thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 11, 2004 20:30:12 GMT -5
the voters.... Kerry: "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." This kind of crap would have been agravating in a leader even in a pre-9-11 presidency. Now its downright frightful- as well as a breach of the constitutional mandates on the president re: national sovereignty. If he wants to recant and say he was dead wrong to say it, I want to hear it loud and clear. I would also like to see Kerry be a bit more clear about how he wants to see the war on terror revert to a police/intel action- which is what it was on 9/10/01. Kerry frightens me on national security- truly frightens me. I am not terribly worried about which months Bush packed his Gurad credits into though. If I am in the bush in 1968 Vietnam, I want Kerry to come get me. If I want a president who doesn't sacrafice American sovereignty to a reprehensible body on the Hudson, Bush is the clear answer- even if they are both reckless spenders. www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=352185 |
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Feb 11, 2004 20:55:18 GMT -5
geez bin--are you really using an isolated, out of context quote from 35 years ago made by kerry at age 26 as the basis for evaluating his foreign policy cred? c'mon man, that's coulter / moore-esque hacksmanship and you know it.
as for the bush military issue, the bottom line is that bush looked america in the face sunday and said "absolutely, yes" he would authorize the release of the pertinent records. not only has he not done that, his press secretary has done his damndest to obfuscate the simple statement the president made. again, if there's nothing to hide, then why is the admin trying to hide so much?
also, the issue here isnt criticism of service in the national guard--as you (and some other conservative pundits) have slyly suggested. it's TEXTshirkingTEXTnational guard service, which is something else entirely.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 11, 2004 21:23:05 GMT -5
I don't accept that characterization of course. If Kerry wants to totally recant that statement- I am open to listening. But too much in his Senate career and the some of the stuff he has said on the trail make me think that spirit is still very much there. I fear Kerry would sacrafice our security to please UN, France, etc. Yes- I know how ridiculous it sounds. But I geniunely believe itr to be true. And why? Everything about Kerry 's career suggest it is true.
I don't see any obfuscation. I dont see any fire. Heck, I don't even see any smoke. This is an old story. Not even the implications of it were it true bother me to be honest. Incumbants run on their record- this isn't part of it. This will fizzle out in a couple of days I think. It seems awfully labored to me.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Feb 11, 2004 21:31:54 GMT -5
Being an internationalist (and explaining it clumbsily 30 years ago) does not, per se, mean that one puts the friendship of France ahead of national security. Kerry's voting record in the senate is downright hawkish. To see what the far left thinks, check out this editorial I found in 10 seconds of searching. It's pretty wacky, but presuming the quotes are accurate, I think you get a sense that JFK redux is not some squishy minded franco-phile. world.std.com/~jberg/edit0301.htmlOne of my all-time favorite quotes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?" J.M. Keynes |
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Feb 11, 2004 21:35:59 GMT -5
i don't really think its an old story--its just a story that the media never really dug into during the last election cycle (hence the sudden appearance of new relevant documents over the last few days / weeks).
as for the story fizzling out--well, i think that it will and should if bush produces the records and they turn out to support his story. if the records dont, then this may be the "i did not have sexual relations with that woman" moment of 43's administration.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 11, 2004 21:42:17 GMT -5
Not an old story? The Boston Globe "broke" this four years ago. Nobody cared. Now there is a pretty significant contingent of bush HATERS, and they want another swipe. There has got to be some sort of political form of double jeopardy!
Do you really think that if the worst proves to be true, it would rise to having an intern felating the president in the oval office and then commiting felony perjury to cover it up? I don't. And I didn't bring it up- but I do find the comparrison completely inappropriate. The analogy, IF the allegations were true- would doubtless be to Clinton's draft-dodging- a subject that came and went very quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 12, 2004 11:09:00 GMT -5
As one of John Kerry's strongest supporters on this Board, I am going to take on this old quote and also address the other issues that have come up during the course of this thread (Bush-AWOL and the Clinton comparisons). As for the Kerry quote, I have to admit that it is a relatively good find for Drudge and is fair game. Admittedly, it was bad policy then and is bad policy now. That said, however, examine Kerry's voting record on issues of war and peace. Essentially, the issue in play is that Kerry said in this quote that the US should only use force as expressly directed by the UN, which would mean ceding sovereignty on military matters. However, Kerry has indeed supported or voted to authorize war when the UN does not expressly direct the US to use force. Kosovo and the First Gulf War come to mind immediately. So, his voting record belies his assertions from 1971, making a verbal recant unnecessary. I just took a cursory look through Kerry's website, and it makes no mention of ceding sovereignty to the UN. It does not expressly refute his earlier statement either. However, what becomes immediately apparent is his interest in shaping an international, global agenda with respect to anti-terrorism, counter-proliferation etc. You can disagree with that if you are more of an IR realist than Kerry, but it seems to be a reasonable plan that, in good faith, attempts to secure the United States from terrorists. As for your question on the role of intelligence and police action, go to this website and scroll down for a little byte on intelligence collection and coordination, which alludes to some current issues in the war on terror www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/fp_facts.html. A few additional