Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[sgtclub]

I'm wondering whether those of you who still think the UN is meaningful have had a change of heart, given its impotence in the Sudan?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Exactly. Three things to note for the moment on the topic at hand. The Independent and the Scotsman have both picked the story up now. Kerry is supposedly scheduled as a guest on Don Imus in the morning (I'm gonna have to torture myself to watch).

And one of the above-noted papers summarized the recent releases on Kerry, that include:
1.) Pictures of him sitting 3 rows behind Hanoi Jane (thanks Not_Me) at what can only be termed an anti-war meeting/rally with generosity;

* * * * *

The machine has barely started on this guy. Though none of it is needed, it just hammers home the emptiness of the democratic party. The Nancy Pelosi leadership position should have clued the rest of you in, if not 11 years of Clinton exposure.

Hello

I am reminded that a number of leading conservative journalists got taken by the above-described photo, putuatively of Kerry and Jane Fonda at a rally. I don't remember that there were calls for Brit Hume or Sean Hannity to resign. Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm wondering whether those of you who still think the UN is meaningful have had a change of heart, given its impotence in the Sudan?

If the UN is so meaningless, why is the admin turning to the UN to address the Iran proliferation issue?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Put aside the substantive question of whether we should have gone. He said a month ago that knowing what he know knows he still would have voted for the war. What does Kerry think his vote authorizing war means? Does he mean that he gets to hedge on the outcome - meaning that if it goes well he can say he voted for it, and if it goes less than well, he can say that what he's currently saying this week?

It means that the President was authorized to use force in his discretion. It was not a referendum on whether we should invade. The President pitched it this way at the time. Recall that the vote was months before the war started.

This is why he is losing. Someone should force him to answer the question as to what he would have done if he were president at the time, no just how he would have voted.

Voted on what? But I agree with you -- since most voters are, like you, apparently unable to appreciate the distinctions I'm drawing, Kerry's not helping himself.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I know you guys like to see things in black and white, but it's really not that hard.

Imus still thinks it must be. He's no dummy, he's an almost rabid Kerry supporter, and he thinks that what he got from Kerry was gibberish.

It's that nuance thing again, isn't it?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
If the UN is so meaningless, why is the admin turning to the UN to address the Iran proliferation issue?

Because we have no other options currently.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Imus still thinks it must be. He's no dummy, he's an almost rabid Kerry supporter, and he thinks that what he got from Kerry was gibberish.

It's that nuance thing again, isn't it?

If you want to judge him on how well he communicates, he gets poor grades. Since most political commentary takes this tack, instead of trying to grapple with the wisdom of policy, I'm going to assume that this was Imus's position. People don't want to talk about whether it made sense in October to authorize subsequent military action. They want to know whether your for it or agin' it.

But stop pretending that you can't understand Kerry's position. You're not that dumb.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It means that the President was authorized to use force in his discretion. It was not a referendum on whether we should invade. The President pitched it this way at the time. Recall that the vote was months before the war started.

And if Kerry gave the president this unfettered discretion, when he really didn't mean it to be unfettered, shouldn't he be held accountable?

Voted on what? But I agree with you -- since most voters are, like you, apparently unable to appreciate the distinctions I'm drawing, Kerry's not helping himself.

The resolution. These distinction are monday morning quarterbacking for political purposes. I deal in the world of advise and consent everyday. If Kerry did not agree that the president should have this discretion, or wanted other conditions tied to the approval, they should have been written into the document.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And if Kerry gave the president this unfettered discretion, when he really didn't mean it to be unfettered, shouldn't he be held accountable?

Are you really this stupid? He voted to give the President discretion. This is Congress's role. If the President used the discretion to make stupid decisions, you hold the President accountable, not the Congress. It's not like Congress knew that the President was intent on doing the wrong thing.

October 2002 was before Hans Blix (e.g.) couldn't find WMD. At that point, the President might have changed course. Kerry should be held accountable because Bush made bad decisions? I don't think so.

The resolution. These distinction are monday morning quarterbacking for political purposes. I deal in the world of advise and consent everyday. If Kerry did not agree that the president should have this discretion, or wanted other conditions tied to the approval, they should have been written into the document.

Did he? No. Congress authorizes the use of force, but there's only one CIC. eta: Kerry's not saying he made a mistake in giving the President discretion, he's saying the President misused that discretion. It's really not that hard.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you really this stupid? He voted to give the President discretion. This is Congress's role.

Well, Congress abdicated its role, then. See U.S. Const., Art. I, sec. 8. And Kerry supported its doing so.

