Until this week I had confidence that John Kerry, if nothing else, was clearly more intellectually capable the GWB. Now I’m not so sure.
A couple of days ago I came across this Washington Post story, in which Kerry’s forein policy advisor states the reason why Kerry voted to support the use of force before the 2nd Iraq war:
Huh? Say it ain’t so, John. No one could prove that. That’s about the most ridiculous standard for decision making I’ver heard of since Nancy Reagan’s astrological charts.
Today I saw this Chicago Tribune story. In it Kerry states he is in favor of the death penaly for terroorists. Why?
I have a real problem with this. You may kill soldiers in combat, but not after you capture them. That’s why governments, including the United States and Great Britain, were loathe to give POW status to captured Afghanis and Iraqis. POWs are afforded protections and rights internationally that are not available to mere criminals. POWs, by and large, are not considered to have committed crimes. Of course, you may charge them with crimes and execute them as criminals, but it doesn’t matter whether or not a state of war exists. If we are “at war” with Al Queda, in my mind that is a mitigating, not an aggravating, factor in deciding their operatives’ punishments.
I think Kerry didn’t want to relive the furor that came up when Michael Dukakis said he would oppose the death sentence even for a man who raped and killed Kitty. You might disagree with the decision, but at least Dukakis stood up and defended his publicly stated principles.
There are certain hard facts about the American electorate that any candidate simply has to face. Capital punishment is one of them: no amount of statistics or facts will sway the people. If Kerry were to make a firm statement of conscience opposing capital punishment, he would get creamed. That’s simply a fact.
I have the luxury of adopting and promoting unpopular views. I also have the satisfaction of watching those views become gradually more acceptable to my fellow citizens. If you had told me thirty years ago that a Viet Nam war protestor like Clinton could be elected despite his public acknowledgement of that position, I would have asked to share whatever it was you were smoking.
It is a somber truth that personal integrity can come at too high a price. Four more years of GeeDubya, in my estimation, is just such a price.
I understand Kerry’s statements perfectly. In the WMD statement, he’s essentially stating that he had no way of knowing that the WMD was a political snow-job, and that he chose to have faith in the US leadership that they knew what they were talking about. Now, I’m still of the opinion that the world will be a much happier place without Saddam Hussein and that we had reason to get rid of him even without raising the spectre of WMD’s. I know everybody thought Iraqi WMD’s, given Hussein’s history, were an absolute clinch at the time.
As for his statement about bin Laden, how could you not understand him, unless you’re being willfully dense? If I had Osama bin Laden at gunpoint as a POW, I’d want to blow his brains out too. I wouldn’t do it though, and neither, I’ll wager, would Kerry. His statement is clearly emotional hyperbole. You ask
Is it not obvious that “death penalty” implies a formal trial? If he meant “summary execution,” I’m pretty sure that’s what he’d have said.
Your OP is pretty much entirely hysterical and without merit.
Me? I defended Bush during the Iraqi Unpleasantness (which is still unpleasant…and I still think we should be there,) but I’m probably voting for Kerry. Why? Bush’s ridiculous domestic policy record. Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, the gay marriage amendment thing, TIPS, Total Information Awareness, John-Fucking-Ashcroft, etc.
You are quite welcome, MrV. I’ve always been pro-gay marriage (or is it more politically correct to refer to “same-sex marriages?” I am so not with it when it comes to keeping up with current lingo. I frankly still have a hard time seeing what, precisely, is wrong with “Oriental” for “Asian,” but I obviously digress,) and I find the opposite stance pretty well indefensible on any consistent grounds.
I wouldn’t count me as a convert, necessarily. The fact is, despite the volume at which I argued pro-war, I’m a centrist. I believe that our system works because of the balance between right and left (even though our politically significant “left” is still pretty far right by, say, European standards.) As a result, I can pick and choose. I get to support some Republican issues and some Democrat issues. Conversely, I also get to make fun of extremists of all stripes. Some people say I sit the fence. I call it “common sense.”
Plus, as an atheist, it frankly galls me to have a Bible-thumping fundamentalist like Bush (and the Crisco-anointed Ashcroft) in the White House.
[aside]I know, however, that some people around here have mentally grouped me in the “hardline Pubby” camp because of my support of the war. I’ve wondered, actually, if my username perpetuates the image. Some folks have actually used it as fuel for argument.[/aside]
Oh, bullshit. I never suggested he meant summary exectiion. In fact I mention mitigating and aggravating circumstances, which clearly suggest a trial. YOU may have inferred that from his comments about putting a gun to bin Laden’s head, but I didn’t. My point is that being at “war” with Al Queda is a stupid and wrong justification for executing terrorists, even if you do give them trials. If he had claimed that the particularly heinous nature of the 9/11 crime merited execution, THAT would be a defensible position in favor of the death penalty under some circumstances. I would disagree with it, but I wouldn’t call it stupid.