nuggets are also here: www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland/enhance_intelligence.html. This campaign is still early, and I am hoping that more details will come out on this and other foreign policy issues. What I think Kerry is looking for is better coordination among Foggy Bottom, the Pentagon, CIA, etc. I would also like to point out that this is a virtual non-issue in the press. The press has picked up more on his anti-Vietnam role and connections with Hanoi Jane. Also, there is little sense in asking a candidate to recant or examine every one of his prior statements, especially when he has served in the Senate for 19 years. It just won't happen and to eliminate a candidate because of it suggests that you weren't considering him seriously from the start. I would also hesitate to say that John Kerry won't make America more secure than it is today. The RNC is going to try to paint him as you have, but examine the record and don't take their attacks at face value. For example, Kerry has voted against several weapons systems. I agree, but let's examine the implications. He supported a nuclear freeze, but what are the implications? How important were nukes in fighting the Cold War? Did our superiority really contribute to or cause the unravelling of the USSR? Without attacking Bush's foreign policy right now, I think we can look forward to an interesting debate during the campaign on foreign policy. Kerry and Bush have different positions philosophically on the issue, and both have their merits from a national security standpoint. I do just want to point out that Kerry's ideas have developed since the Harvard Crimson interview. On the issue of AWOL, it is clearly not going away due to reporters' embarassment stemming from their lack of follow-up in 2000. Although McAuliffe and Moore brought it out, Bush essentially kept it alive when he said he would release his records. Now, we know that he has not in fact released his records transparently, but his advisors have gone on yet another hunt and peck mission and have told the reporters what they should report about it. (I would like to compare that to Wes Clark's approach of releasing absolutely everything even when it was probably in his best interests to hide some of the details.) If you notice as well, Kerry has not been pushing this story. It is essentially in the press' hands now. What the issue has become is one of credibility, and I think it has become relatively Clintonesque. We learn today that there are allegations that Bush's advisors had some of his records destroyed, conveniently those records that did not reflect favorably upon his service, or lack thereof, in the National Guard. If you want to talk about coverups, this, if true, would be as good as any that Clinton pulled off, save for the alleged perjury. Even if the allegations are false, why won't they just release all of the documents instead of cherry-picking or spinning as they likely did with the Iraqi WMD? |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 12, 2004 11:52:04 GMT -5
Kosovo was under a Democratic president- so it doesn't woo me terribly you will understand. First Gulf war- wasn't that WITH UN endorsement?
Your post is well-reasoned and deserves more response- I just don't have the time to do it justice. In general, I have far less free time than I used to, and the fact that I am of late the only even partial Bush supporter spending time on this board makes it even harder so I am trying not to get involved in every post on this board as I used too. I will try to get back to you at another time.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 12, 2004 13:02:41 GMT -5
Fair enough with Kosovo, but it still belies the idea that Kerry's comments to the Harvard Crimson are a driving force in his foreign policy decision-making. On the question of the First Gulf War, it did receive UN approval, but the United States' troops were not deployed based on a UN directive, which is the issue that Kerry's interview put in play. Rather, the United States' actions received the blessing of the UN. If Kerry believed so strongly in what he said to the Harvard Crimson, therefore, he would not have voted in favor of the war.
Anyway, respond at your convenience. As much as I disagreed with winston and those guys, I wonder where they are. This Board has been fairly dead after the transition, and I miss being outnumbered in debates.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 12, 2004 13:11:43 GMT -5
Don't know how often you were outnumbered- this board before the leap seemed very well-balanced. But not these days... (Picture small violin playing)
|
|
|
|
Post by ArlingtonHoya on Feb 12, 2004 13:13:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 12, 2004 13:28:48 GMT -5
Yeah, it very well may. Let's discuss this issue in the thread that bin started and leave discussion of foreign policy/AWOL in this thread. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Feb 12, 2004 19:07:03 GMT -5
As for the Kerry quote, I have to admit that it is a relatively good find for Drudge and is fair game. Admittedly, it was bad policy then and is bad policy now. That said, however, examine Kerry's voting record on issues of war and peace. Essentially, the issue in play is that Kerry said in this quote that the US should only use force as expressly directed by the UN, which would mean ceding sovereignty on military matters. However, Kerry has indeed supported or voted to authorize war when the UN does not expressly direct the US to use force. Kosovo and the First Gulf War come to mind immediately. So, his voting record belies his assertions from 1971, making a verbal recant unnecessary. So let's play the game this way. Say Kerry made the statement 30 years ago and believed it to be true. Maybe he believes the same thing now, maybe not. But most people would not agree with the statement. So you say to look at Kerry's record in office to get a true sense of the man and what he believes. I agree and say that's a valid point. To shift it to the President and the National Guard flap - maybe he performed all of his duties and maybe he didn't. With what's come out so far, we can't be sure one way or the other. So what's the point of bringing this up? At first glance, it would be an attempt by the democrats to contrast "war hero Kerry" with "part-time national guardsman Bush." I assume this is part of the argument that Kerry would be better on foreign policy and national security. But, using your analysis, shouldn't we look at how Bush has performed as President? Isn't his response to 9-11 and Iraq and North Korea and so on a much better indicator of the man? My point is, I guess, what is the point of this National Guard story, other than to dig up dirt (or trash, if you're Scott McClellan) on the President? |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 12, 2004 20:09:35 GMT -5
