Can someone defend Kerry's treatment of our allies?

Great Debates
41

No one in this thread, save you, has addressed how Kerry should speak to Bush. FWIW, I have no problem whatsoever with his attacks on Bush. Actually, I wouldn’t mind at all if Kerry’s criticism’s of Bush were more explicit and forceful than they have been. The OP, and the whole thread, refers exclusively to how Kerry and his people have spoken about other countries and their leaders.

Again, how exactly does posting the link mean I am “masking” something? I didn’t mention it because I’m operating on the assumption that she was hired as a professional to do a job.

Sorry, but until you can provide a universal objective criteria by which all coalitions are measured, I’ll take this that as your opinion, not a fact.

Could the coalitions have been stronger? Obviously, and I have no problem with criticisms of Bush’s diplomacy. I have my own.

What I object to, very strongly, is going beyond criticising Bush and into insulting and belittling foreign leaders. This is not a difficult line to walk; any competent politician can do so if he chooses. That is what this thread is about; that and the fact that this is a very dangerous line to start blurring.

What concerns me the most is the sense that some are conflating other nations’ support (or non-support) for the US with support for the a particular administration. I find this trend – which I see on both sides of the aisle – troubling.

Dude, if you wanna know the truth, I’m clinically depressed and haven’t gotten happy, angry or otherwise emotional, let alone “freaking out” in weeks. I’d actually be thrilled to find myself getting worked up over an internet posting; but alas, everything I’ve written in this thread has been done with a weary sigh and a blank face.

So much for assuming.

42

The PM of Poland also said the other day that he felt he’d been “misled” on WMD. With 70% of the Poles against their contry’s involvement in Iraq, you can bet that whatever Kwasniewsky says is mostly for Polish consumption.

43

Alright. The claim that Kerry is demeaning our allies (gasp!) is baseless, whoever it came from. Unless somehow it’s in poor taste to note that several of our major allies told us to get bent on the whole subject of Iraq, and it’s somehow bad taste to mention what the statistics bear out: an overwhelming majority of the troops, casualties, and money involved in the war are American. It’s not belittling Poland to note that this is the result of a rushed war and a botched diplomatic effort.

44

Not when the last election was in June, 2001, before 9/11 and well before Blair led the UK into this sorry mess, courtesy of Dubya.

45

How does the outcome of an election in 2001 (before the UK got involved with Bush and this war) trump anything? Did you even read the rest of glee’s post?

46

Wrong. There was no vote because France said it would unconditionally veto any such vote. That is what got Blair off the hook for a UN vote.

47

But that’s just it. If Kerry criticizes Bush’s handling of the war, the right-wingers interpret it that way. If Kerry points out that Bush didn’t build a true coalition, but rather deceived and pressured a few countries to make a token showing, he’s really criticizing Bush. But the right-wingers are gonna say, “[gasp] How dare he say those countries allowed themselves to be deceived and pressured. How dare he call them stupid.” You CAN’T make an accurate criticism of Bush’s handling of Iraq without pointing out that Bush coerced and misled the “coalition” members. But the right is trying to create this false idea that if Kerry points that out, that he’s insulting those countries. It’s an unfair tactic. And it completely misses the point that anything Kerry does in that regard still pales in comparison to the slap in the face Bush has given to our allies. It’s the pot calling the kettle black. You want to talk about insulting other countries? How about declaring them “irrelevant”? The republicans don’t have a leg to stand on in this; they’re just blowing smoke.

We’re just going back and forth on this. I made my point, and you made yours, so why don’t we drop it.

OF COURSE it’s my opinion, and I think it’s a well-formed one. Kerry has repeatedly pointed out that the U.S. has borne 90% of the casualties and 90% of the cost in this “coalition”, and Bush has not refuted that. I don’t know how anyone can call that a coalition with a straight face. I think you’re blinded by partisanship.

Kerry hasn’t done that.

48

No, she wasn’t. She was interviewed in the US by an Australian newspaper in which she made the rather mundane observation that excessive closeness to the US had endangered Australians, a view shared by many here as it happens. Her comments passed pretty much without mention here, and all in all the incident is an incredibly pathetic attempt by your right to find an issue to beat Kerry over the head with. As far as Australians go its a non-issue, few of us care what John Kerry’s sister thinks even if we have heard of her. Which we havent.

49

That quote is out of context and has been extensively debunked. What Chirac actually said was that he would under no circumstances accept automaticity in the resolution - IOW, he would not accept a resolution that placed the final decision about going to war outside the UN Security council. His stance was that the inspectors were to finish, report to the Security Council and the Council would then make the decision.

Of course, the UK/US spinmakers wasted no time in twisting those words into the version you quoted.

50

As a citizen of a country member of the “coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted” I am underwhelmed and very non-offended by Mr. Kerry’s remarks. That is no news to us.

This country was overwhelmingly opposed to our participation in that war, even with our more-than-close ties to the US. Our Minister of Foreign Relations quit in protest when the president made the unilateral decision to ‘assist’ the US. Although nobody knows what promises where made, it is (for us) an article of faith that the stinky weasel that we had for a president at that time wouldn’t have moved a finger without something in return. And still Powell had to promise that our boys would be put out of combat zone (sort of like Denmark sending a submarine).

