Are Democrats the Party of "Cut & Run" ?

[Homebrew]

@John Mace

A soundbite almost as meanigless as Rove’s. No politician is going to put his life on the line in a war, be he Republican, Democrat, or Green since active duty military are not allowed to run for political office.

rjung was referring to Rove. What elected office does he hold again?

[Shodan]

I am assuming that this was supposed to be coded as follows:

@BrainGlutton

@Shodan

I’m betting some Democrats are willing to repeat the scenario in Iraq in the same way it went down in Viet Nam - pull out, wait for the country to be invaded or merely descend into chaos, and ignore it because they are busy patting each other on the back for driving the President out of office.

Thanx to W, what you are describing is now Iraq’s best-case scenario. Every conceivable scenario that involves us staying would be even worse.

No, that’s pretty self-evidently silly. The fact that you can’t conceive of anything except mass murder for Iraqis does not mean that other people are equally blind.

Which would have been the right decision, and how would it constitute “cutting and running”? How can you cut and run from a conflict you have not yet entered?

Driving Saddam out of Kuwait was the right decision. It is the opposite of “cutting and running”, which was the wrong decision, and the one Kerry supported. Because he is too stupid and/or too great a moral coward to be Commander-in-Chief.

And you cut and run from a conflict if you are scared of getting involved. Do you really not understand the definition of the word “proactive”?

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

@Homebrew

rjung was referring to Rove. What elected office does he hold again?

No, he painted with a much broader brush (empahsis added):

@rjung

Republicans talk tough about war, but only when other people’s lives are on the line.

[Loopydude]

Well, if you’re talking the current part leadership, it’s not exactly too broad.

[Loopydude]

party leadership…

[John_Mace]

@Loopydude

Well, if you’re talking the current part leadership, it’s not exactly too broad.

Which is what makes it profoundly stupid. No one serving in elected office in the U.S. can participate in a war whether he wants to or not. That was my original point.

[monavis]

@Shodan

I am assuming that this was supposed to be coded as follows:

No, that’s pretty self-evidently silly. The fact that you can’t conceive of anything except mass murder for Iraqis does not mean that other people are equally blind.

Driving Saddam out of Kuwait was the right decision. It is the opposite of “cutting and running”, which was the wrong decision, and the one Kerry supported. Because he is too stupid and/or too great a moral coward to be Commander-in-Chief.

And you cut and run from a conflict if you are scared of getting involved. Do you really not understand the definition of the word “proactive”?

Regards,
Shodan

The first Gulf war was fought to help another country to stop be taken over by Iraq,The first Bush did not go into Baghdad because of what he was told(What is happenening now in Baghdad).

To say Kerry was a moral coward is not true,because he doesn’t want to see innocent people being killed and being mired in Iraq as we are now is not being cowardly, the congress, senate, and the people of the USA were mis-lead by the present Administration, had we just kept our sights on Afghanistan there would not be such a mess. Maybe there would be less terrorists than now. The fanatics from all over the region have been stirred up like a bee hive.

I hope I am wrong but I see the Iraq/ terrorist situation going on for years and years;just like the Israel/Palestine situation, and no matter when we leave the terrorists will not concede as it just takes one fanatic nut to cause a lot of deaths.

The prolife president went into a war in Iraq, that at the very least could have waited until they threatened us. The end of the situation will go on no matter when we leave. Afghanistan is far from peaceful as the Taliban won’t concede and they have too much help from the fanatics in that area.

Monavis

[Shodan]

@monavis

The first Gulf war was fought to help another country to stop be taken over by Iraq,

And Kerry voted against it.

To say Kerry was a moral coward is not true,because he doesn’t want to see innocent people being killed and being mired in Iraq as we are now is not being cowardly,

The first Gulf War was to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, not Iraq.

IOW, the first Gulf War was entirely justifed, and Kerry voted against it. The war in Iraq, which you claim is not justified, Kerry voted for. (Sort of.)

So, if Kerry is so darn concerned about innocent deaths, why did he oppose fighting to save innocent Kuwaiti lives? And, if he is so concerned with being killed and mired in Iraq, why did he vote to authorize the invasion?

He seems to be an idiot by anybody’s standards. By mine, because he voted against the first Gulf War. By yours, because he voted for the second.

Regards,
Shodan

PS - I am assuming it is legitimate to break on the commas, which I think you meant as sentence delimiters. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[David_Simmons]

Will people stop talking about John Kerry if we promise not to ever vote for him for President?

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

And Kerry voted against it.

Actually . . . :

In 1991, during the debate before the Gulf War, Kerry initially opposed the immediate use of military force to expel Iraqi soldiers from Kuwait. The United Nations had imposed sanctions on Iraq, and Kerry argued that the sanctions then in place should be given more time to work.

