Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If you don't see that his vote against the $87 million was nothing more than a way to get some cover from Dean, there's no reason to have any further discussion. He voted no to the bill, and would have voted no to any bill the president proposed, because he needed cover. He was one of 12 fucking senators to vote no, which indicates that the "Bush Bill," while imperfect, was a signable bill.

Instead of impugning his motives, why don't you look at what Kerry actually did. According to factcheck.org, which comes endorsed by Dick Cheney, Kerry "voted for an alternative resolution that would have approved $87 billion in emergency funds for troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was conditioned on repealing much of Bush's tax cuts, and it failed 57-42." That was a vote for funding the $87 billion. Your objection is not that he wouldn't vote to fund the troops, but that he wouldn't borrow to do it. You could just as easily attack Bush for refusing to ask the rich to forego tax cuts while the country is at war.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean the candidate for president should do it in that manner. You keep confusing the average citizen, even the average senator, with the CIC.

This is a new code of conduct for Presidents that apparently just got pulled out of Karl Rove's ass. So during an election, political candidates are supposed to avoid dissent on the most important issues of the day? If that's what you think, you should be writing in a vote for Putin.

Funny, why doesn't this same rationale apply to the French? I know I know. Because when Bush does it is a failure of diplomacy, but when Kerry does it it's pointing out the truth.

It would apply to the French if Allawi were their puppet. WTF are you talking about?

He's called them the coalition of the coerced and the bribed. That speaks for itself.

Is that not true of many of the countries on the list?

It's very confusing to me. What does this mean? How do you justifiy it? To whom do you justify it? What if you can justify it to your country man but not your allies?

After you act, you open your mouth and say things that are true and correct, not bullshit. The issue here is that Bush thinks he should be above explaining anything to anyone. William Saletan in Slate (internal links omitted) said it better than I can:

• It's clear from Kerry's first sentence that the "global test" doesn't prevent unilateral action to protect ourselves. But notice what else Kerry says. The test includes convincing "your countrymen" that your reasons are clear and sound. Kerry isn't just talking about satisfying France. He's talking about satisfying Ohio. He's talking about you.
  
  What do you have in common with a Frenchman? Look again at Kerry's words. He says the test is to "prove" that our reasons for attacking were legitimate. In the next sentence, he gives an example of someone failing that test: Colin Powell's February 2003 presentation to the United Nations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What did Powell apologize for? The inaccuracy of our intelligence. Kerry contrasts this with the trust France once placed in American spy photos.
  
  Proof, intelligence, spy photos. The pattern is obvious. The test isn't moral. It's factual. What you and the Frenchman share is the evidence of your senses. The global test is the measurement of the president's assertions against the real world, the world you and I can see.
  
  This is the test Bush has failed. He has failed to produce evidence for his prewar claims of Iraqi WMD and operational ties to al-Qaida, or for his postwar claims of success against the insurgency. Now he's going further. He's not simply failing the test. He's refusing to take it.
  
  Listen to Bush's words again. "The president's job is not to take an international poll," he says. "Our national security decisions will be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals." Bush doesn't say these decisions belong to the United States. He says they belong to the Oval Office. He frames this as patriotism, boasting that he doesn't care whether he offers evidence sufficient to convince people in France. He shows no awareness or concern that evidence is also necessary to convince people in Ohio. He says it isn't his job to take a "poll," to hear what others think. He needs no validation.
  
  Bush pretends he's just blowing off the French. But his comments show a pattern of blowing off external feedback in general. He shrugs off information that debunks his claims about WMD, arguing that it's more important for a president to understand the overall nature of the world. He defines credibility as agreement with himself. He reinterprets evidence of policy mistakes in postwar Iraq as evidence of success. In Thursday's debate, he dismissed unwelcome reports from that country as too offensive to heed. And according to Sunday's New York Times, he and his aides exaggerated Iraq's nuclear capability, ignoring warnings from "the government's foremost nuclear experts."
  
  Bush claims he has done all this to protect you. But that claim is precisely what's challenged by the evidence he conceals or disregards. What he's protecting you from is the ability to measure his assertions against the world that you and I can see. That's the global test he's mocking. And he expects you to applaud him for it, because he thinks you resent the French so much you'd rather have a president accountable to no one.

Which is 1 issue more than Kerry's "I'm not Bush" platform.

If you can't understand Kerry's explanation of the so-called "global test," it's no wonder that you think he doesn't have a platform.

Of course it does, but it also should involve the military, and I don't believe Kerry believes this.

On what basis do you believe this? Kerry's website talks about his proposal to enlarge the military, and then says, "The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone." That's not the same thing as saying the military has no role.

You conservatives like to pretend that Democrats were somehow opposed to the war in Afghanistan. Barbara Lee voted against the $$$, but every other Democratic Senator and Representative was in favor. It's a straw man.