Usama Bin Ladin goes to bat for John Kerry. Why?

The thing is, we have repeatedly asked why the ABB crowd are voting for their candidate of choice, and they can rarely explain any conviction held by their candidate that their candidate has held for more than a week at most. It is almost a knee jerk reaction that they will answer the question with more bashing of Bush.

For the life of me, I can't see how it makes sense to vote for somebody who don't have a clue how they will govern on the theory anybody else can't possibly be as bad a Bush. I am on very solid footing that there are a lot of people out there who are worse than Bush. I don't think the ABB people have any knowledge or confidence their candidate of choice will be any better or even as good.

Well, if thats the impression you'd gotten thus far Foxfyre, my posts above will have come as a welcome change now, wont they?


Argh, and I so hate it when people do that. I've got an ex-gf who still does that - all the time. Tells me that what I really meant was what she thinks I meant, not what I'm pretending to have meant. Drives me fukking nuts. If anything contributes to me being "wired a bit too tightly" on this one, it's that.

And see, Bill is much wiser than that:



It is a great answer. I haven't got a clue why I can't ever just say that and leave things be. I mean, it's not like I have to justify myself or anything, least of all to those who will either not understand, or worse, not believe me for what I'm saying, anyway, insisting that I really said what they say I said. Just can't win that one.

Pointing out a Kerry position or reason for voting for him gets the same stale responses. He changes positions on things. No refuting the points, just that unthinking challenge.

I'm well past sick of trying to explain myself to bystanders here, but I really respect your opinion Deb, so here you are. I was looking for some specific item(s) that Nimh may have picked up about Kerry's plan that I had missed. Each time I asked, I received another list of errors Bush made and that Kerry would be better. As much as I do respect Nimh, his pronouncement that Kerry would do better is not sufficient reason for me to believe it.

Nimh: apparently I did a lousy job of expressing what I was after. You agreed that John Kerry was OBL's worst nightmare... and I wanted to know why. Your summary of your ideology was brilliantly written, but it didn't tell me anything about you I didn't already know. As popular as I'm sure it will be with the peanut gallery, it doesn't answer my question at all. What you've proven to me; is that you can no more answer my question than I can myself, probably because John Kerry hasn't offered a believable explanation for you to relay. I do appreciate your effort.

Those of you who think that I'm Bushocentric or anything else republican are wrong. It will turn my stomach if I do indeed decide to vote for an imbecile like Bush. If you can't understand that I won't automatically like a guy who's voting record shows he's usually on the opposite side of issues from me, than you aren't trying. Mostly, I don't know what to believe about John Kerry and the few things I'm sure of I don't like. That doesn't mean I like Bush.

Kicky, I've thanked dozens of people for helping me to understand things better on political threads, and been thanked dozens of times myself. You show up occasionally to agree who's right or wrong about something and I generally think of you as apolitical. I have yet to see you author a position that would influence anyone one way or another. I assure you, people like Nimh, don't need your help in rebuking what I have to say. Your latest submission amounts to a childish: "I know you are but what am I". Go play on sex thread, will ya? … the adults are talking here.

This coming from the guy wearing a block of cheese on his head.

While it has been fun batting you around for the past couple hours, I will now leave you alone. Enjoy your denial.

Bill,

Get over yourself.

The title and premise of this thread are pure idiocy.

In other news, Go Packers!

Cycloptichorn

Thanks for sharing your valuable insight, Cyclop. Maybe I should change the title to "The official pile on Bill thread", eh?

Bush support and his strong suite is the war on terror and fear. The tape serves both it reminds people that the architect of terror is alive and well and reinforces the fear factor.
This tape is gift from Osama to his best recruiter Bush.
It may also be Osama's way of thanking Bush for the Invasion of Iraq.

Funny, I had just written before Cyclops' post that I'd been avoiding this thread 'cause I didn't want to pile on -- those exact words -- but then what I wrote after that WAS piling on, and everyone else has said it well already. So I didn't post.

