance" and using the tools of "law enforcement" and "special forces" and reducing the threat to a "nuisance" are nothing but an excuse to ratchet down the war; to ease up on our enemies; to find reasons to not to kill terrorists or change regimes of nations sponsoring terror or to promote hope through democracy in the middle east. The opportunity cost of those policies should be exceedingly clear to all but the most deluded Kerry supporters. That, or they simply do not believe America has the right to wage this war.

And should America and the civilized world be unfortunate enough to see John Kerry elected, America will retreat; America will not lead; the "grand alliance" will be nothing but a cheap charade of morally craven appeasers bent on securing us by accommodating Islamofascist mass murderers and excusing savage barbarity, all in the name maintaining an alliance with the impotent and bribed nations of old Europe and the UN.

Most Americans will come to realize this, that John Kerry and his voters hate Bush more than they do the terrorists, which is ultimately why John Kerry will lose. No matter how much you wish they do so, swing and other marginal voters are not going to reward America's enemies by electing John Kerry.

[mantis]

Save Ferris

Well, first of all it seems simple-minded to me to suggest that no one's viewpoint should change in response to new evidence and the passage of time and events. We know Bush wanted to invade Iraq since before he was elected, and he's stood by that. Great. I happen to think changing your mind is a good thing. I do it all the time. Now, to your comments.

*"Saddam was a threat" - No problem there, he was a threat because he wished to become, and indeed pretended to be, a dangerous man and a high-status figure in the Arab world (manifest in his desire for WMD).
*"Iraq was not a threat" - We of course know now--due to the fact that he had no weapons systems in place, only a distant desire to restart them someday if he could get sanctions lifted, which wasn't too likely considering the pressure from the US and UN he was recieving, to Bush's credit and which Kerry supported--that Iraq was not a threat to us, something we would have established had the inspectors been able to finish their job (and 12 years was enough was going fine, since he had no weapons. I would have been happy to let him sit under sanctions and not have weapons for 12 more. But that's just me).
*"There were no weapons" - See Duelfer report.
*"Bush didn't guard the weapons" - There were materials, yes, to make weapons, though no systems were in place. Bush didn't guard those materials.
*"Iraq is a diversion" - Going to war in Iraq without exhausting other means, which as we see from the Duelfer report were working, was a diversion from the war on terror, though it no longer is because Bush made Iraq into a theater in the war on terror (or at least a much bigger one than was warranted.)
*"Soliders in Iraq died fighting the war on terror" - See above.
*"As CinC, I would not take any options off the table"
*"... except nuclear bunker busters" - Ok, so he would take one option off the table, and that option is not a nuclear strike, but those specific nukes, because he believes we shouldn't be developing more nukes. I agree with this, and others do not. I think there are arguments for both sides.
*"We went in unilateraly without our allies like in 1991" - Where was this quote? I know Kerry has exaggerated in saying we went unilaterally, but I don't think he said we went unilaterally in '91
*"... except I didn't vote for that either" - Nope.
*"... but I did support Bosnia, which was even more unilateral and less of a threat" - Well I don't know where this quote comes from, but it's odd considering Bosnia was not unilateral, and was a completely different story.

The coherent policy I read from this is one that doesn't believe you should decide on war, then entertain other options for a short time in order to win a few allies, then get going on the war, regardless of how necessary it is. I see a policy that doesn't think we should commit massive resources to one country when we have to worry about Terrorists in 60 countries, not to mention nuclear states that are not friends to the US. I see a policy that can actually adapt to a changing situation and has a desire to acquire intelligence and actually learn from it.

And, yes I agree that the president needs to think of the *THE USA*, but I happen to believe that the security and continued prosperity of our country DEPENDS upon the state of the world and our place in it. I don't live in a closed little world where only the US matters and the rest of the world can fuck off, and neither do you. Remember those buildings falling down? The guys who did that weren't from around here.