Anyways, since you guys are doing so well we decided to take our 30 soldiers home. :wink:

51

This is all Kerry’s fault. :wink:

52

While your implication has already been corrected, your facts are a bit weak as well. There was no vote because the US didn’t ask for one. Despite this:

53

No, I think those are perfectly fair things to point out. But I think saying that the other nations there have been “bribed or coerced” is bad form. Again, criticizing Bush for his failures is fine with me; implying that nations and leaders that are allied with us are anything other than soverign nations and fast freinds deserving of our sincere thanks is not.

54

I’ve nowhere addressed anyone’s interpretation. I am addressing specific statements made by Kerry and his people.

Misled? Well, that’s a different story. But who exactly has been coerced, I’ve no idea. Have there been incentives for participating, and consequences for not? Sure, but that’s always the way it is. There were carrots and sticks in 91 and in Kosovo. Whether or not that amounts to bribery and coercion is an opinion, naturally; but even if you think that is the case, it’s off the point.

The whole task of diplomacy is that of telling lies of courtesy to people you want something from. Isn’t that one of the criticisms of Bush, that he goes off, cowboy-like and doesn’t know how to finesse these foreign leaders?

And it is absolutely not impossible to criticise Bush without impugning foreign leaders or nations. In fact it’s damned easy:

*"My criticisms of the war have been twofold: firstly, I do not believe it should have happened at all; and once it did happen I think the President did a very poor job in securing adequate international support for the war. I want to make it clear that in no way am I discounting the significant and important contributions made by the nations who are helping us there. But the task in Iraq is a very large one, and would have been made easier on everyone if there were even more hands.

To be very frank, I feel that we as a nation have failed these allies. They put their trust in us and in the Bush Administration, and we repaid them by leading them into an unnecessary and badly-planned conflict, exposing their people as well as our own to more danger than was necessary." *

There you go; a sharp critique of Bush that actually praises foreign leaders. And that was the top of my head. Could the pubs spin that? Probably, but that’s irrelevant.

Be careful about statistics.

But, again, this is off the point. My beef is not that Kerry is wrong on the facts, but that Kerry is being undiplomatic in the way he talks about these other nations. As I’ve demonstrated above, it’s fairly easy to slam Bush and praise Blair, Major, et al. in the same breath. He’s chosen not to.

:rolleyes: To repeat: I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN. I did not vote for Bush in 2000. I will not vote for him this year. I didn’t vote for his father. I think Clinton was okay. I like Joe Lieberman a lot. Please read this paragraph as many times as necessary.

55

I stand corrected; she was apparently in the US when she spoke.

56

Sorry, I make it a policy not to bother with people who post links as arguments in and of themselves. If you have a good argument, you can put it in the thread in your own words, or post a quote. I do not click on blind links.

I don’t really care what you call yourself; you are obviously seeing Bush through rose-colored glasses, and using weak RNC talking-points to slam Kerry. You may not call yourself a Republican, but your shtik is right out of the Republican handbook.

57

Is that because the statement that those nations were bribed is false, or because it’s rude?

I don’t think Kerry implied that anyway. I would say his point is that Bush was only able to get other nations involved in this thing by either buying off or threatening their governments (even in the countries that helped out, most of the people were opposed). He was unable to persuade many that the war was necessary or right, only that it would be in their best interests to go along with it. What kind of diplomacy is that, and what kind of coalition is it? I think that explains why so many of the countries involved have offered only token support. (Oops, there I go offending our allies again.)

If Bush is so concerned about our allies, why were France and Germany and Russia treated as they were? What was with the “Old Europe” bullshit? Calling this is a real international effort is insulting to everybody’s intelligence. Bush and Cheney’s false indignation at this shocking, cruel insult to our brave allies is even worse.

58

“As a sidenote, It’s worth pointing out that well over 90% or allied casualties in WWII were Russian or Chinese.”

This thread is not about Bush. I have never addressed Bush’s actions. You quite obviously have no idea what I think of Bush, or you wouldn’t be talking this way. I addressed Kerry’s comments and asked his supporters to defend them.

Some people are capable of moving beyond either-or thinking.

59

It’s interesting how criticism of the administration so easily becomes a demonstration of unfitness for the presidency. Ina ny sane political discourse, this argument would be laughed out of the room. But the Republican echo chamber creates these “issues.”

Let me ask this question: How does this characterisation of Kerry compare with an administration whose cabinet officers and legislative allies go out of their way to demean and insult long-time allies – repeatedly and continuously? To the extent that Bush supporters even today use the word “French” as an insult?

And speaking of prudency of speech as a presidential virtue – how does this compare to a president who publicly announces an “axis of evil” and then goes about waging war on one of its members, practicaly forcing the other two to step up their nuclear ambitions? As you say “even if it were completely accurate,” was it a smart thing to do?

60

It’s amazing you can say this with a straight face. Bush has no standing to tell anyone anything about diplomacy. The Bush administration is perceived by the rest of the world as the most arrogant, unscrupulous, ham-handed, etc.