PDA

View Full Version : Kerry Made a Bush League Error on Iraq



Tommy Duncan
08-30-2004, 05:06 PM
This sounds vaguely familiar. Kerry F'ed up.


www.thenation.com/doc.mht...scheer0817 (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040830&s=scheer0817)

Kerry Made a Bush League Error on Iraq

Robert Scheer
The Nation

It was a sucker pitch, and John Kerry fell for it like a rookie. I'm talking about President Bush's latest cheap gambit--turning his own unjustifiable and costly invasion of Iraq into his opponent's problem. Bush mocked Kerry's Iraq position for its "nuance"--a word that manages to sound both French and less than fully masculine.

At Bush's prompting, reporters asked Kerry if he, knowing what we all know now about Iraq's lack of weapons of mass destruction, would still have voted, as he did in October 2002, to authorize the President to use force against Iraq. Instead of smacking that hanging curveball out of the park by denouncing the Bush Administration for deceiving Congress and the nation into a war, Kerry inexplicably said yes.

Of course Kerry went on to make an important critique of Bush's conduct of the war, but he got slammed by the Bush team as well as the media for losing in the "gotcha" derby.

The irony is almost too much to bear. After all, for two years Bush has flip-flopped relentlessly on just exactly why it was a good idea to occupy a troubled Muslim country that posed no military threat to the United States. Now Bush is getting political mileage out of exploiting Kerry's stubborn refusal to admit he was had by All the President's Con Men.

The fact is, Kerry has been consistently saying the same thing for two years: Based on the Administration's claim that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda and possessed WMD, the President needed the stick of the use-of-force authorization to compel Iraq to comply with UN resolutions.

That explains the "yes" vote, but unfortunately, then and now, it is the wrong answer to the wrong question. Kerry should have known by the fall of 2002 that Bush was hellbent on invading Iraq and that to do so would severely undermine the war on terror. Everything emanating from the White House at that point made it clear that the President was highly unlikely to be satisfied by simply securing a new UN inspections regime.

At a minimum, Congress had a responsibility to hold hearings to examine intelligence on Iraq, which even then was causing enormous tension between intelligence analysts and spinners in the White House and Pentagon. After all, the Constitution is as clear as the framers could be on the primacy of Congress in declaring war. Kerry and the rest of the Congress should have considered the facts, even if the White House refused to do so.

This was doubly true after the UN inspectors were allowed back into the country and given unprecedented access. And here is where Bush and Kerry's positions on Iraq diverge.

"I thought we ought to reach out to other countries, we ought to build an international coalition, we ought to exhaust the remedies available to us," Kerry pointed out last week.

Bush uses the word "nuance," but the difference is huge because the most bizarre aspect of Bush's march to war and occupation was his argument that we couldn't wait a few weeks for UN inspectors to finish their search for those nonexistent doomsday weapons. Didn't we owe it to the teenagers we were about to send into battle in a foreign land to "exhaust the remedies available to us"?

Some justify Kerry's refusal to recant on that "yes" vote--a vote he must now know was unwise--on the grounds that if he speaks the truth he will lose swing voters who value a strong America. But this is malarkey: Half the country now thinks invading Iraq was a bad idea, and nobody can be comfortable with the way it's turned out. The American people want to know how we got into this mess, how we can get out and how we will avoid making such stupid mistakes in the future.

To win the debates and the election, Kerry needs to establish himself as the clear alternative to a President who has lied us into a quagmire. His forthright speech at the Democratic convention shows he is capable of this: "Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: 'We tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent.' "

Kerry's got it right then. But it won't matter if he continues to whiff on Bush's curveballs.

Opinionater
08-30-2004, 05:15 PM
IMO, Kerry needs to remain focused and hope that Dubya drops the ball.

Yonivore
08-30-2004, 05:31 PM
"...focused..."
Okay, that's funny.

JohnnyMarzetti
08-30-2004, 05:35 PM
Dubya is so vulnerable I can't believe people can't see through his bull...

http://www.evilgopbastards.com/bushpointsANIMATION.gif

Yonivore
08-30-2004, 05:36 PM
Maybe we're not wearing your "bull-colored" glasses.