And Kerry has explicitly stated that he believes the war on terror needs to be fought differently than it was before 9-11, he just doesn't think the Iraq debacle was the way to do that (he did, as do I, support the Afghanistan war, so he is obviously not against war when necessary). When he says he wants to "go back to the times" he clearly does not mean militarily but in the minds of the American people, so we are not all obsessed with terrorism (this of course, would be a result of reducing terrorism. Read the whole article).

[Cecil Turner]

"So Cecil, you're not taking things out of context because there is no context?"

Again, what context? He gave "global test" as a determinant for a go-to-war decision. There's no larger point there. Your "we need to consider how our military actions are going to affect the world" is the same thing. Are American national defense decisions based on how they'll be perceived by allies (and enemies)? If so, why?

"I think he has given a straight answer on Iraq."

Great. How about restating it for those of us who didn't get it? If you believe Iraq was no threat, obviously going to war was the wrong idea (which begs the question of why he would vote for it). If you believe it was a threat, why should the opinion of allies be a determining factor?

[Cecil Turner]

"The coherent policy I read from this is one that doesn't believe . . . I see a policy that doesn't think . . . I see a policy that can actually adapt . . ."

There's nothing coherent about a negative policy. I don't want to hear about what the candidate won't do. I want to know what he's going to do. (And "adapt" is also not an answer.)

[Mantis]

Cecil,
You're right, a negative policy is not coherent. And yes, Kerry's policy in the war on terrorism is not too different in substance than Bush's. The closing off of financial networks, working with intelligence agencies in other countries, using special forces and cooperating with other countries to destory terrorist networks and cells, etc. The fundamental difference, as I'm sure you know, is that Bush believes that other nations are the primary targets in the war on terrorism, and Kerry does not. Now you may say that Bush has a much stronger war on terrorism because he is willing to use massive military force to a) show the terrorists we mean business, and b) bring democracy to the Arab world. I would respond in saying that I don't think terrorists are going to be scared by our invading Iraq (and there are an awful lot of them rushing to Iraq to fight us, so...), and I don't think installing democracy in Arabia is going to work (if I'm wrong, it will be happily so).
But I think Kerry's policy on terrorism is pretty clear, and you can read about. The difference would be that Kerry would be what you would probably call more cautious, but I consider more realistic.

[Cecil Turner]

"Now you may say that Bush has a much stronger war on terrorism because he is willing to use massive military force to a) show the terrorists we mean business, and b) bring democracy to the Arab world."

Sorry, won't wash. This is a very simple question about whether or not a nation represents a threat (worth going to war over)--the case in point is Iraq. The Administration maintains it was a threat, Kerry's on record both ways. Kerry voted for the Joint Resolution to use force, but now says it was the "wrong war . . ." This is not a peripheral issue, and it shouldn't be that hard to answer in hindsight.

Bush says he'd do it again. Kerry says he'd "vote for the authority." What I think he means is "I changed my mind." (Which would be vastly preferable to the current dying fish imitation.)

[SaveFarris]

"it seems simple-minded to me to suggest that no one's viewpoint should change in response to new evidence and the passage of time and events."

The "Saddam was a threat" and "Iraq was not a threat" lines were both spoken by your candidate of choice during Friday night's debate. What new evidence and/or events occured during those 90 minutes to so radically change your candidate's opinion?

"There were materials, yes, to make weapons"

Thanks for admitting this. Of course, that means UNSCR 1441 is in play and the US/UK/Australia/etc. actions were 100% justified.

"Going to war in Iraq without exhausting other means ... was a diversion from the war on terror, though it no longer is because Bush made Iraq into a theater in the war on terror"

Two points:
1. If it was a diversion, then why does Kerry continue to insist that the 1000+ soliders who died in Iraq "died fighting the war on terror"? Isn't it more appropriate, though certainly less politically viable, to say "The 1000+ soldiers died fighting for a mistake".
2. To say that Iraq is only a terror theater NOW requires some pretty illogical leaps: that terrorists would focus all of their attacks on the most heavily armed, highly-trained people on the planet instead of using the surprise sneak-attack on unsuspecting target method that has been the highlight of alQaida's modus operandi up to this point. Plus, I don't think you're giving enough weight to the "Better there than here" argument.

