Kerry wiped the floor with Bush

It's a quote Panzade. And no, Kerry has not been at all consistent re how our military should be disbursed. The fact, however, that he at times thinks it is appropriate to put U.S. soldiers under U.N. command is one very excellent reason to be sure he is never ever in a position to do so.

Did you listen to the video? It is most instructive.

0 Replies

It's a quote that doesn't support the GOP's headline. Look Foxy, I didn't just roll off the turnip truck.
And let me get this straight. Any time a country offers manpower to the UN these men serve under the U.N. leadership. However, the U.S. is the only country that may volunteer men and material for peace keeping purposes and not be under U.N. control...is that what this is about?

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

So you know that Kerry has always said he thinks the disbursement of our military should be at the discretion of the U.N., right?

JustWonders wrote:

Panzade - Years ago the Harvard Crimson quoted Kerry as saying he thought the disbursement of the U.S. military should be at the discretion of the United Nations. In the recent debate he said something about having to pass a "global test" for preemptive action.

Yep. Something about that. In fact, this was what he said:

Quote:

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. [..]

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt 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.

The "global test" does not include UN approval. There is no mention of it being at the UN's discretion for America to use its military. In fact, he explicitly said, just the sentence before, that would not be the case: "nor would I [cede] the right to preempt in any way necessary". The "global test" he referred to on justifying such a preemption is about credibility, not about approval.

In short, you're lying, up there in that first quote.

0 Replies

Given the level of corruption and anti-Americanism evident in the UN, I would not agree to put our military under their command. To assist in UN efforts in a necessaryoperation could be fine, but only with U.S. commanders giving orders to our people.

But what this is about is that Kerry takes all kinds of positions on it, so how can we trust him to pick the right thing when he actually has to make such a decision? He boasts on one hand that he would have acted unilaterally as Bush did and then almost out of the same breath say he would first enlist support from all these other countries - and he has specifically named France and Germany (who were previously asked and flatly refused.)

The point is Kerry is not to be trusted to do anything, much less the right thing, at a time a president must decide. Watch the video. You'll see what I mean.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
So you know that Kerry has always said he thinks the disbursement of our military should be at the discretion of the U.N., right?

JustWonders wrote:
Panzade - Years ago the Harvard Crimson quoted Kerry as saying he thought the disbursement of the U.S. military should be at the discretion of the United Nations. In the recent debate he said something about having to pass a "global test" for preemptive action.

Yep. Something about that. In fact, this was what he said:

Quote:
KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. [..]

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt 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.

The "global test" does not include UN approval. There is no mention of it being at the UN's discretion for America to use its military. In fact, he explicitly said, just the sentence before, that would not be the case: "nor would I [cede] the right to preempt in any way necessary". The "global test" he referred to on justifying such a preemption is about credibility, not about approval.

In short, you're lying, up there in that first quote.

It's not a lie, it's just bad intelligence.

0 Replies

No need for the word lying nimh. JW's statement was of belief not a lie.

0 Replies

For the folks who have decided that Bush is a competent leader...despite all the evidence to the contrary...trying to reason with them is as futile as resisting the Borg.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

He boasts on one hand that he would have acted unilaterally as Bush did and then almost out of the same breath say he would first enlist support from all these other countries.

Yep. Makes sense to me. If it really were necessary, he would act unilaterally. But it wasn't necessary, and he would have enlisted the foreign support Bush so bluntly squandered.

Foxfyre wrote:

Given the level of corruption and anti-Americanism evident in the UN, I would not agree to put our military under their command.

Well, good thing nobody is proposing that then, isn't it?

Straw men, straw men, straw men.

That's OK tho, it's not just you who's grappling with the problem of how to deal with a guy who turns out to be nothing like the charicature you'd made of him ... it's only normal to be momentarily reduced to recycling the old talking points, hoping something new will turn up soon ...

Ryan Lizza, evaluating Bush's debate performance wrote:

Out on the stump where he can get away with it, Bush often campaigns against a caricatured version of John Kerry, a straw man who takes all sorts of radical positions. Bush's problem last night was that he continued to debate that straw man instead of the person who actually showed up on stage.