At this point in time, I too would vote for vote for Kerry over Bush. I just hate the idea of voting for the lesser evil, OR the lesser idiot. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve voted for one or the other reasons, and I’m getting REAL tired of it.
Wait, I thought this had been settled. That one incontrovertible, unrefutable fact remains. That beacon in the darkness created by the petty, corrupt Bush Administration. He’s not Bush. He will be propelled into the White House and if he does not suit us, well, we’ll replace him with someone else, who’s not Bush.
This statement is false. Everybody did not think that at all. Some people thought he had them, others did not. You were wrong, others were right, get used to it and stop pretending your misjudgment is excusable on the grounds that everybody else made the same mistake.
Actually, WMD’s are completely irrelevant to me. As I stated before, I believe we were perfectly justified in going to Iraq even if the term “WMD” had never been uttered.
No, I’m not interested in a rehash. Do a search on my username if you really want to know.
Is there something about a political debate that paralyzes people’s hyperbole-detection engine? Did you really think I meant “everyone, down to Jean-Louis L’Fromage from Versailles and the leader of the smallest Ma’asai tribe?” Are you that fucking stupid? I’ll take this slowly, since you seem to have problems with normal conversation:
“The prospect that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, given his previous willingness to use them on Kurds, taken together with his propensity for genocide in general, whether it be Marsh Arabs, Kurds, Iranians, or the Shi’ite population of Iraq at large, was an altogether reasonable one.”
The current US administration gambled on that reasonable prospect. They lost. Now, why are you sweating me over it, asshole?
And Ale, no problem. I sort of ask for it with the name, I admit. Perhaps I should consider a change. On second thought, considering how irritated I am with jackass up there right now, maybe I should go ahead and keep it.
No. To the best of my knowledge, every prisoner taken during the initial conquest of Iraq has been classified and treated as a POW under the Geneva Convention.
I have no knowledge of how the post-conquest insuergents have been classified, though I have not heard any complaints from Amnesty Int’l, et al.
What a load of tedious whining. I’m didn’t mention a damn thing about anything except your statement that “everybody” thought there were WMD’s. Don’t think you can distract me with irrelevant crap.
I understand perfectly that you were speaking hyperbole. I also understand that when one is speaking so hyperbolically that a small but significant and vocal minority of people in the US, the UK and Australia, notable dissenters from the intelligence community, and the fucking UN weapons inspectors becomes “nobody” one has gone well beyond hyperbole
Jesus. Both Princhester and World Eater quite evidently have serious difficulties with reading comprehension. Allow me to point out for the third time in a single thread that I never thought WMD’s were a significant issue. Don’t believe it? Search my username.
And Princhester, my attitude is this concerning your “vocal minority,” and always has been:
“Blah blah blah.”
WMD’s were secondary, we destroyed the Ba’ath Party, Saddam is gone, and the insurgency will take care of itself. Yay for us and yay for the new Iraqi constitution. Iraq will straighten out under its own elected leadership, and there’s hope that it will become a leader in the Middle East as a Muslim democracy. Lovely.
Sorry for the extended hijack of your thread, Boyo Jim, but I still think you’re off-base about Kerry’s “intelligence.” I maintain that his statements were perfectly understandable. If he spoke with emotionless, robotic precision, the media really would equate him with Dukakis, and it’d be all over.
Apparently so, secondary to the point of non-existence, which is just about the theoretical limit when it comes to relevence
“…we destroyed the Ba’ath Party…”
Well, whoop-de-fuck-a-doo! The fearful threat of the Ba’ath Party is nuetralized. What a relief! So they won’t take those weapons that don’t exist and not use them on us! Whheew! I sure feel safer now.
“…Saddam is gone…” see above
“…and the insurgency will take care of itself…”
Oh. It will “take care of itself”. Well, thanks for sharing, I am definitely much relieved to hear that. You know, until I had your rock-solid assurance on that, I was a bit worried.
“…Yay for us and yay the new Iraqi constitution. Iraq will straighten out under its own elected leadership, and there’s hope that it will become a leader in the Middle East as a Muslim democracy. Lovely…”
Yes. There is hope. That’s your plan?
You know, if you were competing on Policy Search, the snotty English guy would tear you a new one, sarcasm-wise. What utter drivel.
If I were competing on Policy Search, honeybunch, I’d make sure to be ready for it, not merely responding casually to a bunch of whiny clods who missed the point of the thread in an hysterical bid to upbraid me over one tiny bit of hyperbole.
More blah, blah, blah. This has been done to death, and I’m not interested in another debate.
Been there, done that, enjoy your futile, pointless objections.
I get to support some Republican issues and some Democrat issues. Conversely, I also get to make fun of extremists of all stripes. Some people say I sit the fence. I call it “common sense.”