Kerry Shooting Himself in the Foot Already.

On the other hand, I don’t think it was the Republicans demonstrating outside the Whitehouse chanting “Hey hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” :smiley:

Any chance I can get confirmation that this idea is bullshit?

Bush looked around the world, trying to decide where to start taking the war to terrorists that want to kill all of us hedonistic Westerners. Yes, all of us here on the SDMB. Bin Hidin’ doesn’t give a shit how you vote.

He found a dictator that ran a country full of victims in many ways as Hitler did. Also, setting it all up so his psycho sons could get thier sick jollies by torturing people to death. And indoctrinating them by having them witness torture since they were young boys. What a guy! Why the hell didn’t we just give him a few more sanctions?!? :eek:

Here’s an idea. What if it’s a plan to get democracy a foothold in the middle east? What if it’s a wake-up call to the other countries that the rest of the world won’t tolerate this shit? I’ll offer as a cite Hussein paying families of suicide bombers in Palestine. Seems lately that Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia are trying to work thier way toward modern civilization. Qadaffi is still a whack job, but he’s not the threat he was 15 years ago.

I think this war is giving pause to Iran and North Korea about how many buttons they want to push before they happen to get the phone in DC to ring. We’ve proven that we’ll answer it.

duffer, do you actually have a thought of your own in that message, or is regurgitating GOP propaganda the only thing you’re good for?

And really, if the OP is Sam Stone’s idea of Kerry “shooting himself in the foot,” I suspect we’ll be treated to three months of **Reeder-**esque “exposes” from now to November. “Kerry talked about his economic policies today, but he didn’t give out a cross-indexed spreadsheet with his numbers! What’s he hiding? He must be really desperate now!” :rolleyes:

This is a lovely bait-and-switch, but you might care to remember that Kerry was talking about what to do in Iraq (invaded not twenty years ago, but one), not what to do about international terrorism. I realise that the two are sometimes easily confused, what with Iraq having been seen looking shifty in Brooklyn around the time of 9/11, but they are not the same, and Kerry was not talking about a Secret Plan to Defeat Terrorism.

I have to wonder what sort of commander you think gives up his strategies 6 months before he can possibly enact them. No, we can hardly give him credit for plans whose details we don’t know, but bashing him for not letting the enemy know what they are in advance is a trifle unfair, don’t you think? And as for bashing him for not ringing up Bush and letting him in on all the cool ideas, well. That’s every bit as daft as the “OMG Bush is on DRUGS!11!” threads.

What Duffer said. It’s just too bad there are so many “sky is falling” types running around trying to sabotage our efforts in Iraq. I’m sure Iran and North Korea, et al. aren’t feeling nearly as fearful as they would otherwise because of our wishy-washy way of standing up for ourselves. Maybe we’d do something about it if they threatened us, maybe we wouldn’t. Who knows, given the wishes of the peace-at-any-cost crowd and their allies in Europe and elsewhere around the world?

Peace through strength. It’s the only way. As has been said, “We all sleep safe and comfortable in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.”

If such men/women didn’t exist, the world would be run by the likes of Hussein!

Actually Duffer’s recitation of discredited agitprop raises the interesting question:

Just what do you do with people who are wilfully blind to evidence? How much power is there in close argument to overcome the emotional investment persons such as Duffer make in their political party?

Because isn’t this the question of the moment with the US electorate so ‘polarised’? For example it is quite clear a solid proportion of the electorate are voting in support of Bush because the invasion of Iraq balances out the outrage of ‘those’ attacks. You can see it on this message board, this forum in fact. Everybody with an interest knows there’s no rationality at work here.

Regrettably I cannot conjure up an equivalent pro-Kerry fuzzy thinking, so the questions must appear partisan. But they aren’t.

My provisional answers are either:

  • that all you can do is suffer these people and groan
  • alternatively, that polite reasoning does eventually detach rational people from their foibles. I’m quite sure the mobbing Bush-partisans receive lately does nothing but reinforce their position.
  • lastly that polite reasoning is the better strategy in any event because you may persuade or enjoin an unknown quantity of lurkers and may even influence the notionally committed, whether it shows in MB posts or not.

There’s always the ‘ignore them’ option too.

What to do with people blind to evidence? Well, I’d hope the germans French and Russians vote the bastards out of office.

sevastopol, I assume that’s where you were going? :rolleyes:

Cross-reference my post to anything previously published. Can’t do it? Oh, that’s right, you live to bash the current administration. God-forbid someone fails to march lock-step outside your microcosm-America. We know you hate Bush. It’s getting tired. Particularly when you jump on me for offering an opinion. Please open a few more threads. You’re doing so much more than I ever could to re-elect Bush.

Duffer the material and evidence to repudiate your earlier post is so readily and widely available that I cannot believe you have not encountered it earlier.

So I mean, why do you do it? What’s the percentage?

I for example, tend to believe that with few exceptions people have an irrepressible appetite for truth, a repugnance for bullshit. It’s a redeeming quality in a questionable species.

But what does it take to suppress that appetite? A habit of perceiving the world in a manageable and uncomplicated manner? I’ve no doubt this malaise is not peculiar to supporters of the Republican party in the United States of America. Maoist China comes to mind, for instance.

To continue I’m always hoping to come across partisans who can declare " sure there are problems with our side, but I can live with them" “Boy did we slip up there” and so forth. SimonX is a good example on this board. It is kind of an adult pleasure.