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

No need for the word lying nimh. JW's statement was of belief not a lie.

No Panzade, I will not do what Kerry did last night and skirt using a word just because it sounds impolite. JW wrote, "Kerry has always said ..". That is absolutely false, and instantly checkable. And JW apparently either watched the debate or read the transcript, so he knows it.

If I say you just called me a ****, I cannot fall back to saying, "well I believed that's what you meant" when you call me upon it - your post is right up there for me and anyone else to check. So is last night's transcript. JW might conceivably have been right that Kerry "years ago" once said that [etc], but the statement that "Kerry has always said .." is simply and plainly a lie. And in this time of merciless spin we should start calling people upon their lies ASAP, no matter which side they're on.

0 Replies

I understand your ardor nimh and I agree that we need to point lies out from either camp, but to me a lie is a falsehood that is premeditated and calculated. And the third test is that the liar has to know it is untrue. JW's statement doesn't pass the test for me.

0 Replies

I hardly ever see anyone who supports Bush actually defend anything specific that he says. Mostly it's just attacks on Kerry's specifics.

I guess it's easier to attack a guy who says something specific than try to defend a statement with no evidence to back it up like Bush, talking about his plan to win the war on terrorism and in Iraq:

"There will be elections in January. We're spending reconstruction money. And our alliance is strong. That's the plan for victory."

Good plan. Thanks for all the specifics, George.

0 Replies

And then, when Kerry responded by saying how Bush rushed to war without a plan to win the peace, and how Bush diverted funds from afghanistan to Iraq, Bush responded with this:

"I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?

No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I've just outlined."

Nothing like having a specific, detailed plan.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The fact, however, that he at times thinks it is appropriate to put U.S. soldiers under U.N. command is one very excellent reason to be sure he is never ever in a position to do so.

oh. right. because an american president has never done that before;

Korea ; Inchon Landing

In order to alleviate the pressure on the Pusan Perimeter upon the entrance of the UN forces MacArthur, as UN commander in chief for Korea, ordered an invasion far behind the North Korean troops at Inchon. This was an extremely risky operation, but it went extremely successfully. United Nations troops landed at Inchon to only mild resistance and quickly moved to recapture Seoul. The North Koreans, finding their supply lines cut, began a rapid retreat northwards and the ROK and UN forces that had been confined in south moved north and joined those that had landed at Inchon.

The United Nations troops drove the North Koreans back past the 38th parallel. The goal of saving South Korea had been achieved, but because of the success and the prospect of uniting all of Korea under the rule of Syngman Rhee convinced the Americans to continue into North Korea. This greatly concerned the Chinese, who worried that the UN forces might not stop at the end of North Korea. Many in the west, including General MacArthur, also sought spreading the war to China was a good idea. Truman and the other leaders disagreed, however, and MacArthur was ordered to be very cautious when approaching the Chinese border. MacArthur disregarded these concerns, however.

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

No need for the word lying nimh. JW's statement was of belief not a lie.

Actually, Panzade, I'm glad you bring this up. It leads me to something. And this is from the heart (talk about "ardor").

I think one of the major problems your political system is grappling with, in this age, is that the news media are working on a perverted interpretation of objectivity. In this interpretation, objectivity means juxtaposing whatever claims both parties put out in equal measure (and leaving it at that). He said - he said. Due to political or legal pressure or in something of a latter-day spin-off from how political correctness imposed the norms of cultural relativism, journalists in especially the mainstream media rarely dare to venture beyond that.

But that is not 'fair and balanced'. True objectivity is not recycling spin from both sides in equal measure - it is processing that spin and fact-checking it - and presenting the results of that fact-checking to the readers as well as the original claims.

Luckily, perhaps partly thanks to the outside pressure of ever more authoratative fact-check websites, a new wavelet of critical journalists (like that woman at the WaPo) have indeed returned to doing that. But for too long, this politically correct standard of objectivity meaning 'channeling both sides in equal measure' has made Washington reporting into a highly effective medium for both parties to spread anything from insinuations to bald-faced lies.

