Yonivore
10-06-2004, 12:15 PM
John Kerry made some strong and sensible statements during the debate last Thursday but, did you notice what the next word usually was? Here are some Kerry quotes:
"I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But . . ."
"I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But . . ."
"We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But . . ."
"I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But . . ."
"I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do. But . . ."
"What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But . . ."
"I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But . . ."
"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But . . ."
"I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But . . ."
Maybe Kerry misunderstood when someone told him he needed to have the "qualifications" to be president. But it'd inspire a lot more confidence if he had followed any of these remarks with a "therefore" clause instead of a "but" one.
Victor Davis Hanson (http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200410010715.asp) makes a related point:
"There is a logic to Senator Kerry's flip-flopping that transcends his political opportunism: He is simply a captive of the pulse of the battlefield, without any steady vision or historical sense that might put the carnage of the day into some larger tactical, strategic, or political framework. As was true over a decade ago during Gulf War I, he contradicts himself when good news from the front makes his prior antiwar stance look either timid or foolhardy. But when the casualty rate rises or CNN is particularly vivid in airing the latest beheading or car bomb he returns to his shrill pessimism and denounces the war."
This may be good politics; as Hanson notes, "in this regard, the senator is one with the majority of citizens--at least if the mercurial polls are any indication." But leadership it ain't.
Now, Kerry being a "buthead" on the "intergalactic test." The real point to be made about Kerry's "global test" obfuscation...er....clarification, is that it contradicts what he said immediately before. Here, again, is what Kerry said:
"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it 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."
Another "but"-head remark. Kerry is trying to have it both ways: to reserve "the right to pre-empt in any way necessary" while also insisting on "the global [now, intergalactic] test."
It's the placement of the conditional but that is most revealing of Kerry's true inclinations regarding pre-emptive use of force against countries harboring terrorists.
Consider these two statements:
(a) I will let you go to the concert, but I want you to clean your room.
(b) I want you to clean your room, but I will let you go to the concert.
In statement (a), permission to go to the concert is conditional upon cleaning your room. In statement (b), permission to go to the concert is not conditional upon cleaning your room.
Consider Kerry's "global test" statement with the phrases before and after the conditional "but" flipped:
You've got to do it in a way that passes the global test, but no president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
The first statement suggests that the historical right of pre-emptive action by a U.S. president is conditional upon first convincing the rest of the world that our actions are justified. The second statement suggests that while global considerations are important, the right of pre-emptive action by a U.S. president will never be conditioned upon whether the rest of the world thinks our reasons are legitimate.
The man who would utter the second statement will not hesitate to pull the trigger. The man who uttered the first statement will.
Think about other statements one might make before a "but" clause: "I love you, but . . ." "You're doing good work, but . . ." "I have nothing against black people, but . . ." In all these cases, you know that what comes next is going to be a statement that belies the introductory clause and that represents what the speaker really means to say. Kerry said a lot of things that made him sound strong, but they were only a way of diverting attention from his advocacy of American weakness.
Yeah, I stole this. :smokin
"I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But . . ."
"I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But . . ."
"We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But . . ."
"I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But . . ."
"I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do. But . . ."
"What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But . . ."
"I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But . . ."
"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But . . ."
"I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But . . ."
Maybe Kerry misunderstood when someone told him he needed to have the "qualifications" to be president. But it'd inspire a lot more confidence if he had followed any of these remarks with a "therefore" clause instead of a "but" one.
Victor Davis Hanson (http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200410010715.asp) makes a related point:
"There is a logic to Senator Kerry's flip-flopping that transcends his political opportunism: He is simply a captive of the pulse of the battlefield, without any steady vision or historical sense that might put the carnage of the day into some larger tactical, strategic, or political framework. As was true over a decade ago during Gulf War I, he contradicts himself when good news from the front makes his prior antiwar stance look either timid or foolhardy. But when the casualty rate rises or CNN is particularly vivid in airing the latest beheading or car bomb he returns to his shrill pessimism and denounces the war."
This may be good politics; as Hanson notes, "in this regard, the senator is one with the majority of citizens--at least if the mercurial polls are any indication." But leadership it ain't.
Now, Kerry being a "buthead" on the "intergalactic test." The real point to be made about Kerry's "global test" obfuscation...er....clarification, is that it contradicts what he said immediately before. Here, again, is what Kerry said:
"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it 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."
Another "but"-head remark. Kerry is trying to have it both ways: to reserve "the right to pre-empt in any way necessary" while also insisting on "the global [now, intergalactic] test."
It's the placement of the conditional but that is most revealing of Kerry's true inclinations regarding pre-emptive use of force against countries harboring terrorists.
Consider these two statements:
(a) I will let you go to the concert, but I want you to clean your room.
(b) I want you to clean your room, but I will let you go to the concert.
In statement (a), permission to go to the concert is conditional upon cleaning your room. In statement (b), permission to go to the concert is not conditional upon cleaning your room.
Consider Kerry's "global test" statement with the phrases before and after the conditional "but" flipped:
You've got to do it in a way that passes the global test, but no president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
The first statement suggests that the historical right of pre-emptive action by a U.S. president is conditional upon first convincing the rest of the world that our actions are justified. The second statement suggests that while global considerations are important, the right of pre-emptive action by a U.S. president will never be conditioned upon whether the rest of the world thinks our reasons are legitimate.
The man who would utter the second statement will not hesitate to pull the trigger. The man who uttered the first statement will.
Think about other statements one might make before a "but" clause: "I love you, but . . ." "You're doing good work, but . . ." "I have nothing against black people, but . . ." In all these cases, you know that what comes next is going to be a statement that belies the introductory clause and that represents what the speaker really means to say. Kerry said a lot of things that made him sound strong, but they were only a way of diverting attention from his advocacy of American weakness.
Yeah, I stole this. :smokin