-pause-

-tries to resist-

-can't quite-



Where'd that come from? Of course you won't automatically like him -- but what people here are saying is that we don't automatically like him either. We like him for specific reasons, and nimh HAS listed a bunch of 'em. That "automatically" is where things break down, where the ABB stuff becomes an insult -- we don't like him (Kerry) for any positive reasons, it's just a knee-jerk reaction 'cause we hate Bush so much. Nnnno.

I said a whole bunch more, Bill. You may not have liked it. But just like Fox mostly shows off her own selective perception when she says that noone here ever "explained any conviction held by their candidate that their candidate has held for more than a week at most", you are here mostly showing off the fact that if you dont agree with a reason, you'll just retort that "none was given". Hell yeah it was. You just didnt like it.

The problem might indeed be that you are looking for "some specific item [..] about Kerry's plan". Thats where we are talking across each other. Because there might well be such items one could come up with - Kerry's plan of action on quickly safeguarding the nuclear materials that are precariously held by corrupt ex-Soviet governments now, for example, which could be devastating if terrorists got hold of them, a scenario not all that unlikely. But you didnt ask me to bring you neat items from Kerry's shopping list - and I wouldnt have gone to the trouble, either. Anyone can visit johnkerry.com, you're not all that lazy, you dont need me for that.

What you asked me was why I thought Kerry would be a worse nightmare for OBL than Bush. You didnt ask me: "give me a reason that would persuade me to vote Kerry". I can't do that, because the reasons I would vote for Kerry might well be exactly things that would turn you away. I'm not here to make up your mind - you're a grown-up. I can merely tell you about how I made up mine. And I gave you my reasons, and they simply aren't because of some "specific item of his plan". They are about how I expect Kerry to act in the international arena - and how it will compare favourably to Bush's failing excuse for a diplomacy. Yeah thats a little more abstract than a line item from a policy shopping list. And?


Bullshit Bill. You asked me why *I* believed Kerry would be worse for OBL. I explained. Here is where I answered your question:


Now, you may not like the answer. Because what you were looking for were list items from a plan. But as I said already, the difference Kerry would make - in my opinion, which is what you asked about - is not about sending 257 more troops to the crossroads 7 miles NE of Basra. It is about slightly more abstract, more general, harder to narrowly pinpoint issues. But here they are.

So, I answered your question. At length. And if you had looked at all these reasons here and said: well, I dont believe this one will be the case, and I dont believe that one would actually even be a good thing - et cetera - then that would have been your right. But instead, faced with an answer that looks differently and feels differently from how you would answer such a question - or from what you had expected, or had wanted the answer to be - you reverted to petulant childishness: "Well, you've proven to me that you can't answer my question".

Done with ya, Bill. ENough with the kid's stuff.

Allow me to pile on as well. I've been reading along and I think I see the big disconnect. What Bill seems to be looking for is something in Kerry's plan which we (Kerry supporters) believe is guaranteed to be better than what Bush is doing. None of us can offer that because, regardless of the valid reasons we have to like and vote for him, we cannot predict that his plan will work better than Bush's.

But, every new president is an unknown. It's the risk that comes with democracy but which is mitigated by the frequency of our elections. The second term election is a referendum on the indumbent. My feeling is that, though I don't know for sure that there's anything Kerry can do that will be better than what Bush is doing, I do know for sure that we can't afford to keep doing things the way we've been doing them. What we don't want is, to borrow from Kerry, 'more of the same'. It's time to give someone else a shot. I can't say for sure that 4 years from now I won't be ABK, but I'm willing to give it a shot.

I woulda loved to hear your take, Soz.

I have a headache.

Oh, I basically gave it, nimh. I mean, I've agreed wholeheartedly with all of your posts (I started it with the "no, Dookie didn't make an idiotic comment" thing) and with dlowan's and a few others' as well.

I already commented on the "automatically" part, that contains a lot of my position, such as it is.

I like the aspect you pointed out of gut feeling/ who you'd want to have a beer with vs. (trying to avoid value-laden terms) a more cerebral approach. I think each side here finds the other's decision-making process deeply problematic, and that gives rise to some of the tensions.

