Kerry Sticks to Claim of World Support; reporter erred

scrat, hobitbob answered you good enough for me.

0 Replies

scrat,

I agreed with hobitbob on his answers concerning pulling out of the treaties. I also agreed with him about lack of legitimacy the other coalition offers if we have to pay for them to be our partners. However, technically you are right if we have others with us then we are not alone.

What I meant originally by the phrase "go it alone" was merely that Bush has a general attitude of "we're right and you are to go with us or to heck with you" that seems to prevail with anything and everything he does or says. I realize now that "go it alone" may have been a poor way to phrase what I meant. And instead of trying to answer your question I should have just explained what I meant by the phrase.

0 Replies

Revel - Does the fact that France and Russia were doing business with Saddam also negate the value of their opinion on the war for you? Since they were getting or stood to get a lot of money from Saddam, how can we value their position if our standard is that we don't value the position of coalition members who stood to gain from the US?

Or is it only alies of the US that are held up for such scrutiny?

0 Replies

What John Kerry said was dead-solid accurate, and he should name names just as soon as Dick Cheney tells us who was in the room writing energy policy with him:

Quote:

BLITZER: Ambassador Holbrooke, thanks very much for joining us. A little revised version of what John Kerry said. He said, "I've met more leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, you got to win. This you got to beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that." So there is enormous energy out there. The president today said, if he makes an accusation, he has a responsibility to back it up. What do you say?

RICHARD HOLBROOKE, FRM. U.S. AMB. TO U.N.: John Kerry committed an unpardonable crime in Washington: he spoketh the truth. What he said is self-evidently true.There's a new poll out today by the Pew Institute, a worldwide pool, which shows massive and growing anti-Americanism around the world. Now American voters need to make up their own mind who they prefer, George W. Bush or John Kerry. But they also ought to know this administration is isolating us in the world, weakening us. Recent events in Spain, this election are another example.

John Kerry said something everybody knows is true. And, Wolf, you know it's true. And why don't I say just one other thing. Why don't you, instead of staging a silly he said/he said between the White House, which is throwing all this mud at John Kerry after he said something true. Why don't you poll your foreign correspondents on CNN. And ask them who the population and leaderships in the world would prefer to see elected? Very simple."

Kerry's comment is, in the universe inhabited by sane people, about as controversial as claiming water is wet.

Everybody knows it. Every journalist who has pushed this story knows it. Every person in government knows it.

It's only a story because the "liberal media" keeps reporting it as if it were scandalous.

0 Replies

Exactly, the larger point Kerry was making is that George Bush has alienated us from our allies and the rest of the world. This, in my opinion, is not debatable, but rather is a self-evident fact.

0 Replies

Poland 'taken for a ride' over Iraq's WMD: President
Poland 'taken for a ride' over Iraq's WMD: President
3/18/04

WARSAW (AFP) - In a first sign of official criticism in Poland of the US-led invasion of Iraq, President Aleksander Kwasniewski said that his country had been "taken for a ride" about the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction in the strife-torn country.

"That they deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride," Kwasniewski said Thursday.

He argued however that it made no sense to pull US-led coalition troops out of Iraq.

His comments marked the first time Poland has publicly criticized Washington's argument for invading Iraq and for winning support from Poland and other European allies such as Britain and Spain.

Poland heads up a 9,000-strong multinational force patrolling a swathe of Iraq south of Baghdad.

Warsaw itself has the fourth-largest contingent in the coalition, with around 2,500 soldiers.

Kwasniewski was speaking days after the prime minister-elect of Spain, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, said Madrid would withdraw its 1,300 soldiers from the Polish-led contingent by June 30, unless the United Nations took over administration of Iraq.

The Polish head of state questioned the wisdom of pulling foreign troops from the strife-torn country saying such a move could have a counter effect.

"What would be the point of pulling the troops if it meant a return to war, ethnic cleansing and conflict in neighboring countries," he told a group of visiting French journalists.

"If we protest against the United States' dominant role in world politics and we withdraw our troops knowing they will be replaced by US soldiers, what would be the point of such a move?" he questioned.

He said he was disappointed by the new Spanish government's threat to withdraw its 1,300 soldiers.

"We cannot alter our mission to stabilize Iraq to one to destabilize the country," he said.

"Passiveness will lead us nowhere," he added.

0 Replies

"What John Kerry said was dead-solid accurate, and he should name names just as soon as Dick Cheney tells us who was in the room writing energy policy with him"
excellent point, PDiddie!

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

Exactly, the larger point Kerry was making is that George Bush has alienated us from our allies and the rest of the world. This, in my opinion, is not debatable, but rather is a self-evident fact.

