Democratic Convention

[KrazyHorse]

And you're going to be disappointed. Politics in the US is a blandfest. Neither candidate is anything other than all things to all people.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And you're going to be disappointed. Politics in the US is a blandfest. Neither candidate is anything other than all things to all people.

that simply isnt true. I have a very good idea of how Kerry differs from Bush on a wide range of domestic issues, and at least some national security issues. The area where i know the LEAST is kerrys direction on foreign policy.

And I got some direction from Edwards. What im not sure of is whether Kerry shares Edwards view, or not. Surely that isnt asking for too much detail?

[Ramo]

che, you can find both the Clinton and Obama speeches at www.cspan.org

lotm, Kerry's adopted a realist stance, at least publicly. And so has Dear Leader (hence the appointment of a Ba'athist hitman and terrorist as PM, the engineer of Honduras' Batallion 316 as Iraq's ambassador, etc., etc.). Now, one thing to keep in mind is that Shrub has conflated the idea of "democracy promotion" with a policy of grossly incompetent corporatism, so there's a strong incentive not to take stances that put human rights in the fore, for fear of being attached to the Iraq policy. So what I see from Kerry is a foreign policy that values human rights no less than the current gov't, and is absolutely going to be more competent in whatever they try to accomplish. It's not what I want, but it's a hell of a lot better than the status quo.

[MrFun]

Thanks for your help in clarifying the implications of Kerry's "firehouse/Iraq" statement to others, MTG.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Front lines? Er, I think fire houses are the LAST line of defense in the war on terror. If firemen are rescuing folks from burning buildings due to a terr act, or a blown up train, or or pulling people from a tunnel filled with poison gas, thats already the end of a string of defeats. Defeats of law enforcement, of intell, of special operations, of public diplomacy, and yes, of nation building. Suppose there had been more firehouses in lower Manhattan on Sept 11, 2001. What would that have meant - a few more dead firefighters, is all.

So what is the point of "homeland defense"? 99% of terrorist attacks will be nothing like 9/11, first of all. second, you prepare for everything, not only the most optimistic outcome.

What WOULD have stopped 9/11 would have been an interventions in Afghanistan more substantial than Clintons pinprick bombing, BEFORE 9/11. Now Im not blaming Clinton for that - or Bush either, for that matter. There wasnt the political will to do something like that with what was, after all, only sketchy intell.

So then what is the point of that? The way to stop 9/11 would have been better intel and border control and police actions, NOT an invasion o afghanistan in 1998, specially given the utter lack of political will. Just look at the current mess in Afghanistan. If that is your idea of success, for all means, vote Bush.

So what I want to know is will Kerry act decisively when there is only sketchy intell???

How do you do that? Why would you do so? cause you must be safe uber alles? then why not fund firehouses?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
che, you can find both the Clinton and Obama speeches at www.cspan.org

lotm, Kerry's adopted a realist stance, at least publicly. And so has Dear Leader (hence the appointment of a Ba'athist hitman and terrorist as PM, the engineer of Honduras' Batallion 316 as Iraq's ambassador, etc., etc.). Now, one thing to keep in mind is that Shrub has conflated the idea of "democracy promotion" with a policy of grossly incompetent corporatism, so there's a strong incentive not to take stances that put human rights in the fore, for fear of being attached to the Iraq policy. So what I see from Kerry is a foreign policy that values human rights no less than the current gov't, and is absolutely going to be more competent in whatever they try to accomplish. It's not what I want, but it's a hell of a lot better than the status quo.

Ramo - Bushes policy has been inconsistent.

I dont share your charecterization Iyad Allawi, Im afraid. I dont want to get into a debate about John Negropontes role in Honduras in the 1980's but I dont see any evidence he isnt commited to transforming the middle east. I see evidence for a real commitment to change in Iraq - I really didnt want to threadjack this to a discussion of details on the ground in Iraq though - I do think its clear there are at least SOME individuals in the Bush administration who are commited to a transformative strategy, and that from time to time they have the dominant role in setting policy. I think its QUITE possible that Kerry can do worse, and so its necessary to know just what he intends to do.

Again, I realize this isnt an issue for the "no one can do worse than Bush crowd" . Im not sure why y'all cant realize that there are MANY Americans who dont particularly like Bush, who nonetheless think its quite possible to do worse, and that Kerry needs to speak to those people.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


So what is the point of "homeland defense"? 99% of terrorist attacks will be nothing like 9/11, first of all. second, you prepare for everything, not only the most optimistic outcome.

What WOULD have stopped 9/11 would have been an interventions in Afghanistan more substantial than Clintons pinprick bombing, BEFORE 9/11. Now Im not blaming Clinton for that - or Bush either, for that matter. There wasnt the political will to do something like that with what was, after all, only sketchy intell.

So then what is the point of that? The way to stop 9/11 would have been better intel and border control and police actions, NOT an invasion o afghanistan in 1998, specially given the utter lack of political will. Just look at the current mess in Afghanistan. If that is your idea of success, for all means, vote Bush.



How do you do that? Why would you do so? cause you must be safe uber alles? then why not fund firehouses?

I didnt say Im against homeland defense, to hold it up in contrast with spending money abroad, as the firehouse line does, seems profoundly misguided. Yes we should do homeland defense, but the essence of this fight must be taken to the enemy.

Afghanistan - do we really need yet another good new - bad news from Afghanistan thread - in which we discuss the details of the disarmament of militias, the role of ISAF and PRTS, the upcoming elections, etc, etc. I agree Afghanistan could be done BETTER, and thats one reason i want an ALTERNATIVE to Bush. Does Kerry think going into Afghanistan was a mistake?? If so, Id like to know that. Hes said so far that its NOT, so he think he DOES consider invasion and regime change one tool in the WOT.