The spinmeisters know that they can't lose much. Even if they put out a story that's entirely made up, the worst that can happen is that a report will say, "an anonymous spokesman from party A has claimed that party B has [x, y or z]; official party B representative [x or y] calls these allegations baseless and slanderous." The story is out, anyway, and quickly passed on through hundreds of blogs and talk radio shows. There's little political risk, because noone all too highly-ranked will be eager to actually call the lie out and bring those who put it out to task - after all, calling someone a liar is not done, it's a losing political proposition; it will make you seem a sore loser and drive down your favourability rating.

To cure the system, we have to stop this corruption. Journalists and all of us have to become more assertive and more rapid in calling out lies and nipping them in the bud. Otherwise spin will eat politics, and soon nothing else will be left. This election cycle with its rounds of SBVFT and National Guard allegations has shown how far down the road you already are.

I would almost make that into a new thread of its own. <nods>

0 Replies

Xena wrote:

Are you capable of ever backing up anything you say?

What leads you to believe I can't? Please elaborate. Show me what I've posted which led you to that conclusion.

Xena wrote:

I guess your opinion is gospel and we should all think like you do, because it's your "opinion".

You seem to have trouble distinguishing the difference between fact and opinion. My opinion is gospel to me, because it is just that, my opinion. It is my conclusions based on my experiences and knowledge. Now a fact on the other hand is information based on a real occurrence or in other words something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed. You're going to have to learn the difference before you can challenge information that I have posted.

Xena wrote:

You are a fine example of a Kerry supporter.

I support neither Kerry nor Bush. I support the truth. I only started posting replies to this topic when I read comments that were half-truths, comments where the whole story wasn't being told thereby misleading, or comments that were outright lies being passed off as fact. I would do the same for comments directed at Bush, but it just so happens the disingenuous comments were directed at Kerry.

Xena wrote:

DAMN the posting of sources. If I didn't post the "source" you all would be crying, "Where is your source for that information?".

I would be happy to give you the source of any information that I've posted. Which information would that be?

Xena wrote:

Typical Kerry supporter! Twisted evil!

If lashing out and name calling makes you feel better, so be it I guess.

0 Replies

I agree. And that would be a very interesting thread, Nimh. Excellent and thoughtful.

But since we're in the "Kerry wiped the floor with Bush" thread, here's some more stuff from the debate.

Here's Bush's answer to the question "Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario, time lines, et cetera, for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq?"

"There are 100,000 troops trained, police, guard, special units, border patrol. There's going to be 125,000 trained by the end of this year. Yes, we're getting the job done. It's hard work. Everybody knows it's hard work, because there's a determined enemy that's trying to defeat us.

Now, my opponent says he's going to try to change the dynamics on the ground. Well, Prime Minister Allawi was here. He is the leader of that country. He's a brave, brave man. When he came, after giving a speech to the Congress, my opponent questioned his credibility.

You can't change the dynamics on the ground if you've criticized the brave leader of Iraq.

One of his campaign people alleged that Prime Minister Allawi was like a puppet. That's no way to treat somebody who's courageous and brave, that is trying to lead his country forward.

The way to make sure that we succeed is to send consistent, sound messages to the Iraqi people that when we give our word, we will keep our word, that we stand with you, that we believe you want to be free. And I do.

I believe that 25 million people, the vast majority, long to have elections.

I reject this notion -- and I'm suggesting my opponent isn't -- I reject the notion that some say that if you're Muslim you can't free, you don't desire freedom. I disagree, strongly disagree with that."

So his "specifics, timeline, scenarios, etc." are that we should send consistent messages that we will keep our word. Sounds like a great, specific, well thought out plan to me.

0 Replies

This is the way they are running their campaign. Attack Kerry's specifics, and then say something nebulous and non-specific, that sounds patriotic.

It's absolutely ridiculous that this race is even close.

0 Replies

DTOM writes"

Quote:

oh. right. because an american president has never done that before;

I strongly opposed it before too. It isn't okay with me if one person does it and not okay if another does it or vice versa.

0 Replies

And so far none of you have watched the video?

0 Replies

I watched it. It doesn't make Bush any smarter, or better able to lead this country, in my opinion.

0 Replies

Kerry wiped the floor with Bush

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know