Tommy Duncan
08-30-2004, 05:43 PM
Vulnerable? He has a job approval rating in the 50s, interest rates are low, unemployment is low, and he is seen as being the preferred candidate on dealing with terrorism and general presidential leadership (two of the top, if not the top issues in this campaign) than his opponent by a significant margin.

Also, he can actually lose at least one of the states he won in the 2000 election and still win since a reapportionment of the electoral vote increased the aggregate electoral votes of the 2000 Bush states by 7.

To date his opponent has failed to render an indictment of his administration nor has his opponent been able to put him consistently on the defensive. In fact the major political news is that 'Bush does not believe that Kerry lied' and that 'Bush thinks Kerry's service was much more heroic than his'.

I want some of what you are smoking if you think that Bush is a vulnerable incumbent. Vulnerable incumbents look like Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1992. Sitting presidents with low job approval ratings (in the 30s), high interest rates, high unemployment, and don't have the enthusiastic support of their party's base.

This is looking more and more like 1996 every day.

Bandit2981
08-30-2004, 05:44 PM
Bush said earlier today that the war on terror was impossible to win...is that a big league error?

Tommy Duncan
08-30-2004, 05:51 PM
Kerry needs to hit him on that then. Kerry should say that he can't hang low during the GOP convention with so much at stake and then start pounding at Bush daily. He has to be bold and persistent. If he does that and stops responding to the Swift Vets at every turn then he might have some hope.

Yonivore
08-30-2004, 06:09 PM
Well, that would be fine except, that's not what the President said.


President George W. Bush when asked if the war on terror can be won:

"I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the - those who use terror as a tool are - less acceptable in parts of the world."
You'll notice the absence of the word "impossible," and the inference that terrorists can eventually be contained.

Go ahead Kerry, blast away.

Bandit2981
08-30-2004, 06:11 PM
thats quite some spin there, Yoni...you should get a job with Rush!

Joe Chalupa
08-30-2004, 06:14 PM
Okay, I hate to admit it but Kerry's campaign is royally screwing his chances of victory.
That's not to say that Kerry himself has much of the blame for his drop in the polls.
The swift boat BS should have been sunk from day one.
You respond strongly and move on. His lack of closure has hurt him.
Bush IS vulnerable but Kerry's campaign is not getting the message across.
Job creation has not been all that great and neither is the economy.
Right now I'll give the edge for Bush and will be surprised if Kerry wins.
But if Kerry loses I will not hang my head low but continue to raise the conscience of America.

Go USA!!!!

SpursWoman
08-30-2004, 06:15 PM
How do you "spin" a direct quote?






Where's the link, Yonivore? :wink

Bandit2981
08-30-2004, 06:17 PM
ok, Bush says you cant win the war on terror...how does that NOT equate to it being impossible?

Tommy Duncan
08-30-2004, 06:25 PM
Job creation has not been all that great and neither is the economy.

It has been fine over the past year. Your assumption seems to be that the tech bubble of the 1990s was sustainable long term.

If you want the government to take steps to "create jobs" here in the US then other than cutting income taxes, boosting government spending, and having the Fed keep interest rates low you would want to see the government boost tariffs to protect certain industries here in the US. Of course by doing so you harm the consumer.

Otherwise, the government cannot do much else. We had business spending increase in the 1990s as technologies were introduced which significantly increased productivity here in the US and that fueled tremendous growth in the capital markets which in turned fueled more business expenditures. A lot of that expansion was due to decades worth of investment in R&D and indeed, some "irrational exuberance."

People need to be a little more honest or understanding about what the government can and cannot do. Otherwise we end up with disastrous policies. For example, Social Security and Medicare.

Tommy Duncan
08-30-2004, 06:29 PM
Perhaps Bush has provided Kerry with an opportunity to challenge Bush's strategy for dealing with terrorism. Kerry should come out right now opposed to an attack on Iran. He should accuse Bush of wanting to wage perpetual war. He can explain his vote for taking out Saddam since Hussein was in a weak position but Iran is a much different scenario and also that the US cannot be staging invasion of every Middle Eastern nation and win the war on terrorism.

Bush phrased that poorly. Clearly terrorism is not easy to root out, if at all, because all you need are a committed few to carry out future attacks.

