Are Democrats the Party of "Cut & Run" ?

[BrainGlutton]

@David Simmons

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

I believe that’s what they call a “counsel of perfection.”

[XT]

@BrainGlutton

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.

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

Are you saying that Kerry DIDN’T vote to against give authorization in the first Gulf War?? Because its kind of going to be hard for you to make that case BG…his vote is on record and all. I don’t see how the above statement from Shodan is ‘a demonstrable lie’, or even ‘at least a dishonest and invidious oversimplification of the truth’ in this case. Kerry voted to not give authorization. He maybe or may not have had his reasons, and what those reason were COULD be debated I suppose (personally I think Kerry a complete tool, voting first one way then the other in the hopes of making a splash for himself…which he did, though not as intended :)), but the FACT is he DID vote the way he voted.

None of this make the Dems the party of ‘Cut & Run’ of course, since Kerry hardly represents the entire Democrat party. It just shows that Kerry is what he is…a fucking politician.

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

Kerry voted to not give authorization. He maybe or may not have had his reasons . . .

He stated his reasons quite plainly, and sound ones they were. You might or might not agree with them, but his vote in this instance makes him neither a “cut-and-runner” nor a “flip-flopper.”

[XT]

@BrainGlutton

He stated his reasons quite plainly, and sound ones they were. You might or might not agree with them, but his vote in this instance makes him neither a “cut-and-runner” nor a “flip-flopper.”

Were his lips moving? Is he a politician? 'Nuff said IMHO BG. Really, its moot anyway…reguardless of if he has an excuse for how he voted, the fact remains he voted as he voted. The man IS a ‘flip-flopper’ IMHO…obviously YMMV on this. Thats because you give him a pass and buy his line of crap. Its similar to someone who says “Well, Bush said <so and so>” as if we are to take that as gospel…he SAID it after all, right? It must be true… :dubious:

As to the ‘cut-and-runner’, no…I think Kerry is just doing what he always does (what just about all politicians do). He’s trying to get on a bandwagon and be popular by taking a position he HOPES will make him look good. He was wrong about the first GW, and wrong about the second…but he MAY be right about getting out of Iraq by ‘cutting and running’. It seems to be a popular position in any case these days here in the US.

So, he’s batting 1 for 3…not great but not a complete failure.

-XT

[Evil_Captor]

Actually, we CAN’T cut and run from Iraq, because there is no one to run FROM. We BEAT the Iraqi army. We won. We are now and have for several years been what’s known as “an occupying power.” What we are engaging in is not war, it is an occupation. You do not “cut and run” from an occupation. You just end it.

[Snag]

@Evil Captor

Actually, we CAN’T cut and run from Iraq, because there is no one to run FROM. We BEAT the Iraqi army. We won. We are now and have for several years been what’s known as “an occupying power.” What we are engaging in is not war, it is an occupation. You do not “cut and run” from an occupation. You just end it.

Oh yeah, that’s right. We won, didn’t we.

Didn’t we??

[ElvisL1ves]

@Evil Captor

What we are engaging in is not war, it is an **occupation.

I question that too - an occupying force is normally thought to be in general control of a country, occasional insurgent activity notwithstanding, isn’t it? Is that an accurate summary of the US situation in Iraq? Are we, or our client kleptocrats inside the Green Zone, in general control of much of anything?

We ARE engaging in war. We’re on one of a number of sides in a blossoming civil war, and not a very attractive side at that.

[Snag]

@ElvisL1ves

I question that too - an occupying force is normally thought to be in general control of a country, occasional insurgent activity notwithstanding, isn’t it? Is that an accurate summary of the US situation in Iraq? Are we, or our client kleptocrats inside the Green Zone, in general control of much of anything?

We ARE engaging in war. We’re on one of a number of sides in a blossoming civil war, and not a very attractive side at that.

Our occupation is helping to control the flow of oil from the Middle East a’la OPEC in the 70’s. Less gets out than usual thus raising the pricing of the resource which apparently has raised the cost at home while providing some cover to allow record profits to the oil industry. Oh yeah, they forgot to build refineries for the last few years as well.

Plus gas / oil pricing levels which we saw a couple years ago will not be seen again.The bar has been raised. At least not unless sales of renewables get to a point where gasoline has a much lower demand than we see now.

Mission accomplished!