| Subject: He gave it a two-minute shot |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/ 3/04 2:14am
In reply to:
Duane
's message, "He *still* didn't answer the question..." on 10/ 2/04 2:41am
>OK - let's see if he answered the question.
Yes, let’s.
>>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?"
Yeah, but this is just political rhetoric, and everyone knows it (well, I thought everyone did). Actions speak much louder than words, so obviously Kerry’s point is that these permanent bases that are going in send a loud message to Iraq that we actually _do_ have long-term designs on it. He clearly said he would stop such bases from being built, which to me, sounds like a definite statement about his plan for 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.
Of course he would. To be a supposedly unbiased person, you seem incredibly biased on this particular issue. I have a feeling if Bush had made the same exact statement in the same context, you would have said, “Yeah, he was saying he wouldn’t want military bases there that are permanent because they send the wrong signal.”
>>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.
Can’t we infer that he would stop such bases from being built? Keep in mind, these are two-minute time slots at best. Are you visiting his web site, etc. to see if you can find the rest of the four-point plan, as well as his views and plans on various issues? What I hear you saying is, “Democrats never have a plan for anything,” rather than, “I have specifically researched John Kerry’s views and plans, and have found that he has not made any definite plans for anything." It almost seems that you are just anti-Democrat, and that it has little to do with John Kerry and what he personally brings to the table.
>>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?
I don’t think he said, “Here is my four-point plan.” What he said sounded more to me like, “I have outlined a four-point plan.” In other words, if you are interested in it, I have outlined it elsewhere but can’t in this context.
>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.
Nevertheless, can you concede that a “two minute tirade about what Bush was doing wrong” was an unfair caricaturization?
>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) ???
Speaking of which, what is Bush’s plan for Iraq? Keep sending people over there until we have every citizen of the United States occupying their country? I’d like to hear Bush’s specific timetable and plan as well, to be fair. As you know, if Kerry were in office, he would have access to military planners and an entire cabinet that isn’t available to him now. It’s much easier for Bush to come up with a definitive plan because he has access to all the relevant information and all the people who are there in the country.
>Uhh... "get the rest of the world involved" isn't
>specific with regards to the actual situation in Iraq.
It is when your current president has ignored the rest of the world and proceeded unilaterally.
> 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 disagree. Given, Kerry would benefit from a cabinet of intelligent military planners to help him, but I think he’s an intelligent man with good ideas and the capacity to head our country effectively.
>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."
And Bush laid out plans in those two-minute increments which were better?
>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!"
I can’t believe how rabidly anti-Democrat you are. Did a Democrat kill your pet when you were little or something?
>>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.
Actually, I heard Kerry rebut him the first time he brought it up. He explained why his voting shouldn’t be considered a “flip-flop”… he explained that his view on Iraq had been the same the entire time, and his explanation made sense to me.
That’s all for tonight… I’ll address your other posts tomorrow if I have time. All I remember right now is that you compared me to a fundamentalist Christian, which wasn’t very cordial of you.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 