MannyIsGod
08-30-2004, 06:31 PM
People need to be a little more honest or understanding about what the government can and cannot do. Otherwise we end up with disastrous policies. For example, Social Security and Medicare.

exactly, every damn politiican now has a solution to every one of your problems, i'm just waiting to see which of the cantidates will promise a cure for herpes.

Yonivore
08-30-2004, 06:37 PM
"ok, Bush says you cant win the war on terror...how does that NOT equate to it being impossible?"
It's called an opinion. That does not necessarily constitute a definitive, for-all-time, conclusion.

It used to be said that a blind one-legged man couldn't climb Mount Everest. Then some blind one-legged man came along and did it.

Saying that you believe something cannot be done is quite different than declaring it an impossibility.

And, once again, you've mischaracterized the quote. President Bush didn't say the war "can't be won." He said "I don't think you can win it."

He'd of been foolish to declare it either way.

Bandit2981
08-30-2004, 06:39 PM
it doesnt make sense to me that you think he would be the best candidate to fight terrorism when he himself believes the war cant be won

SpursWoman
08-30-2004, 06:42 PM
You have to do something besides sit on your thumbs and be a victim and live in fear.



exactly, every damn politiican now has a solution to every one of your problems, i'm just waiting to see which of the cantidates will promise a cure for herpes.


I was having almost the identical thought earlier... :lol :lol

Bandit2981
08-30-2004, 06:43 PM
You have to do something besides sit on your thumbs and be a victim and live in fear.
and thats what kerry would be doing, right? so, any policy towards terrorism that isnt Bush's policy equates to just sitting around and doing nothing...aha

Nbadan
08-30-2004, 06:43 PM
At Bush's prompting, reporters asked Kerry if he, knowing what we all know now about Iraq's lack of weapons of mass destruction, would still have voted, as he did in October 2002, to authorize the President to use force against Iraq. Instead of smacking that hanging curveball out of the park by denouncing the Bush Administration for deceiving Congress and the nation into a war, Kerry inexplicably said yes.

Of course Kerry went on to make an important critique of Bush's conduct of the war, but he got slammed by the Bush team as well as the media for losing in the "gotcha" derby.

What Kerry really agreed to was W.'s assertion that the President should have the power to declare war, and not that he would have invaded Iraq under the same circumstances. I don't agree with this Kerry view. I think only congress should have the power to declare war

MannyIsGod
08-30-2004, 06:44 PM
You have to do something besides sit on your thumbs and be a victim and live in fear.


i kindly suggest reading bout how the governments in indonesia, iran, and afghanistan came to power to see just how much our country has been sitting on its thumbs the past 50 years.

once your done there, feel to read up on guatemala and korea .

SpursWoman
08-30-2004, 06:54 PM
and thats what kerry would be doing, right? so, any policy towards terrorism that isnt Bush's policy equates to just sitting around and doing nothing...aha



That wasn't really meant as a partisan statement, just how I feel about the *whole thing*


And Manny: No, thanks. Jackie Collins is far more entertaining, IMO.

MannyIsGod
08-30-2004, 07:01 PM
and the cycle of uninformed unilateralism and it's consequences will continue.

SpursWoman
08-30-2004, 07:36 PM
Yes, I can see how I prefer to spend my very limited free time would have that type of consequence.



Sorry, I forgot the " :) " , btw.

Aggie Hoopsfan
08-30-2004, 07:47 PM
I agree with Bush on terrorism.

It's [terrorism by radical Islamic factions] been going on since the beginning of the modern world, it's not going to end any time soon, definitely not in our lifetime.

If you're capable of seeing the big picture you'd realize that AQ and Co. don't feel what you hear on the TV networks about this shortsighted goal of attacking America and its interests - they feel like they're picking up where the Crusades ended.

America is just the biggest "threat" counter to their goal, hence we are at the top of the list. Topple America's economy and it will fall like the great Roman/Greek empires did, and that's Osama's goal (in conjunction with those allied with him).

T Park Num 9
08-31-2004, 12:27 AM
Great post Aggie.

Great great great post.

IcemanCometh
08-31-2004, 12:38 AM
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/02/25/mcveigh.jpg

Spurminator
08-31-2004, 12:49 AM
http://www.crimelibrary.com/graphics/photos/terrorists_spies/terrorists/kaczynski/1a.jpg