I guess I can see how people can get that… but I really have to try to come to that conclusion. Especially since the statement went like this:
(emphasis mine… again)
I see the semantic difference between the two statements, but to take them mutually exclusively would imply that Kerry might “ask for permission to defend the U.S.”.
This distinction shouldn’t have to be made (i.e. people should use common sense), but since Bush et al. “pointed it out” I guess it does. :rolleyes:
In any case, thanks for the clarifications, Moody Bastard and John Mace.
Me too. I was trying to view Kerry’s answers last night through the eyes of an undecided voter, even a (shudder) Republican.
It wasn’t a mind transference I hope to repeat in the immediate future.
Kerry is in a tough spot, and I don’t envy him having to articulate a postition that is so easily made to look “weak” by either Bush or the press. If he said anything like my quote above, he could pretty much give up on his candidacy, even though I think it pretty much summarizes his views. Kerry has to claim that the Iraq war was “not a mistake” while still claiming that Bush made a mistake in going to war.
That’s not Kerry’s position at all. He clearly said that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake (and no, Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq) , but now that Bush has already fucked it up we have to make lemonade out of lemons. Kerry is we can still salvage this trainwreck and make it “successful” in that sense but that doesn’t mean the initial invasion was not a major fuck up, both in conceptiona nd execution.
Please. You’re not only quoting out of context, but *defending * the practice?
The hell it doesn’t matter. The simplistic, unnuanced, “no” you wish Kerry’d answered with would imply that nothing can be salvaged, nothing useful can be done, it’s time to bail out. But you know damn well, or should by now, that that is not only unrealistic but is not Kerry’s position. You do know that, don’t you?
He made it very clear to those of us who listened that there is still some possible good that can come out of the situation we are, in fact, in. There is some way still possible to make a softer landing than Bush’s approach is lemmingishly headed for. It at the very least is possible to get fewer people, both Iraqis and Americans, killed than Bush is. It is not a mistake to change the approach; it is a mistake not recognize that this one is doomed. Yes, it’s a tough spot for Kerry to be in, but not as tough as the one Bush is in.
This is something I would like to emphasize, with blowero. The way Bush handled the whole Iraq situation was the political equivalent of flipping France, Germany, etc. the bird (and subsequently mooning them).
I find it infinitely amusing that Bush tries to show so much concern for our allies, when he didn’t have a care in the world about our former allies.
Well, the “Lurch issue” didn’t last as long as they expected, so… something has to fill the void.
We’re having a detailed discussion of this topic in this thread. I’m not going to repeat myself over here, but feel free to join the debate over there if you want.
'It’s time to bail out" does not necessarily follow from the assertion that the war was a mistake. It’s pretty clear that pulling out would, in fact, compound the mistake.
Pardon me if this seems to literal. But what interest would Germany, France or Russia suddenly have in Iraq if Kerry were president? Are you saying he woudl distribute spoils of war? Are you saying that he would pay them something? What pray tell.
I understand the argument that Kerry represents a fresh start in international politics. Frankly I think this is somewhat simplistic. Nations enter into alliances and agreements for their national interests. Personal relationships play a part, surely. But they are not all important. The fact that Bush is president does not in and of itself mean that France, Germany, nor Russia have an interest in a peaceful resolution to the Iraq war.
Once again, I have to do the writing for Kerry…I’d insert this anywhere, regardless of the context: “In a Kerry administration, any cabinet member who oversees a scandal as outrageous as Abu Ghraib won’t get a pat on the back from me…he’ll get a kick in the ass.”
I don’t think you understand “the argument that Kerry represents a fresh start”, as well as you say you do… otherwise you wouldn’t have asked the 3 questions above.
Saying that Kerry represents a fresh start in international politics, and leaving it at that is simplistic, but it’s true. It follows (that is, the simplicity subsides when you see) that having a fresh start in international politics will make a WORLD of difference (man, that was a bad pun… sorry), because the leaders of France, Germany (and yes, other countries… we know they aren’t the only ones Bush pissed on/off) will actually believe their opinions matter to us! As it is right now, they’re probably under the impression, “No matter what we say or do, [Bush/U.S.] is not going to listen to us.”
That, alone, makes the “relationship-mending” much more difficult, if not impossible.
What Kerry said was that confronting Saddam Hussein and holding him accountable was important but that the way the President went about it was boneheaded. He specficially criticized the president for rushing to war.
So you see, John, even if does come after his “no” it’s still an important part of the story. I mean he does sound like he’s criticizing the president for making a mistake in how he invaded Iraq, right?
Kerry has a problem in that he can’t come right out and say that it’s a mistake because if he does then he could be legitimately criticized for demoralizing the troops while they’re getting their asses shot. At the same time he has to deal with the unappetizing reality that Bush really screwed the pooch on this one. To be blunt, Kerry’s speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Sometimes you have to do that. People may not like it but even Lincoln pulled crap like that. It’s called being a politician. There is, however, a significant difference between acting like a politician doing what’s necessary to get the essential truth accross without getting punished for excessive accuracy and the sort of chronic misrepresentation where one appears to be living in a fantasy world like ol’ Smirky McChimp.
By the way, John, let me ask you this: if polls showed that Kerry lost the debate or merely tied with Bush do you honestly think there’s the slightest possiblitiy that Fox would say he won? Please say yes.
DtC: This is how I understand what Kerry is saying: the invasion WILL HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE if we don’t win the war and if Iraq therefore descends into chaos. His assertion is that Bush will lose the war and that he, Kerry, will win it. That may well be true-- we don’t really have a way of knowing either way right now. That’s still very different than saying the invasion WAS a mistake.
Frankly, I think the invasion was a mistake, and I think Kerry thinks so, too. But I understand that it is political suicide for him to say that. I don’t blame him for framing the bebate as he has. It’s probably the best way to deal with a very dfficult situation.
