Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Interestingly, David Kay seems to think that Clinton's air strikes in 1998, derided at the time by Republicans who were more interested in investigating his sex life, were partly to credit for getting rid of Saddam's WMD. Which suggests that what you have posted here, which sounds like it supports the Clinton policy, is not only consistent with Kerry's prior views, but also may well have been the best course.

I will never understand how that brain of yours works. How you get from those quotes to that conclusion is beyond me.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
But can you see them with your telescope?

If you get too close, they suck you and your telescope right in. As you approach the event horizon, light no longer escapes, and it becomes impossible for you to get any news from the outside world, leaving you in the dark concerning the Dem nomination. At the point of singularity, both you and your telescope become infinitely compressed and infinitely long. This can be troublesome. Fortunately, as compensation, time becomes infinitely slow in your frame of reference, allowing for the opportunity to live long enough to see another Democratic-controlled Congress.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
We'd better get some good, old-fashioned fiscally conservative Democrats back in the WH -- at least then the GOP leadership in Congress would oppose new spending.

The problem is, the DEMs don't want to roll back the cuts to close the budget cap, they want to roll it back to fund other programs, such as universal healthcare (see Kerry's proposal). So are choice has become (a) lower taxes, big government or (b) higher taxes, bigger government.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
But can you see them with your telescope?

I was just trying to build up my science credentials, for the next time we do global warming or evolution.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I will never understand how that brain of yours works. How you get from those quotes to that conclusion is beyond me.

You see, though, I did not read those quotes and see them as making Kerry's current position hypocritical.

As he now sets it forth (or at least, as he did during the last NH debate) -- he criticizes the President more or less for rushing to war as a foregone conclusion -- not using force as a "last resort" -- and not handling the situation properly with regard to securing UN support for the conflict.

He defends his vote for the resolution in late 2002 authorizing the use of force against Iraq by saying that, regardless of the precise wording of the resolution, he voted to give the President authority to use force as a last resort -- which he says was the undertsanding and promise given by the WH to various Congresspeople during the negotiations over passage.

He now says that the WH violated that understanding.

He defends his vote for the $87 Billion spending package on the standard -- support the troops, do the job right theory.

I'm sure that nowadays folks can drag up inconsistencies from anyone in the public eye -- but I think this explanation works.

FWIW -- He's also called for expanding the Army by two divisions to give it the personnel and power needed to live up to our current level of commitment and engagement in the world and relieve pressure on the reserves.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You see, though, I did not read those quotes and see them as making Kerry's current position hypocritical.

As he now sets it forth (or at least, as he did during the last NH debate) -- he criticizes the President more or less for rushing to war as a foregone conclusion -- not using force as a "last resort" -- and not handling the situation properly with regard to securing UN support for the conflict.

He defends his vote for the resolution in late 2002 authorizing the use of force against Iraq by saying that, regardless of the precise wording of the resolution, he voted to give the President authority to use force as a last resort -- which he says was the undertsanding and promise given by the WH to various Congresspeople during the negotiations over passage.

He now says that the WH violated that understanding.

Why didn't he say, on the eve of war, "Wait, you didn't meet the conditions precedant?"
The, "boy did I get taken on language" argument is a gutsy move. Some people may take it as being unqualified to have a senate vote, let alone a veto.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The problem is, the DEMs don't want to roll back the cuts to close the budget cap, they want to roll it back to fund other programs, such as universal healthcare (see Kerry's proposal). So are choice has become (a) lower taxes, big government or (b) higher taxes, bigger government.

So, if you think large deficits are dangerous to our nation's economic health over the long term -- the Democratic way amy be better.

_Especially_ given that with a Dem in the WH the Congressional GOP will fight increased spending -- and not crush the 20+ or so committed conservative junior Representatives who have tried to oppose things like the President's new health care package.

Plus, gosh, its only a couple % points of income taxes. No one is talking about going back to 70% top marginal rates.

S_A_M



S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Why didn't he say, on the eve of war, "Wait, you didn't meet the conditions precedant?"
The, "boy did I get taken on language" argument is a gutsy move. Some people may take it as being unqualified to have a senate vote, let alone a veto.

Don't misunderetimate him.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Don't misunderetimate him.

S_A_M

Exactly. A solid 30% of America feels Bush is dumb. they also feel he cleverly lied to the World to justify an invasion, and also suckered in one of the most experienced world leader to stick his neck out, and be part of the invasion.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I will never understand how that brain of yours works. How you get from those quotes to that conclusion is beyond me.

Why you think Kerry is a hypocrite is beyond me. The speech you linked to in the National Review was from 1997. The questions was what to do about Hussein's stiffing of UN inspectors. Kerry said:

• The suspended reconnaissance flights should be resumed beginning tomorrow, and it is my understanding they will be. Should Saddam be so foolish as to take any action intended to endanger those aircraft or interrupt their mission, then we should, and I am confident we will, be prepared to take the necessary actions to either eliminate that threat before it can be realized, or take actions of retribution.
  
  When it meets tomorrow to receive the negotiators' report and to determine its future course of action, it is vital that the Security Council treat this situation as seriously as it warrants.
  
  In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior.
  
  This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.

He wasn't calling for an invasion. He was calling for airstrikes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Why you think Kerry is a hypocrite is beyond me.
He wasn't calling for an invasion. He was calling for airstrikes.

I don't see how you reach that conclusion. He was also calling for unilateral action if our allies were not on board.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't see how you reach that conclusion. He was also calling for unilateral action if our allies were not on board.

I am utterly baffled that you could read that speech and think (1) he was calling for war, as opposed to air strikes, and (2) that he was calling for unilateral US action, as opposed to action under UN auspices. It's a little like attacking Ronald Reagan for saying that welfare recipients ought to be treated like royalty. But if he was saying what you think he was saying, sure, he's a hypocrite.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I know deception is SOP for the Administration's Iraq policy . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus. You and AG have a nice conversation. Sarcasm mixed with disingenuous . . . stuff. Commiserate over looted museums, and lies. Call me when it's over.

We can talk about the Vice President's "insistence on perpetuating dubious claims":

• In a series of well-publicized interviews, Cheney has revived two assertions already discredited by other members of the administration.
  
  First, he declared that there is "overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein has a relationship with al Qaeda," a link that even the president discounted last year.
  
  Second, he argued that two flatbed trailers outfitted with tanks -- discovered after the war -- proved that Iraq was indeed engaged in biological weapons programs. But scientists who studied them in Baghdad, including the late British scientist David Kelly and Kay, had already discredited that conclusion.

SF Chronicle editorial this morning

Does Cheney really believe this stuff? If so, shouldn't the man be better informed? If not, why does he keep repeating it?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Exactly. A solid 30% of America feels Bush is dumb. they also feel he cleverly lied to the World to justify an invasion, and also suckered in one of the most experienced world leader to stick his neck out, and be part of the invasion.

They are clearly wrong as to the first part, at least -- and forget that our President has loads of people thinking up stategery and trickeration for him to use on his unsuspecting adversaries.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't see how you reach that conclusion. He was also calling for unilateral action if our allies were not on board.

If you're pulling out speeches from seven years ago to suggest hypocrisy -- without considering both how the situations and circumstances may have changed over the course of seven years and how one's opinions are entitled to evolve . . .

Then you are adopting a sufficiently simple-minded mode of analysis that it should be easy enough to brush aside on the campaign trail.

I don't think you'll find a quote from John Kerry saying trhat the U.S. should never act on its own.

S_A_M