Posted on 10/01/2004 6:10:21 AM PDT by xzins
In order of priority, Kerry's major mistakes and gaffes from last night. The first few clearly disqualify him from being president...ever...
1. Putting Nuclear Fuel in the hands of the Ayatollah of Iran. Kerry actually suggested this last night and it is mind-boggling. Iran is the major supporter of terrorism in the world. At a minimum, we are giving them material for a dirty bomb.
2. The major issue confronting America is proliferation of WMDs, to include nuclear, into the hands of Terrorists, but Kerry sees nuclear proliferation only as the major issue...without regard to the terrorists who killed 3000 on 9/11 or the nation in question. He doesn't know why the war is taking place. He puts Iceland in the same category as Al Qaeda.
3. Kerry requires a Global Test before we protect America. Pres. Bush caught this immediately and called it for the critical error in protecting America that it is.
4. Kerry denies a multi-lateral approach to N. Korea. He has previously said that Pres. Bush FAILED by not pursing a multi-lateral approach in Iraq. In Iraq, Pres. Bush has most of our major allies supporting us and providing soldiers. In N. Korea he has brought the China, Russia, Japan, and S. Korea into partnership to pressure N. Korea and Kerry sasy NO MULTI-LATERAL. This flip-flop is right on national TV and it goes unnoticed.
5. Kerry continued to demean the contribution of our allies by calling into question their sacrifice. He counted numbers without any regard for the size and other commitments of those other armies.
6. Kerry again flip-flopped on Iraq saying early in the debate that Saddam Hussein should be gone and simultaneously saying that the mission was a mistake.
7. Kerry continued to demean the mission in Iraq and in doing so he demeans the sacrifice of the trooops, because Kerry consistently questioned the mission itself.
1. He looked annoyed at times (hey, he was debating Kerry, who wouldn't have been?)
2. A bit repetitive at times.
3. Shouldn't have asked for the 30 second "extended discussion" thingees.
So, President Bush made debate tactic mistakes. John Kerry was advocating giving away our soveriegnty with a "global test" (whatever the F' that is).
And, I don't know how much emphasis it has been given to the 1 exchange that I think sums up John Kerry. When ask if he wanted to continue the multilateral approach?
Kerry responded (and I quote), "Both."
Both. Wow. Telling.
Stump speech for Bush: Kerry advcoates multi-lateral strategy in Iraq, yet complains that we didn't go it alone at Tora Bora. Which is it, Senator?
We should include the Iraqi National Guard as an ally. Their losses count, too.
Kerry is a better tactician than the generals on the ground. He knows more about how to fight in Afghanistan than the generals who won the war.
Kerry equates AQ with one person, Bin Laden, and one country, rather than with an ideology
All good points, but add to it the statement about the NYC subways closed during the convention, (not true), and the the fact the AlQaida had no connection to Iraq, (maybe Kerry should have shown up at some of those intelligence meetings, and maybe he should have actually READ the 9/11 report. Of course there were connections between Iraq and AlQ.) The fact that Kerry didn't know this disqualifies him as Presidential material. He lacks even the most rudimentary understanding of then reality of the present day situation.
Frightening that this power-hungry, lying and conniving snake-oil salesmen has gotten as close as he to the most powerful position on the face of the Earth.
I'm not rich, but Kerry thinks I am.
The tax quote made me realize that Kerry intends to raise taxes BIG TIME!
Their leaders will never send troops to Iraq for fear of what their own socialist media will do to them.
The Differences Between Them
By James Rubin
Newsweek International
Aug. 9 issue - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry claims he'll fix American intelligence and make America safer at home and more respected abroad. James P. Rubin, senior foreign-policy adviser to the campaign, sat down in Detroit with NEWSWEEK's Richard Wolffe to explain what would be different under a Kerry administration. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: Expectations are high that American foreign policy would change under a President Kerry. But it sounds like the goals—fighting terror and making America safer—are not that different. Is it a question of style or execution? RUBIN: The difference, and this is the big and crucial difference, is that John Kerry, by virtue of his experience and his character and his wisdom, will be just as tough as George Bush in defeating Al Qaeda and Islamic extremist terrorists, but he will be a lot smarter in how he solicits the support of other countries. If elected, John Kerry will be sitting down with the leaders of our major friends and allies and demanding action. But he will do that in a way that expresses understanding for other people's points of view, that involves listening and leading rather than alienating, and that involves old-fashioned persuasion and an appreciation for other cultures and values. The bullying of the Bush administration will come to an end.
What makes you think that persuasion and understanding cultures will work now in a way that it didn't before?
Well, 9/11 changed things. Countries like Pakistan that were reluctant to break relations with the Taliban and by extension crack down on Al Qaeda realized after the attacks that they were going to risk their future in the civilized world. So the world's major powers—India, Pakistan, Europe, Asia, Russia, China, Japan—were united, arguably for the first time, to defeat the Taliban and put in place a government that wouldn't support Al Qaeda. It was a great moment, and it has been lost. John Kerry will try to recapture that solidarity.