If you insert the words "some of" into your statement, I'll agree with it. Then I'll ask you if the President's job is to endear us to our detractors or whether he has other overriding obligations as the leader of the US.

0 Replies

Endear us? No. Give reason to respect us, yes!

0 Replies

Suzy - Do you think Osama was showing respect when he and his cohorts bombed the WTC, the USS Cole, and then attacked the WTC and Pentagon with planes? Had Clinton's "everybody play nice" anti-terror policy garnered the type of respect you think we need?

I wrote "endear", because that is what I meant, and what you and other seem to expect of the US. Respect is what you get when you let people know that you will stand up for yourself. Endearing yourself to others is accomplished by acquiescing to their wishes.

Frankly, I don't really care about who "likes" us. Right now I'd rather we focus on keeping those who would kill us from doing so. Those who don't like that can pack sand. Cool

0 Replies

Clinton's "everybody play nice" policy? he had a death warrant on the man more than once!
Hindsight is 20/20, you know.
The people would not have let Clinton do much, some did not even like the idea of secret assasination.
9/11 changed everything. You can't really judge pre-9/11 actions on the same basis.
But you will!
We were talking about respect from our allies, NOT bin Laden.
Nice try, though.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

If you insert the words "some of" into your statement, I'll agree with it. Then I'll ask you if the President's job is to endear us to our detractors or whether he has other overriding obligations as the leader of the US.

No, the words "vast majority of" would be more fitting. And, if we are discussing the opinion of citizens, "the citizens of every nation in the world except one" would be more fitting, as Britian was the only other nation where even a slight majority of citizens supported the attack.

Also, in a typically conservative way, you fail to realize the fundamental fact that maintaining global alliances is one of Bush's obligations as the leader of the US, as such alliances are neccessary to maintain our security and power.

0 Replies

In a typically liberal way, you mischaracterize my position. I do realize that "maintaining global alliances is one of Bush's obligations as the leader of the US", I just recognize that it isn't his job to keep those alliances at any cost, especially if the cost is the safety of American citizens.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

In a typically liberal way, you mischaracterize my position. I do realize that "maintaining global alliances is one of Bush's obligations as the leader of the US", I just recognize that it isn't his job to keep those alliances at any cost, especially if the cost is the safety of American citizens.

Ha. So, your position is that Saddam was such a threat so as to be worth the lives of 10,000 innocent civilians, 600 Americans, well over 100 billion dollars, and the alienation of both our traditional allies and the rest of the world. And you take this position in the full knowledge that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no terrorist connections. If that is the criteria for invasion, we would be waging war against literally dozens of other nations.

I suppose your position is understandable, as history has demonstrated people have an odd affinity towards blind faith in thier nation, no matter what the situation may be. Conservatism - at least in the sense that you embody it - is the default position of gullibility and irrational bias, and you exemplify this.

0 Replies

http://www.freep.com/voices/edit_art/031704_mt.jpg

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

He isn't corrupt enough....yet.

Is this your opinion, or is it a fact? Sad

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Based on this cartoon, I'm forced to assume that Kerry's facial appearance has been drastically altered. Is this the result of Bo-Tox? Cool

0 Replies

It's the result of a not-very-good artist, I'd say. Rolling Eyes

Do you think the other looks ANYTHING like Bush?

You go, ILZ! Laughing

0 Replies

IronLionZion : Yeah man, what you said Smile

Who's asking for Bush to maintain alliances 'at any cost'? No one except those making specious arguments. Bush backers always make it sound as if acting in concert with our allies somehow weakens the US or places the US in submission to their view. What leaders, real leaders not phonies, do is find the mutual view for the benefit of all concerned.

The war on Iraq is ill-advised, ill-timed and a waste of resources. It is a diversion from the war on terror and has cost all free people more than we now know.

Joe

0 Replies

scrat, I am not sure that that it is accurate to say for a fact that the reason those that did not agree with going to war then rather than waiting for the UN inspections to do their job and then decide what is to be done did so just because they had a stake in Saddam Hussien staying in power. (I know you didn't say words exactly like that, but it is what I get out of your words that did use.)

However, I will agree that since I said that the coalition that we do have is those we paid for opened the door for what you said.

If you ask me the reason that they didn't want to go war then was because it was a US thing and they saw it as the US taking over an oil rich country and gaining more power and they didn't want to help them do it. That is my opinion.

As far as France and Germany, some of those weapons had US labels on them didn't they? At one time we even were backing Saddam Hussien when it suited our interest to do so, regardless of his brutal dictatorship.

0 Replies

Kerry Sticks to Claim of World Support; reporter erred

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know