Say it ain't so...

Yes, Panzade, it's true. Is this thread not having that effect on anyone else?

OK, nimh's explanation--and, not my intended assault on his position--but maybe an explanation of why some such as me, find it hard to decipher a reasonable reason to prefer Kerry for President--for LEADER in Iraq--

(nimh)Quote:
I believe that on every of the counts above, a President Kerry will make a difference. Will show a different face. Talk in a different way. Impose different policies. Recover some of the unparallelled PR disaster that the Bush government has been in the Arab and Muslim world, not to mention other parts of the world. And yes, I think having a more reasonable, more measured US President will rob Osama of that which he needs most: a proper enemy image to rally against. [..]
-------------
(Me)Clinton was "more measured", and Osama was happy to attack us then.

(nimh)He's shown - even just in the debates - how much more expertise he has, and how much more of an ear he has for international politics. I expect him to talk in a different way. You can reject that as irrelevant - just more talking! - but diplomacy is about talking. The effect your presence has on other people's attitude towards you is about how you come across and how you relate to people as much as about actual policies. [..] I expect him not to push even allied countries away from him by regularly offending them ("Old Europe") and trying to blackmail them into falling into line "or else" with that "if you're not with us, you're against us" nonsense. I expect him, in short, to treat allies and neutral parties alike as adults. [..]
-------
(me)911 wasn't about Bush's personality. This is more like a laundry list of European/liberal complaints about Bush's personality, than a list of Kerry's strengths. This smacks of diplomacy as the answer to AQ. I didn't think anyone was still thinking diplomacy would work with OBL or Zawrkawi (sp) or any murderous thugs... It IS the Democrat position, though, isn't it? God help us if Kerry wins.


(nimh)I expect him not to haplessly compromise the US and its soldiers by putting their mission in Christian-inspired terms - no crusade bull. I expect him to be less allergic to any kind of criticism, less averse to ever acknowledging a mistake, more realistic about estimating and describing the sitiuation. That, in turn, will make for sounder policy decisions on the ground, which will make US soldiers safer, and for less exasperation among possible allies both in Iraq itself and the international arena.
---------
(me)Again, personality complaints against Bush. He said the word "Crusade". This is a verbal gaffe, not a policy mistake. You expect Kerry not to make verbal gaffes--OK, maybe not as many...still doesn't make a President. Has Kerry admitted to any mistakes in his 20 year Senate career? How is he less averse to admitting mistakes? He's only more willing to discuss the realities on the ground--when he's criticising someone else. This reads like a wish list, nimh--not anything based on facts. ....This in turn will make for better policy... Respectfully--this DOES read like quite a reach. (If you could evaluate it emotionlessly.)


(nimh)I expect him to have American soldiers put out there under more of a UN umbrella (which Bush would absolutely refuse),
---------
(me)No US President will put US troops under the authority of the UN in military operations.


(nimh)partnered up with troops from more other countries (yes, I think in the long term thats feasible, once the damage Bush did as been massaged away enough),
-----------
(me)The French and others have said they don't care who asks, they will not do this. Chucking Bush to gain help from the international community is paying blackmail.


(nimh)and presented and defended not as some messianistic mission of civilisation, but as troops of support, meant merely to stabilise a place so the people there can get on with their own elections.
-----------------
(me)Good grief. Do what Bush is doing, just don't be Bush. Kerry says he is a Christian, and gets his views based on his inner faith. How come he can do this? (Answer: Because he's not Bush.)