One of the findings of the 9/11 Commission concerns Iran and its alleged support for Al Qaeda. U.S.-Iranian policy has been in the deep freeze for 25 years. How is that going to change with Kerry?
John Kerry regards an Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons as unacceptable. He has a multiple-part strategy that is much more realistic than the Bush administration's. One is to rejoin and work through the international legal framework on arms control. That will give greater force to the major powers if they have to deal with violators. Secondly, he has laid out, I think in the most comprehensive way in modern memory, a program to secure nuclear materials around the world—particularly in the former Soviet Union but also in the places where research reactors have existed that could be susceptible to proliferation. The point is to try to prevent Iran from ever getting this material surreptitiously. Thirdly, he has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And we say to them: "Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it." Participating in such a diplomatic initiative makes it more likely to succeed.
A lot of European diplomats say Iraq is so toxic politically that they aren't prepared to send more troops. Kerry has talked about changing the dynamic, but what if the dynamic doesn't really want to change?
We will have a far better chance of getting that support in Iraq—to prevent a failed state, a state where terrorism can roam free the way it did in Afghanistan—if we have a president who proposes specific policies to enlist and encourage other countries to participate. For example, giving them a greater stake in reconstruction, being their partner in regional diplomatic initiatives to get countries around Iraq to prevent cross-border incursions and support for the insurgency, making other major powers a partner in those efforts, having an international high commissioner who can work with the Iraqi interim government and have a role in coordinating reconstruction assistance. All of those things give European and other powers a stake in success. You can't just go to them saying: "We've already decided this; this is the way it's going to be."
Sad but true, it wasn't so long ago when governments of moderate Muslim countries or Europe considered it a political plus to be seen cooperating with the United States. Now there's a political cost. But without the toxicity of the debate on Iraq during the Bush administration, and with Kerry sending a message of unity, it will be easier. Is it a sure thing? Nothing is a sure thing, but we'll have a far better chance.
Outside of terror and war, are you going to see a return to the softer principles and concerns of foreign policy—trade, globalization?
Globalization is a phenomenon, not a policy. One of the failings of the Bush administration is to not understand the extent to which subnational, nongovernmental actors pose both risk and opportunities for the United States and the world. So for too long prior to 9/11, terrorism, international crime, drugs, disease and the environment were seen as soft issues rather than realities. In Kerry you will see a president sophisticated and smart enough to deal not just with classic nation-state interactions, but the amalgam of activities that have come to be known as globalization, whether it's communication or travel or the computer revolution.
Nazi death camp gaffe. They would be all over Bush for something like that.
Kerry advcoates multi-lateral strategy in Iraq, yet complains that we don't go it alone with North Korea.
Unilateral confrontation of North Korea, and multilateral everywhere else? That's a winning idea.
Somehow I think this, "we should give Iran nuclear materials" (since the same strategy worked so well in North Korea) will be trumpeted on talk radio starting at about, oh, 12:00 noon EST. FOX will probably take it up on TV later today.
I agree. Kerry did much than it seemed last, once this is picked apart and people dissect what was actually said.
Unrelated to the topic but ... I was astounded that Lehrer was able to keep that audience at bay for 90 minutes. I didn't hear squat from them. I'd be surprised if that's the case for the next two.
11. Kerry blamed Bush for walking away from the Kyoto Treaty after HE had voted against it (here we go again, I was against Kyoto before I was for it)
They'd be all over Bush....you are 100% correct. Do you remember how long they ran the misspelling of "potato" against Dan Quayle?
It would be on every network 24/7 if Bush had done that.
"I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong alliances. I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But I also know how to lead those alliances. This president has left them in shatters across the globe, and we're now 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq and 90 percent of the costs." Read it how you want.
Kerry's statement: "And certainty sometimes can get you in trouble" (exact quote from debate transcript) . . . picture that quote prefacing a revised flip-flop ad! Kerry literally took a stand AGAINST taking a stand!
Now thats a real friggin hoot. One does not gain the capacity to build a nuke in 2 years... and it is long known that they were pursuing nukes long before then.
After all, why did Clinton consider bombing the nuke facility?
The nuke capacity was developed over the last 15 years at least. And especially when we WERE talking to them ala Madeline Albright... and you see where that got us...
Kerry's statements show that he clearly doesn't understand N. Korea.
They are obsessed with the US. Plain and simple. To them, we are the great evil of the world. Anything they don't like is America's fault, and every state around them is a puppet of the US...
Demanding unilateral talks is about like demanding to talk to Austin Power's Dr. Evil...
By holding unilateral talks it merely validates the N. Korean view of the US being in control of everything everywhere.
And also to boot, if I am not mistaken, Kerry was moaning and complaining about a "lack" of a 'coalition' on Iraq, but arguing against having the exact same thing on N. Korea...
Kerry's performance is forgettable. That's the biggest mistake he made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.