Do I need safety uber alles? Im not sure what you mean. I think the first job of the govt is to make us safe from foreign attack, and if there is a strong case that a state is sponsoring terrorism against the US, the govt has an obligation to go to war with that state, if at all possible. I think that is what Kerry said last night. Im not sure what standard of proof he requires. HIs statements on Iraq seem to indicate he would require a very high standard of proof, one thats difficult to achieve by the nature of things.

[lord of the mark]

Look so far the gist of the answers here to "what does Kerry believe on FP" have been "Deans right, and Kerrys closer to that than to Bush, so the details dont matter" I understand that works for all of you who were basically Dean supporters.

Kerry isnt going to win without the middle, including Lieberman supporter types like myself. Telling us again and again that we're wrong isnt going to cut it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I didnt say Im against homeland defense, to hold it up in contrast with spending money abroad, as the firehouse line does, seems profoundly misguided. Yes we should do homeland defense, but the essence of this fight must be taken to the enemy.

It's a rhetorical device for pete's sake! If Bsuh builds firehouses in Iraq (place he is not the prsident of), then why not where hje is president? It's setting up a contradiction. That's all. Which is why I say you read far too much into such an obvious dig.

Does Kerry think going into Afghanistan was a mistake?? If so, Id like to know that. Hes said so far that its NOT, so he think he DOES consider invasion and regime change one tool in the WOT.

He has always supported having gone in (do you read his website and so forth?), thinks Bush left too early.

Do I need safety uber alles? Im not sure what you mean. I think the first job of the govt is to make us safe from foreign attack, and if there is a strong case that a state is sponsoring terrorism against the US, the govt has an obligation to go to war with that state, if at all possible. I think that is what Kerry said last night. Im not sure what standard of proof he requires. HIs statements on Iraq seem to indicate he would require a very high standard of proof, one thats difficult to achieve by the nature of things.

Obligation to go to war!? Sorry, NO. The state system works differently, and I rpefer working within the agrred upon system than a half assed attempt to change it which will invariably fail and make everything worse.

The standard of proof for war is rightly EXTREMELY HIGH.

[lord of the mark]

the WaPo editorial, via Instapundit


"Mr. Kerry therefore sought above all to make the case that he could be trusted to lead a nation at war, and rightly so; he and Mr. Bush must be judged first and foremost on those grounds. But on that basis, though Mr. Kerry spoke confidently and eloquently, his speech was in many respects a disappointment.

The responsibility of sending troops into danger should weigh on a commander in chief. But so must the responsibility of protecting the nation against a shadowy foe not easily deterred by traditional means. Mr. Kerry last night elided the charged question of whether, as president, he would have gone to war in Iraq. He offered not a word to celebrate the freeing of Afghans from the Taliban, or Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, and not a word about helping either nation toward democracy. . . .

Nor did Mr. Kerry's statements about future threats do justice to the complexity of today's challenge. . . . Mr. Kerry missed an opportunity for straight talk."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


It's a rhetorical device for pete's sake! If Bsuh builds firehouses in Iraq (place he is not the prsident of), then why not where hje is president? It's setting up a contradiction. That's all. Which is why I say you read far too much into such an obvious dig.

Does Kerry think going into Afghanistan was a mistake?? If so, Id like to know that. Hes said so far that its NOT, so he think he DOES consider invasion and regime change one tool in the WOT.

He has always supported having gone in (do you read his website and so forth?), thinks Bush left too early.



Obligation to go to war!? Sorry, NO. The state system works differently, and I rpefer working within the agrred upon system than a half assed attempt to change it which will invariably fail and make everything worse.

The standard of proof for war is rightly EXTREMELY HIGH.

Firehouses - cause we have many firehouses in this country, and in some places cost benefit indicates some should be closed. Whereas the return to building them in Iraq is massive. Cant say, that, cause it would insult all the isolationist instincts in the heartland, which its playing to, cheaply.

Getting out to soon - we still have 10,000 troops in Afghan, we havent gotten out.

Obligation - once again, i dont really give a ********* what GePap thinks about the standards of international law. I care rather more what John F. Kerry thinks about them, and I still dont know.

[GePap]

Then ask his campaign-email the site. If you care so much, there are pro-active ways of trying to find out.

Sorry but the Kerry campaign does not care about what one LoTM cares about, espcially if you live in a "sure" state, since unless you live in a battleground state, in our system your vote really does not matter.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GePap

Sorry but the Kerry campaign does not care about what one LoTM cares about, espcially if you live in a "sure" state, since unless you live in a battleground state, in our system your vote really does not matter.

You know . . . . . you're not helping to decrease voter apathy in this country.

[GePap]

If you can't stand the truth...
I would love if they got rid of the Electoral college, but the insignificant states would lose too much so it won't happen.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Then ask his campaign-email the site. If you care so much, there are pro-active ways of trying to find out.

Sorry but the Kerry campaign does not care about what one LoTM cares about, espcially if you live in a "sure" state, since unless you live in a battleground state, in our system your vote really does not matter.

I might email him, but id rather see a public statement, not a tailored reply. I dont think the WaPo will be satisfied with a private email either.

Again Im not the only one with this concern. If Kerry cant get the support of the Washington Post editorial page against George Bush, Kerry has major problems. And oh yes, there have been hints my state (VA) may be in play, though it hasnt been decades.