[wearily insert one of the menu of obvious ripostes to duffer]

I’m going to take a step back here. Two steps back. There are, if I understand correctly, two kinds of nuclear fuel. One can be used to make big bombs that blow up and hurt people. That’s the kind Iran would make, left to their own devices.

The second kind is the kind that, while producing power, will not make the big bombs that blow up and hurt people. That’s the kind that Kerry wants to give to Iran. (Yes, I know, it’s the process of making the fuel that makes the bomb material. I’m simplifying.) If we say, ‘Hey, Iran! You want nuclear fuel! We’ll give it to you.’ And they say, ‘No, no, we want to make our own.’, it’s pretty much evidence they’re trying to make bombs. Their ‘bluff’ is that they’re saying ‘Oh, we’re building these refining plants for fuel only’. And if we call that bluff, and they keep building the plants, then I actually suspect there may be a bomb or two dropped on them, or the UN equivalent, as it will be direct evidence of WMD, as opposed to the crayon on paper Nigerian memo type.

Zat make sense? Sammo? Do you hear the words coming out of my keyboard, and are they pressing themselves logically on your eyeballs?

And I think we all know what Kerry’s plan is for the war in Iraq, and I think we all know why he can do it and Bush can’t. He’ll ask for help, and foreign countries will give it to him. Why? Because he will be polite, friendly, and not Bush who told them to fuck off. Showing willingness to change should really be enough to do it.

Back to the hijack for a second, may I suggest that Bush’s “fight and win war” might actually be a paraphrase of the PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses treatise:

jjimm has the truth of it. Sam’s interpretation is rubbish.

So let’s see. On the one hand, we’ve got Kerry behaving like a politician and uttering lame remarks about what he’d do to solve the Iraq problem, only he can’t supply the details.

On the other, we have the massive failures and lack of initiative of the Bush Administration on the Mideast, energy policy and the environment, to name a few.

What should convince the undecideds? Sam and I look at this just a bit differently.
And by the way, remarks like “You’ve got a far-left base behind you (Kerry) who is convinced that you’ll run from Iraq and suddenly peace will break out around the world” are the type of out-of-control partisan hyperbole that is way beneath what I had thought were Sam’s usual standards.

NurseCarmen may have had the actual Vietnam service dates screwed up, but the man served four years. He actually reported for duty. What…three purple hearts aren’t enough to make him a “real” soldier? The fact that he didn’t pull a full tour doesn’t make him a “no show” like some people we know…

All that’s saying is that the military should be built up so it is able to fight wars in multiple theaters. How is that a bad thing?

Would you do me a favour and re-read my post to identify where I made any kind of partisan comment?

I merely recognised a similarity in wording that seemed more likely than the Vegetablesoupius reference mentioned earlier.

::: sigh :::

OK. I’ll play (although the previous respondents are correect that this nonsense has been refuted multiple times in the press and on this board).

Bush did not look “around the world, trying to decide where to start taking the war to terrorists.” Bush had already announced a desire to attack Iraq during his candidacy for the presidency. (It is part of the Wolfowitz plan to “bring democracy” to the Middle East combined with a bit of vengeance for what he perceived as insults against his father for not “finishing the job” at the end of the last war.) The Wolfowitz plan was not a response to terrorism, but a myopic view of world transformation that relies on poor misreading of the events following WWII to project a future that shares too few similarities to make sense.

In addition, Bush already had a country to use for his new exemplar of Democracy: Afghanistan. Here was a country under a despotic regime that had taken their nation backwards that we legitimately invaded because they were sheltering a group that had actually attacked the U.S.
Bush’s response? We are not into “nation building.”

So, Bush deliberately ignored (and continues to ignore through under-funded efforts) nation building and the move toward democracy in a nation that we actually have a right to invade (which makes it closer to the WWII example on which the Wolfowitz plan is based), choosing, instead, to invade a country that is not actively being aggressive, thus violating the U.N. charter and alienating a large number of potential allies (i.e. most of the world that cannot be bribed or coerced into giving lip-service support to our efforts).

Jordan has been trying (in fits and starts) to work towards a Western approach since the 1970s. Syria began moving away from its sponsorship of terrorism even before the previous president died, and has been in negotiations with Israel for around 10 years. Libya began moving away from support of terrorism during the Clinton administration. The people of Iran have been struggling toward democracy since 1985 or so, and an invasion would simply rally those people behind the theocracy that prevents their accomplishing that goal. (In fact, in reaction to Bush’s swaggering, the ruling theocracy, this Spring, took steps to shut down pro-democracy opposition groups for the first time in around 15 years.) North Korea is run by a true loon who does not seem to be affected by any of our loon’s rantings, although he is open to persuasion from China.

{wiping tears from eyes, hiccoughing, cleaning coffee from computer-screen}

Oh, Sam…you’ll be the death of me!

No kiddin’, Uke. This here recent history doctorate myself often heard the phrase, once even in a Latin class in the original. But I wouldn’t expect it to be part of one’s complete education, especially not for one who, like Bush, was treating their history major as a pre-MBA.

Not to mention that there’s quite a leap from “preparing for war,” which can pertain to both offensive and defensive strategies, and “waging war,” even initiating war, which is solely offensive. Even Vegetius would agree that initiating wars outside the homeland was no certain path to peace.