| Subject: He *still* didn't answer the question... |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/ 2/04 2:41am
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "A quote rebutted" on 10/ 1/04 9:52pm
OK - let's see if he answered the question.
>-------
>LEHRER: Speaking of your plan, new question, Senator
>Kerry. Two minutes.
>
>Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario,
>time lines, et cetera, for ending major U.S. military
>involvement in Iraq?
>And I think a critical component of success in Iraq is
>being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world
>that the United States doesn‘t have long-term designs
>on it.
OK, that might be something - but, "convince them we have no long-term designs on" Iraq? Since when has the Bush administration ever let on that this might be the case? Since when has the Bush administration ever said anything like this? I mean, their message (repeatedly) has been, "How/when are we getting out of Iraq?"
>As I understand it, we‘re building some 14 military
>bases there now, and some people say they‘ve got a
>rather permanent concept to them.
So would Kerry be against building military bases there? We don't know.
>When you guard the oil ministry, but you don‘t guard
>the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people
>is maybe, “Wow, maybe they‘re interested in our oil.”
He liked this sound-bite. Still, no plans.
>Now, the problem is that they didn‘t think these
>things through properly. And these are the things you
>have to think through.
Ah. There's #1 in his "4-point plan," right?
>What I want to do is change the dynamics on the
>ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not
>back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send
>the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to
>close the borders.
OK! Good! THere's another - "Close the borders."
>You‘ve got to show you‘re serious in that regard. But
>you‘ve also got to show that you are prepared to bring
>the rest of the world in and share the stakes.
And, finally, "get the rest of the world involved."
>And our goal in my administration would be to get all
>of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you
>need for training and logistics as we do in some other
>countries in the world after a war to be able to
>sustain the peace.
>But that‘s how we‘re going to win the peace, by
>rapidly training the Iraqis themselves.
But minimally, of course.
>To me, he only mentioned the things Bush did wrong to
>highlight what he thinks the correct response should
>be. I don't see anything wrong with that, and I
>certainly wouldn't classify it as a "two-minute tirade
>about what Bush was doing wrong." He sets out some
>actual goals, as far as one can really do in two
>minutes, and I think he answered the question that was
>asked.
That question was:
>Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario,
>time lines, et cetera, for ending major U.S. military
>involvement in Iraq?
Did he outline a specific timeline? NO.
Did he suggest any scenarios? (i.e., well, if this happens, then we do this... If that happens, then...) NO.
Did he even mention any specific actions he'd take?
All I could figure out from the about quote was that Kerry's "4-point plan" consisted of the following:
1) Close the borders of Iraq
2) Get the rest of the world involved
3) ???
4) ???
Uhh... "get the rest of the world involved" isn't specific with regards to the actual situation in Iraq. It's Democratic "AppeasementSpeak" So Kerry's "One-point plan" is to:
"Close the borders of Iraq."
Brilliant. That'll solve everything. And that's what bugs me, and why I assert that Kerry, when it comes to world politics, is not equipped.
I'm not sure how Bush's ability to clearly state his goals became a detriment to him, but, barring all else, Kerry's "plans" seem to contain a large component of, "and THAT aspect will take care of itself."
It's the naive "wishful thinking" of Democrats that Kerry demonstrated in the debate - "Let's make friends and influence people in the world and we'll all talk and have meetings and figure out how to handle this!"
But what he DOESN'T say is that, "Well, of course, you have to TRUST me that I'll do the right thing - I'm not going to tell you what that is until I'm elected, of course..."
>If anyone didn't answer the questions at hand,
>it was Bush, who continually went back to the same old
>song about Kerry voting one way, and then another.
Well, that's because it was an exposed nerve, and he just kept gnawing on it, since Kerry never bothered to rebut him. I mean, even Kerry admits you have to be firm and show resolve - but I don't trust that he will. Well - to be fair, it's not Kerry I don't trust, but his party. And if his party's record in the modern world (of small-scale military actions and wars like Iraq) at handling "military conflict without backing down" is any indication of how Kerry will handle Iraq, then Bush only sounded like a parrot because he was repeating a damning indictment of an indication of Kerry's "resolve," that Kerry simply ignored.
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 