"I know Kerry has exaggerated in saying we went unilaterally, but I don't think he said we went unilaterally in '91"

In his quest to denigrate today's coalition, he consistently points to 1991 as "the right way to go about it." Which, at the time, he STILL voted against. Leaving us asking the very relevant question, when would John Kerry find it appropriate to use force?

"The coherent policy I read from this is one that doesn't believe you should decide on war, then entertain other options for a short time in order to win a few allies, then get going on the war, regardless of how necessary it is."

Check. So you're saying you should put limits and restraints on how you fight wars of necessity. Let me know how well that polls.

"but I happen to believe that the security and continued prosperity of our country DEPENDS upon the state of the world and our place in it."

Check. Our national security must be dependant on the rest of the world. Let me know how THAT polls.

"he just doesn't think the Iraq debacle was the way to do that"

The Iraq "debacle" led to the toppling of a dictatorship, a sworn enemy of the country in jail, and a fledgling democracy in a region that has never experienced it before now. Methinks you need to re-calibrate your definition of "debacle".

"When he says he wants to "go back to the times" he clearly does not mean militarily but in the minds of the American people, so we are not all obsessed with terrorism (this of course, would be a result of reducing terrorism."

But once again, *HOW* do you reduce terrorism non-militarily? That way simply doesn't exist, and it's naive and dangerous to think so.

[The Kid]

Kerry is indecisive. He will listen to his key advisors, agonize over a decision, feel pressured to make a decision, and then make almost the worst one. That’s how he ended up with Edwards.

He’s incoherent – says mutually conflicting things within a span of ninety minutes – because he has only an image in his mind of what he is. He’s unable to translate that into a fuller concept or concrete plan because he runs into inconsistencies, both internally, among competing elements, and externally, when he sees others greet some snippet with less than full enthusiasm. He hasn’t a theory of government or governing, but a picture of him as president.

When a guy like that is the boss, the minions get confused and dispirited. Someone like that is difficult to deal with over the long haul because he doesn’t seem to recall the deal you thought you both left with at the last meeting.

A vote for him is a vote for his image at some instant, an image and instant that may not recur.

[Robert Crawford]

For people worried about the IAEA-tagged material "disappearing" from Iraq -- it's quite possible it's all going to secure warehouses in Tennessee, much like Libya's:

http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040316-09.html

While it would be nice to have an official statement to that effect, you must admit secrecy isn't necessarily a bad thing. For one, it keeps the jihadis guessing, and for another it avoids inflaming any bizzaro-nationalism among the Iraqis.

Since today's reports are that ENTIRE BUILDINGS are missing, that's the way I've been leaning.

[Tim]

Bai on Kerry:

"He would begin, if sworn into office, by going immediately to the United Nations to deliver a speech recasting American foreign policy. Whereas Bush has branded North Korea "evil" and refuses to negotiate head on with its authoritarian regime, Kerry would open bilateral talks over its burgeoning nuclear program. Similarly, he has says he would rally other nations behind sanctions against Iran if that country refuses to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Kerry envisions appointing a top-level envoy to restart the Middle East peace process, and he's intent on getting India and Pakistan to adopt key provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. . .

John Kerry sees himself as a king of ambassador-president, shuttling to world capitals and reintegrating America by force of personality, in the world community."

Great. We're at war, and the Dems have nominated a pussy who wants to talk to our enemies, who want to conform U.S. foreign policy to the norms of the genocidal kleptocrat dictators at the U.N. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your 2004 Democratic Party and its Nominee for President.

Pathetic losers.

[Mantis]

Ok back to it.