(nimh)By dropping the insistence on having US bases in Iraq for at least a decade, by showing that big business contracts are as likely to be given to Arab or European or Asian companies as to Halliburton and its like, I think he will show the ME that it's not about creating a long-term imposition of narrow US interest. That again will impact attitudes towards the US and its troops in the long run, and thus increase the chances of success of the Iraq mission and the safety of the US soldiers. Not to mention the effectivity of the war against Al Qaeda, which depends entirely on the complete co-operation of governments and intelligence agencies around the world. Bush has tried to bully everyone into falling into line. Some have, but many others have turned away in disgust or distrust. Kerry will do better.
------------
(me)At least the 'dropping idea of long-term bases' is a tangible thing--But, it is not enough to effect change, is it? I don't think your average terrorist is worried about Halliburton. Again--not anything relative to a President Kerry--just an ABB list of complaints.
-----------------------------------

Nimh-- I greatly appreciated your response to a couple of my questions back on about page 15. It painted a vivid picture for me, and I deeply appreciate your time and effort. I understand what you say, but it heightened my sense that you (and others who agree with you) don't see the reforming of a society's government as a long-term progression worth upheaval.

We are currently embroiled in the risky part of a bid for the freedom of Iraq. You are judging it on a day to day basis. I am judging it with the big picture in mind. You are withholding judgement until the results are in, if I may so characterise your response. Some (me) would say the risk was worth the struggle, no matter what the outcome.

Remember Tiannenmen Square? Wouldn't both of us commend the students if we met them now? They failed--but we were pulling for them. So many died for their freedom. Was their struggle in vain? I say resoundingly NO! Would we tell them--Don't try it again. Many will die, you may not win? Good God, I hope not. There is nothing more precious--nothing more worth the fight. I hope we never stand coldly by, calculating losses when the choice is freedom or oppression.

I would just submit--unless you take a look at the big picture--the possible future result--no one would ever rebel against dictatorships. The short term is horrific. The long term is the thing, IMO.
---------------
Question for Kerry supporters--
Kerry said the troops should begin rotating home as soon as he gets in office. He said he will cajole other nations into helping out. Then, other nations said they wouldn't help out no matter who was in office.

Then, Kerry said we need more troops on the ground.

My question is--which of these is he currently saying, or does he intend to do? And, which one do you think he should/can do?

No, I didn't like it... but I don't think I've been clear about why.



Nimh, it's probably my fault for not being clear... but you've misunderstood me again. "Well, you've proven to me that you can't answer my question". What I meant by this is that the answer I was looking for, cannot be provided by you. By no means do I mean you are unwilling to provide one. You've answered exhaustively, and apparently I've failed to make clear I appreciate the effort. For that I am sorry. I was looking for a reason to like Kerry, and couldn't find one on my own. It is the eleventh hour before the election. I consider you among the most level headed, best researched, Kerry supporters on A2K. If anyone could provide me a reason to like John Kerry, it would be someone like you. None of your answers moved me... so it turns out no one could.

That isn't some childish denial because I don't like your answers. It is a statement of fact, because I remain unmoved. My challenge to you may very well have been unfair... Certainly, I have no predisposition to wanting to accept anything good about Kerry. I can see by the response of everyone here that my technique leaves much to be desired. I'm sorry that I pissed you off, but rest assured that wasn't my intention.

As for piling onto me folks, go nuts. Worst thing that could happen is I might learn something about myself. A little more humility probably wouldn't hurt anyway.

OBill--

You aren't alone. I have been following, trying to see what Kerry plans to do, which moves voters to prefer his policy in Iraq over Bush's.

I haven't found it, either.

I sort of tried to use nimh's thoughtful answer a few pages back to at least show why we can't seem to find a definitive answer.

I have a high degree of respect for nimh, and I know you are zeroing in on him--because you realize--as I do--if there IS a definitive reason for support for Kerry's Iraq policy--nimh will detail it.

After reading the posts, I have come to the conclusion--as you did--it's not what Kerry plans to do--it's that Kerry isn't Bush.

Many of the things nimh pointed to cannot be done. They speak of diplomacy. Clinton was diplomatic--and suffered a couple of OBL attacks. France and others say they will not join in Iraq, Kerry or no Kerry. And the list goes on...

You don't need humility. You are just focused on getting an answer to your question. I guess they can't understand that even though they have given answers--their answers don't address Kerry's superior Iraq policy. Tangible policy.

OK, but the terms have changed, folks. The discussion just became "can you convince me to vote for John Kerry?" That's not what it was before. Nimh reasonably said if you want Kerry's positions, look at his website. It's not hard.