@Shodan

. . . The war in Iraq, which you claim is not justified, Kerry voted for. (Sort of.)

So, if Kerry is so darn concerned about innocent deaths, why did he oppose fighting to save innocent Kuwaiti lives? And, if he is so concerned with being killed and mired in Iraq, why did he vote to authorize the invasion?

Actually . . .

More recently, Kerry said on October 9, 2002; “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force–if necessary–to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Bush relied on that resolution in ordering the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Kerry also gave a January 23, 2003 speech to Georgetown University saying “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator; leading an oppressive regime he presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.” Kerry did however warn the administration should exhaust its diplomatic avenues before launching war: “Mr. President, do not rush to war, take the time to build the coalition, because it’s not winning the war that’s hard, it’s winning the peace that’s hard.” [22]

After the invasion of Iraq, regarding the limited discovered evidence of any such weapons, Kerry strongly criticized Bush, contending that he had misled the country: “When the president of the United States looks at you and tells you something, there should be some trust.” [23] Although strongly critical of the president on the Iraq invasion, Kerry has stated that that is the vote he would have back if he could.

In both instances, Kerry took an intelligent, measured, tought-but-cautious approach.

[BrainGlutton]

And in both instances, Kerry was right and the president was wrong.

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

And you cut and run from a conflict if you are scared of getting involved. Do you really not understand the definition of the word “proactive”?

I understand that you are using the phrase “cut and run” in a sense so far removed from the accepted sense to be almost an antonym.

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

Driving Saddam out of Kuwait was the right decision.

BTW, Shodan, where were you, or President Ford (R), when the Indonesians invaded East Timor?

Oh, wait – East Timor doesn’t have any oil, does it?

[monavis]

@Shodan

And Kerry voted against it.
The first Gulf War was to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, not Iraq.

IOW, the first Gulf War was entirely justifed, and Kerry voted against it. The war in Iraq, which you claim is not justified, Kerry voted for. (Sort of.)

So, if Kerry is so darn concerned about innocent deaths, why did he oppose fighting to save innocent Kuwaiti lives? And, if he is so concerned with being killed and mired in Iraq, why did he vote to authorize the invasion?

He seems to be an idiot by anybody’s standards. By mine, because he voted against the first Gulf War. By yours, because he voted for the second.

Regards,
Shodan

PS - I am assuming it is legitimate to break on the commas, which I think you meant as sentence delimiters. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Yes I know we went to get Iraq out of Kuwait, and believe it was justified. Because Kerry was apposed to war or being wrong does not make him a coward. He did his stint in Vietnam while Bush was sitting in this country far from danger. If Bush and Kerry took a IQ test I think Kerry would far pass Bush, I do not agree with everything Kerry says or does but I do not think he is a coward.

I just think we shouldn’t be in Iraq at this time we should have consentrated on Afghanistan.

[Loopydude]

@monavis

If Bush and Kerry took a IQ test I think Kerry would far pass Bush

If grades are an indicator, I’m not so sure of that any more.

[Shodan]

@BrainGlutton

And in both instances, Kerry was right and the president was wrong.

Replace the “both” with “neither”, and you have it.

@monavis

Yes I know we went to get Iraq out of Kuwait, and believe it was justified.

Kerry disagreed with you.

Regards,
Shodan

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

Kerry disagreed with you.

No, he didn’t. See post #110.

[Shodan]

@BrainGlutton

No, he didn’t. See post #110.

Yes, he fucking well did.

Following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in January 1991, Kerry broke with the majority of senators and voted against authorizing the first Gulf War.

Cripes, what do you think you are gaining with these demonstrable lies?

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

Yes, he fucking well did.
Cripes, what do you think you are gaining with these demonstrable lies?

:dubious: No, Shodan, it is David Paul Kuhn’s statement in your link that is a demonstrable lie, or at least a dishonest and invidious oversimplification of the truth. Kerry did not flatly oppose the war; he merely did not want to give Bush I the authority to prosecute it without giving the sanctions some more time to work. As Kerry noted at the time, “It is a vote about war because whether or not the president exercises his power, we will have no further say after this vote.” And he was right.

It was even more dishonest of Kuhn – utterly shameful and disgusting, in fact – to compare Kerry’s nuanced position on that vote in 1991 with his nuanced position on the Iraq War in 2002 and characterize it as a “flip-flop.”

[BrainGlutton]

And BTW, Shodan, it is even more dishonest, shameful and disgusting for you to use the above to characterize Kerry, or the Dems generally, as being prone to “cut and run” – a characterization that would not apply even if the facts were as you have repeatedly misstated them.