Cecil, I agree it is a simple question about whether a nation is a threat or not. It seems to me that Kerry believed they were a threat, but not necessarily one worth invading, but that the threat of force was necessary to get Saddam to let inspectors in and ascertain that. Thus, by not completing that and instead insisting upon invading, this is the wrong war as evidenced by the lack of WMD in Iraq, and therefore the lack of threat Saddam had posed while under sanctions. I don't see the logical problem with saying we need to deal with this guy, because he's a threat, so threaten him with force so he'll let in inspectors and we cand find out if he's been able to get anything going the past few years. But we didn't have time for that, because, why?
See, the decision to go to war was based on existence of an imminent threat, and if we had found out before invading that the threat was not imminent, but just the hopeful wishing of an egomaniac who wanted to remain dangerous looking to Iran, then maybe we could have not invaded and gotten into this mess. Furthermore, when Kerry says he'd "vote for the authority", how is that changing his mind? He voted to give the authority to the president to use force, and says he would again. The difference is he thinks it was used hastily and unnecessarily, and could have better been used as pressure on Saddam, as it had been used at first, and therefore avoiding the war, which yes, by this reasoning, could be called "wrong".

Now SF, I don't even know if it is worth responding. You continue to use that familiar tactic and pluck segments of what I wrote out, changing the meaning and then arguing against that.
First, I took your word for it on some of those quotes and tried to explain them in what I understand as Kerry's stance. I should not have take your word. Nowhere in the second debate (or the first) does Kerry say "Iraq was not a threat", so there goes that argument.
Second, I'm not saying that the war wasn't justified under the resolution (though Annan says it wasn't). I'm not sure about that. In any case, I never argued it was illegal, I argued it was a bad idea.
Third, as I said, it was a diversion, then became, due to invasion, a focal point for war on terrorism (because there's so much terrorism in Iraq now. Yay, freedom!) It follows that those US soldiers who die there died fighting the war on terror. And besides, he's said that the Iraq was a diversion from the more pressing concerns in the war on terror, not that it is not a component of that war.
Fourth, I don't think the terrorists fighting us in Iraq left their cells in New York or Florida to do it. Yes, better here than there, but why did we have to give them a big target in the middle of a hostile region? The people fighting us there, I imagine, are largely there because they are pissed about us being there, not because they had plans to attack us all along and this was just more convenient.
Fifth, another misquote, this time about going unilaterally in '91. Umm, first members of the current coalition are dropping out at a pretty rapid rate, I think some might agree with Kerry this was the wrong war, and I don't think they give a shit that he says so. I haven't forgotten Poland. And second, maybe Kerry thinks it was the right way to go about a war, in which you exhaust the other possibilities, get as many allies involved as possible, and for god's sake, don't take Baghdad! And I think he would use force when it was necessary for the security of the country and was the last option.
Sixth, no, it's pretty obvious I didn't say you should put limits on wars of necessity, I said "regardless of how necessary it is", Iraq being not a war of necessity. Try to argue against the things I actually write, and not what you think I believe.
Seventh, Yes, our national security is dependent upon the rest of the world. That doesn't mean the decisions we make are dependent upon other leaders saying ok, (one of us, one of us), it means that the US exists on a planet full of other people; if our security didn't depend on what's going on elsewhere, we would only ever have to deal with domestic problems. This is clearly not the case.
And by the way, I don't care how things poll, whether they be things I say, or distortions you concoct. I am not a politician, nor do I work for one, nor am I a pollster. I am presenting my opinions, which are based upon what I know, which is in my own estimation not a whole lot in the greater scheme of things. I am therefore interested in discussion and not in crafting a campaign platform.
Eighth, despite your apparent rosy perception of the situation in Iraq, I do happen to think it is a debacle, and feel no need to revise my definition (See the news for more). And by the way I sincerely hope that things go well in Iraq, I'm just not optimistic about it. I would rather things get a whole lot better in Iraq in the next few weeks and thereby getting Bush elected than for things to go terribly and get Kerry elected.
Ninth, I don't think he means you can reduce terrorism without the military, I think he means that the commitment we made in Iraq was ill-advised in the greater war on terrorism.
And lastly, SF, notice how I actually responded to all of the things you said, instead of taking a few small items out of context and either isolating or distorting them? You may think I'm wrong about, well everything, and I don't begrudge you that, but I think people can actually discuss these issues without resorting these kinds of tactics that we see everyday in the news from both parties. Or should democracy simply be about how to twist each others words around to then mock each other? Anyway, thanks to those who are interested in discussing matters in a reasonable fashion. Sorry for the length of this post.