Given the important constitutional check that Congress is supposed to play in declarations of war, it strikes me as a bit rich to say "all I was doing was letting the president make a decision". Come on--Congress was making a decision in letting the president begin hostilities. It was not a vote give away its power. The vote had a substantive component to it. And Kerry, at the time, believed war was appropriate.

If he wants to back away from the vote, I really don't see how it helps him--I was voting for indecision and to let someone capable of actual acting decisively make a decision?

Anyone have some Grade A Dark Amber?



[eta stuff]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
October 2002 was before Hans Blix (e.g.) couldn't find WMD. At that point, the President might have changed course. Kerry should be held accountable because Bush made bad decisions?

no. Blix couldn't find them for a long time before that. if what Kerry meant he was voting for was that Bush can go to war only if SH stops the inspections, but that he shouldn't go to war as long as the inspections are progressing, J could have taken that position.
this would be an entirely new position, by the way, but who's counting.
what J's said up till now is that Bush should have gotten other nations to help before starting the war. again, not in the authorization. The entire American public realized this is a BS postiton and that some of those countries weren't helping under any circumstances. This probably why J's changing horses- his old story ain't helping.
Ty, you know why he's being asked the question, right? I have no idea how Daschale feels about his vote now- we're talking about J's vote because he wants to be President. So implicit in the question is the need to answer whether his vote equals what he would have done as President. Some twisted explaination so that Club can say, "I guess Ty's explaination avoids SJ" isn't going to win too many votes."

the silliest part is the allegation that he didn't know Bush would use it to go to war.
A guy that gulliable wants to be my president?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Because we have no other options currently.

So perhaps you should have rephrased your original question "I'm wondering whether those of you who still think the UN is infallible have had a change of heart, given its impotence in the Sudan?"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, Congress abdicated its role, then. See U.S. Const., Art. I, sec. 8. And Kerry supported its doing so.

Given the important constitutional check that Congress is supposed to play in declarations of war, it strikes me as a bit rich to say "all I was doing was letting the president make a decision". Come on--Congress was making a decision in letting the president begin hostilities. It was not a vote give away its power. The vote had a substantive component to it. And Kerry, at the time, believed war was appropriate.

If I cared to, I could show you statements from Bush before the vote, explaining how he needed the leverage to go back to the UN, etc. It's no secret that Bush engineered an early vote for political reasons, to get his way from Congress, etc. Holding Kerry responsible for getting played by these tactics is just fucked-up. I agree with you that a originalist reading of the Constitution suggests that Congress should not be issuing the President a credit card, but rather disbursing funds. But the way the world functions has pushed Congresses and Presidents to do things differently for several decades now. And I don't see originalists condemning the President for seizing this power.

If he wants to back away from the vote, I really don't see how it helps him--I was voting for indecision and to let someone capable of actual acting decisively make a decision?

His mistake is in discussing the vote at all. As I said, he needs to stay on message better, and no part of his message for the next two months should involve explanations of specific legislative votes. This is one reason why legislators shouldn't run for President.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
no. Blix couldn't find them for a long time before that. if what Kerry meant he was voting for was that Bush can go to war only if SH stops the inspections, but that he shouldn't go to war as long as the inspections are progressing, J could have taken that position.

It was only shortly before the war that Blix saw enough of Iraq (and the sites we pointed him to) that he started to think that there were no WMD. Another President not hell-bent on war might have reacted accordingly.

Ty, you know why he's being asked the question, right? I have no idea how Daschale feels about his vote now- we're talking about J's vote because he wants to be President. So implicit in the question is the need to answer whether his vote equals what he would have done as President. Some twisted explaination so that Club can say, "I guess Ty's explaination avoids SJ" isn't going to win too many votes."

I agree that he needs to address the topic, but he shouldn't be parsing these votes. Oy.

the silliest part is the allegation that he didn't know Bush would use it to go to war.
A guy that gulliable wants to be my president?

At the same time, you couldn't very well cut the President's legs out from under him by denying him the authority. Congress was in a box, put there by the President and a GOP legislature that -- except for those retiring and now free to speak their minds -- is unwilling to betray their party by exercising independent judgment. Blaming Kerry for this is like blaming a passenger for a car accident, and using that pretext to let the driver keep driving.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


His mistake is in discussing the vote at all. As I said, he needs to stay on message better, and no part of his message for the next two months should involve explanations of specific legislative votes. This is one reason why legislators shouldn't run for President.

Let me ask you this:

Are you more pissed that Kerry can't seem to campaign his way out of a paper bag, and appears fairly likely to lose what should be an entirely winable election (in light of the economy, employment, and the current administration's foreign policy bungles), or

that the American people can't seem to see how bad Bush as been and persist in their (slightly more than 50%) support for Bush?