Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
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

I agree regarding evolution, but that raises the legitimate question or whether his views are again going to evolve, or whether they evolved for political reasons.

As to changed circumstances, I agree with this in principle, but I don't know how the circumstances in Iraq materially changed between 1997 and 2001, other than in a way that is adverse to Kerry.

On unilateral action, it is more than just the absence of such a quote. It is an express quote that the US should be prepared to act alone.

Look, while I disagree with his policies, I actually like John Kerry. He is a sober, smart, experienced politician and certainly fit to hold the presidency (he is the only one of the 9 that is, IMHO). But if you look at his record, he has tended to sway for political expediency. Dean has been pointing this out recently (e.g., how could Kerry vote against the war in 1991 when SH had invaded Kuwait, and for preemptive war in 2002). Kerry is doing his best to parse this out, but I think the simple answer is that it was for political purposes.

[eta for mistakes]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
On unilateral action, it is more than just the absence of such a quote. It is an express quote that the US should be prepared to act alone.

This one?

• Let me say that I agree with the determination by the administration, at the outset of this development, to take a measured and multilateral approach to this latest provocation.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
This one?

• Let me say that I agree with the determination by the administration, at the outset of this development, to take a measured and multilateral approach to this latest provocation.

How bout this one:

"We must not presume that these conclusions automatically will be accepted by every one of our allies, some of which have different interests both in the region and elsewhere, or will be of the same degree of concern to them that they are to the U.S."

"Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted...the United States must not lose its resolve to take action."

"Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged."

Or this one:

"While our actions should be thoughtfully and carefully determined and structured, while we should always seek to use peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve serious problems before resorting to force, and while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise."

And as to airstrikes:

"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."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
How bout this one:

"We must not presume that these conclusions automatically will be accepted by every one of our allies, some of which have different interests both in the region and elsewhere, or will be of the same degree of concern to them that they are to the U.S."

"Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted...the United States must not lose its resolve to take action."

"Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged."

Or this one:

"While our actions should be thoughtfully and carefully determined and structured, while we should always seek to use peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve serious problems before resorting to force, and while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise."

And as to airstrikes:

"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."

Res ipsa loquitur.

[SlaveNoMore]

Your alter-ego now thinks he's the Rock:

from the NY Post
January 27, 2004 -- EXETER, N.H. - Wise-cracking funnyman Al Franken yesterday body-slammed a demonstrator to the ground after the man tried to shout down Gov. Howard Dean.
The tussle left Franken's trademark thick-rim glasses broken, but he said he was not injured.

Franken - who seemed in a state of shock and out of breath after the incident - was helped back to his feet by several people who watched the tussle. Police arrived soon after.

"I got down low and took his legs out," said Franken afterwards.

Franken said he's not backing Dean but merely wanted to protect the right of people to speak freely. "I would have done it if he was a Dean supporter at a Kerry rally," he said.

"I'm neutral in this race but I'm for freedom of speech, which means people should be able to assemble and speak without being shouted down."

The trouble started when several supporters of fringe presidential candidate Lyndon Larouche began shouting accusations at Dean.

Franken emerged from the crowd and charged one male protester, grabbing him with a bear hug from behind and slamming him onto the floor.

"I was a wrestler so I used a wrestling move," Franken said.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Your alter-ego now thinks he's the Rock:

from the NY Post
January 27, 2004 -- EXETER, N.H. - Wise-cracking funnyman Al Franken yesterday body-slammed a demonstrator to the ground after the man tried to shout down Gov. Howard Dean.
The tussle left Franken's trademark thick-rim glasses broken, but he said he was not injured.

The Rock, Matt Drudge -- he's acting pretty erratic.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Exactly. A solid 30% of America feels Bush is dumb.

If they IQ tested those 30%, I wonder how their IQ's would match up to GWB's.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
If they IQ tested those 30%, I wonder how their IQ's would match up to GWB's.

look for the mean. Ty's going to fuck up any average.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The Rock, Matt Drudge -- he's acting pretty erratic.

I read that, and don't get the Drudge allusion.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Mighty Aprhrodite
If they IQ tested those 30%, I wonder how their IQ's would match up to GWB's.

PRobably better than the 70% who said otherwise.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I read that, and don't get the Drudge allusion.

Beats me. I assumed you guys who read him would chuckle, or something.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
look for the mean. Ty's going to fuck up any average.

True, but for that group, the median or mode would be more useful to look at.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
PRobably better than the 70% who said otherwise.

Al Franken thinks GWB is stupid and in the name of freedom of speech, wrestled a guy to the ground for speaking. 'Nuff said.

Anyone else see the irony in Al claiming the First Amendment made him do that?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Al Franken thinks GWB is stupid and in the name of freedom of speech, wrestled a guy to the ground for speaking. 'Nuff said.

Anyone else see the irony in Al claiming the First Amendment made him do that?

If someone is going to rise here in defense of the heckler's veto, you seem as likely a candidate as anyone else.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
Beats me. I assumed you guys who read him would chuckle, or something.

I guess Drudge throws hissy fits. Who knew.

As for Franken, perhaps he's angling for "Stuart Smalley vs. Cactus Jack" match at Wrestlemania XX.

I'd buy that for a dollar.