[Cecil Turner]

"I don't see the logical problem with saying we need to deal with this guy, because he's a threat, so threaten him with force so he'll let in inspectors and we cand find out if he's been able to get anything going the past few years."

Is that anything like "I voted for the authority" [to go to war] but I really didn't mean it?

This is a serious subject. It deserves serious treatment.

[The Kid]

Sanctions were starting to fail. We now know that Saddam’s bribery played a part, but all Bush and crew may have known at the time was that we had a narrow window in which to get a UNSC resolution, push Saddam into doing nothing or something stupid , then knock him out.

Had Bush waited, he knew that the sanctions would have been gone within a year. France and Russia were softening at the time (thanks to bribery and their desire to counter the US), and the rest of the UNSC would have gone along. We and the Brits would have pulled our forces out of no-fly zone enforcement and possibly removed our troops from Saudi Arabia. Saddam would have had a grand time going after the Kurds, restarting WMD programs, and offering a safe haven to those who employ terror.

And guess what? He’d have gotten widespread support throughout the Arab world because they love the strong man, especially one who beat UN supervision. He would have sought revenge. Now where would he have sought it? He’d have cut a deal to keep the Iranians at bay, stiffened Assad’s spine in Syria, moved covertly against Jordan and Saudi Arabia, increased funding for Palestinian suicide bombers, and hatched plans to support and conduct attacks in the US.

Without forces in the area, we’d be unable to move against him – we’d be on the defensive again. The drawn-out buildup we’d accomplished in Kuwait would be reversed, and Saddam would likely pressure the Kuwaitis to keep the US presence to a bare minimum.

Saddam and Osama shared the same objective – reestablishing the Caliphate – although they probably did disagree on who would be in charge. With the US shown to be weak, Saddam and the radical Islamicists could move out in earnest. It would not have a matter of “if,” but of “when.”

You can (and probably should) quibble about everything that I’ve written above. My point is that Kerry and crew don’t understand this – they are ignorant of the ways of the world. They don’t even understand what Don Rumsfeld meant on 11/27/01 when he said:

Those of us from Chicago recall Al Capone's remark that “You get more with a kind word and a gun than you do with a kind word alone."

Bush can’t spill the beans, let everybody know that the reason we’re developing bunker-busters is so that we don’t have to use them. Our diplomacy – kind words – can be more assertive, perhaps goal-oriented is better, if we’ve got a Roscoe in our back pocket when we’re negotiating with folks who have hardened their silos, sites, and laboratories.

But Kedwards’ crew can’t have this, it puts us on the same plane as the thugs! Right, morally were the same as the folks who want to kill us and ours, that’s what they’re saying. We just want to sell to the Middle East insurance, mutual funds, cars, movies, and music, and buy their oil, not hurt them. If they try to hurt us, we’ll talk, and kill them if they leave us no choice. But that’s morally equivalent to Kedwards. And that’s why Bush is the only worthy candidate.

[Tim]

Sheesh, you Kerry boys are too funny. Trying to argue Kerry's position is the better way to go in the war on terror is just too ironic. The only reason this guy voted for authorization in the first place is because he wanted to be president. He opposed the first war, which surpassed his current conditions for the "global test;" he ran against Reagan's foreign policies against the communists in Central America (Daniel Ortega didn’t have a better friend in the U.S. Senate); he ran as a nuke freeze nut in 1986; in short, he's been unalterably opposed to U.S. foreign policy since returning from Vietnam. He didn't have any courage to assist Filipina poll workers complaining of election fraud when sent to the Philippines as an election observer – he just stood there, mute.