So let's play the game this way. Say Kerry made the statement 30 years ago and believed it to be true. Maybe he believes the same thing now, maybe not. But most people would not agree with the statement. So you say to look at Kerry's record in office to get a true sense of the man and what he believes. I agree and say that's a valid point. To shift it to the President and the National Guard flap - maybe he performed all of his duties and maybe he didn't. With what's come out so far, we can't be sure one way or the other. So what's the point of bringing this up? At first glance, it would be an attempt by the democrats to contrast "war hero Kerry" with "part-time national guardsman Bush." I assume this is part of the argument that Kerry would be better on foreign policy and national security. But, using your analysis, shouldn't we look at how Bush has performed as President? Isn't his response to 9-11 and Iraq and North Korea and so on a much better indicator of the man? My point is, I guess, what is the point of this National Guard story, other than to dig up dirt (or trash, if you're Scott McClellan) on the President? I think it is important to remember where the AWOL story/allegations came from. McAuliffe and Michael Moore (who endorsed Wes Clark) brought the subject matter up. John Kerry has only made one discursive comment on the matter and has most recently said that he won't comment on Bush's record of service. Whether he comments on the separate question of Bush's credibility and the allegations of the cleansing of his records, I can't speculate. So, it is a bit difficult to say what Kerry's motives are. By not engaging the issue, he is trying to keep the debate on policy matters. For that, he should be commended. I think McAuliffe (and likely, Moore) brought the issue up to distinguish candidates' records on service. To me, it is a virtual non-issue because I do not support Kerry for having served in Vietnam, but rather, because of his experiences in international affairs, of which Vietnam is a part, with his Senate experience being a far more important part. Perhaps more importantly, I think McAuliffe was trying to draw a line in the sand and fire some opening bullets to show that the Dems aren't going to tolerate attacks on their candidate or Republican attempts to pigeonhole Kerry as a Massachusetts liberal. On that front, I think McAuliffe was extremely successful. He has not pushed the issue too much, and the press has picked up the ball. Meanwhile, Bush's advisors have been scrambling to get the issue dismissed. Whether it affects voting in the general, I don't think so, but, at the very least, it has dealt a tough jab to the Bush campaign. All of this said, I think Kerry is going to try to keep the debate on the issues. We can agree to disagree that Bush has done good for the US in Iraq and North Korea, and I will leave that debate for another day in another thread. The long and short of it is that the AWOL issue is probably designed to send a message to Bush et. al. that 2004 will not be a repeat of the Bush I-Dukakis race and is not going to be a walk in the park. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 12, 2004 21:25:24 GMT -5
hey jerseyhoya34....on second thought, didn't Kerry vote against Gulf War I, despite broad UN support? And he was in support of the last war- perhaps he had a presidential run on his mind by then? You have to admit that being against gulf war 1 and for the last one, but now against the last one, is pretty elastic or at any rate is a bizarre split and would I think put him at odds with his preference for UN-endorsed US military action. This brings up the most common complaint from Dem brass early in the nomination process- the guy has an uncanny knack for being all over the place.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 13, 2004 10:47:55 GMT -5
I'll have to double-check because, on second thought, I may have been wrong on the First Gulf War. Stay tuned...
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Feb 13, 2004 11:13:31 GMT -5
i am more than willing to admit that kerry has an inconsistent voting record in the senate, and to some degree has been "all over the place." this is a real weakness for him.
however, even the extremes of kerry's fluctuations are less troubling to me than the consistently offensive and disintegrative policies of gwb. i think he is a decent, charismatic leader whose political stances, while not unwaveringly static, serve to advance the country's best interests. hence, i will happily continue to support kerry, b/c 1) i think he will make the best president of any candidate running and 2) he has the most realistic chance of winning the votes needed to beat bush.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 14, 2004 12:07:12 GMT -5
i am more than willing to admit that kerry has an inconsistent voting record in the senate, and to some degree has been "all over the place." this is a real weakness for him. however, even the extremes of kerry's fluctuations are less troubling to me than the consistently offensive and disintegrative policies of gwb. i think he is a decent, charismatic leader whose political stances, while not unwaveringly static, serve to advance the country's best interests. hence, i will happily continue to support kerry, b/c 1) i think he will make the best president of any candidate running and 2) he has the most realistic chance of winning the votes needed to beat bush. I will not dispute that Kerry has some flip-flops in his record, as all politicians do. Need I remind people of how Bush opposed the Dept. of Homeland Security when only Democrats were pushing it and supported it when it became of political necessity? Ditto on the McCain-Feingold. It is just politics, and sometimes, political rigidity is not a good thing. I think many can agree that the all roads point to war in Iraq strategy of recent months shows exactly that. Each of the three pillars of the argument, we now know, was not necessary, but sufficient to go to war. Was that healthy politics? Probably not, and no better than Kerry's alleged flip-flops. So, I think your post is right on point, and I have just echoed some of your very good points. Please keep on supporting Kerry. |
|
