Re: Some Questions for Kerry
I propose that these be the questions presented to the presidential candidates in the first debate.
We don't always get the politicians to answer the questions we'd like so maybe you can settle for someone who will likely vote for Kerry answering some of them (I'm skipping some of the "gotcha" questions that seem to have as their sole aim tripping him up on words).
Regarding military action, your platform says "we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake." But the platform's preceding paragraph denounces President Bush's "doctrine of unilateral pre-emption." If unilateralism is wrong, are you not committed to some sort of "green light from abroad"?
In his speech he differentiated it as being unilateral when necessary versus multilateral when necessary, suggesting that it is the degree of willingness to embrace the unilateral path that he'd be different on.
Are you glad that in 1981 Israel set back Iraq's nuclear weapons program with a unilateral pre-emptive attack on the reactor near Baghdad?
I, for one, am. And if the US action were based on such good intel and so brilliantly executed nobody would have had a chance to whine about it much either.
If the point is a comparison to the invasion of Iraq I think it is a poorly made point as Israel's strike on the reactors was everything this war was not.
Your platform says: "A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk." But Iran's radical Islamist regime is undeterred by diplomatic hand-wringing about its acquisition of nuclear weapons, which may be imminent. Is pre-emptive military action against Iran feasible, or are its nuclear facilities too dispersed and hardened? What would you do other than accept Iran as a nuclear power?
Good question, and quite frankly there is no basis at all for forcing their hand.
Iran, unlike Iraq has a legal right to nukes. Invasion of Iran is unlikely to be in the cards.
In 2020? First of all, answering this question truthfully is tricky. The US position has pretty much been lipservice to the "one China" policy and the unsubtle hint that we may well become militarily involved under certain circumstances.
Any president who tips the cards right now would be being foolish.
This question's answer is ambiguous as a matter of standing foreign policy, and it's like asking a prospective Israeli PM about their nukes.
It's a question whose answer at all would be a contradiction of a wise foreign policy that is suitably nuanced for a compelex scenario.
Kerry can no more answer this than anyone else, we are in a standoff with China on this and it's like asking to show them our hand before it's time.
You supported humanitarian military interventions in Somalia, the Balkans and Haiti. Would you intervene militarily to stop the accelerating genocide in Sudan?
Good question, I would. And I'm interested in Kerry's answer.
The easily distressed abortion rights groups were distressed when you said that your faith teaches you what elementary biology teaches everyone: life begins at conception. But you say personhood does not. Fine. When does it? What are its defining attributes?
Viability outside the womb for me, dunno about what Kerry would say.
When the Pope said Catholic legislators have a duty to oppose gay marriage, you said he had "crossed the line" because "it is important not to have the Church instructing politicians." Have you felt that way even when the Church has instructed politicians take liberal positions regarding economic justice, race and other matters?
I for one would feel that way about anything the Churches say. It's their opinion and nothing more.
Do you advocate new laws to discourage the kind of people who are choosing to participate in politics through financial contributions on your behalf?
I, personally, prefer either letting the stopgates out and letting money play its dirty game to the hilt or going the complete opposite direction.