His whole ideology is anti-freedom, anti-U.S. national security, and now you argue he'll do a better job of defending the U.S. in the war on terror. Yeah, and a pimp should keep night watch at an all girls boarding school.

Pathetic losers. Slow to learn. Wrong then and wrong now.

[SaveFarris]

Mantis you might want to re-read the transcript before you get all snooty.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html

KERRY: ... Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat.

KERRY: And what's interesting is, it's [Iran] a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat.

Facts are a bitch, aren't they?

Unless Kerry has substantial proof that Saddam was actually in Venezuela at the time of the war, it looks pretty grim for Team Kerry.

Tell me again that magical tale about Kerry's "coherent" policy...

[Ernest Brown]

SaveFarris,

Kerry's filthy attempt at backstabbing a loyal ally in PM Howard gives the lie to his claim to be a superior diplomat. Based on his past history of action, he's an America-hating ideologue.

Ideologically speaking, he loves the terrorists and thinks that they're misguided nationalists (see Ortega and Castro) who just need a hug and a cookie. The tough talk is only for election purposes.

[Truesilver]

I know I'm a little late in replying, but I like to think things over before I speak. So here we go, I've thought about it, and now I'm gonna talk. Feel free to quibble if you wish afterwards.

I think, for my part, given the view of a self-proclaimed rationalist and a student of international politics, that when we look abroad at the events that followed the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 and compare that to more recent developments as Kerry goes up in the polls here in the US, we will see a vast difference in the perceptions of the same Terrorists that we are so bent on destroying.
In March and early April of 2003, we invaded Iraq, and in the nearly immediate aftermath of that invasion, the rogue states of Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea came back to the bargaining tables. They suddenly realized that the Bush administration wouldn't just sit there and do nothing. Or, if they did do something, it wouldn't be much more than what Clinton did: simply lobbing a few dozen cruise missiles at a couple of relatively isolated targets. They all saw that the Bush Administration would pursue diplomacy only so far.
The Diplomatic channels had, quite frankly, broken down. France and Russia had openly stated that they would veto any proposal in the UNSC to use force against Iraq. It doesn't even matter what their motivations were. They just weren't interested in putting backbone in the resolutions they'd been making for 12 years. So the Diplomacy of Multilateralism had broken down. But Bush went in anyway, because he believed a threat was there.
But the results are greater than that. Like I said, rogue states came to the bargaining table after the invasion. It was a wonderful example of a [i]Deterrent use of Force[/i]. What that means, is that by using the force of the US military against Saddam Hussein, an established autocrat who was supposed to have WMD, it implied a like threat to other nations who were suspected of the same things. By invading Iraq, Bush made it so that we wouldn't have to go to war against Syria, Iran, or North Korea, because they knew that we wouldn't be deterred by their possession of WMD.

No such luck with Kerry. If you've been paying attention, N. Korea and its companion rogue states are backing away again and making their demands more vocally. They see Kerry as much, much weaker on the War on Terror and National Security in general.

Terrorists aren't all fanatical and irrational. Many are at least as smart as we think ourselves to be. They are perceptive folk, and they aren't interested in political sleight of hand like we are. They have no vested interest in seeing Kerry as weak.
Think tactically a moment, like they would. It is in their best interests to think of Kerry as strong on National Security. It is in their interests to think of him as strongly as his speeches make him seem.

But they don't think he's strong. They've all pulled back, they've all become more intractable, waiting for November 3 to see who wins out. They're biding their time, hoping the weaker candidate wins. And if Kerry wins, the [i]Deterrent[/i] threat will vanish. Kerry is an unknown. But the terrorists who know Bush is stronger and won't hesitate to use force to [i]Compel[/i] compliance with UN resolutions. They don't think Kerry will do that. And as a result, neither do I.

Look at the bigger picture of the consequences. I see Kerry as being an appeaser. Like Chamberlain with Hitler. He may be right, quite frankly. But I for one am not willing to risk it.