Today's NY Times had an excellent column by Tom Friedman on how Kerry could do well by sending a clear message to Islamic terrorists regarding his position if he gets elected.





Do you think this is the right message to send, and the time to send it?

If not, what message then?

I think this is absolutely the right message to send. However, I think it will be somewhat irrelevant unless Kerry is elected. Last time I checked "die-hard Baathists and Islamo-fascists" were not registered voters in the United States.

I think that this message is directed not so much at the suicide bombers in Iraq, many of whom will probably never read Kerry's words, and more to the voters of this country. In order for Kerry to be "electable", he has to have a tough stance on the War On Terror.

I don't necessarily think this should be his A Number 1 priority, but it is a smart move politically. To me this message has two underlying messages:

1) To the voters: I may not have gotten us into this situation which many believe was based on false pretenses, but I have a clear plan on how to get us out of it.

2) To President Bush: You have recently stated we will be pulling out of Iraq in many capacities (although not completely) by June 30th without specifying minimum criteria to be met. This means this will likely be yet another empty promise, troops will come out in July only to be re-deployed in December. I'm calling you on this obviously political move, which also happens to be the wrong move from a foreign policy perspective. Finish what you started.

Just to be clear, since CJ doesn't seem to be: that statement was completely made up. It is what the author think Kerry should say.

I think a statement like that would make Kerry the next President of the United States. Enough people in the middle are shying away from the Democrats because of the perception that they are weak on international matters.

A bold statement like that would garner him enough swing "NASCAR dad" voters to make him tough to beat in November.

Sadly, Kerry does not believe this and will never make that statement.

Sorry, I misread the initial post. There was no article hyperlink supplied so I just assumed that he actually did say that.

I guess I missed that key first word there... Imagine

Oops.

I think this is a great message for Kerry to send. Along with a message that reitirates to the Conservative media that "Hey--stop pigeonoling me and the South Carolinian Voters--I am not weak, and you are not all rednecks". I don't like the trend that is developing which depicts Kerry as a liberal-pacifist and Bush as a trigger-happy redneck that fits in with Nascar fans...

I dunno...it seems a little too one sided to me

--Lasher

Halleluyah!
Be a damn good way to come out of the gate. Thats the problem with Democrats these days. Because of the Liberals they've forgotten how to fight. Somebody bring back Cuomo.
NEVER HAPPEN

It's brilliant! Of course, cleverly scripted responses often are (even when they don't match the candidates true intentions and are merely part of a political calculus)! I'll bet Howard Dean's former supporters in Hollywood are already writing the script for the new Kerry persona. I can see it now: A Steven Segall kind of ex-Special Forces operator turned pacifist who turned to working for peace and prosperity through public service. After a "bumbling puppet" President is manipulated into tossing our "children" into the "quagmire" by his evil "corporate" masters, our hero is once again summoned to "clean up the mess" and "kick some Islamo-fascist hiney" while he's at it! Popcorn anyone?

Yes this is the right message but I don’t believe Kerry has it in him. He may be more like some of his Democratic predecessors – Clinton, LBJ and settle for half measures which will embroil us in a future conflict.

If he pulls out too quickly the country will fall back into the hands of the thugs that we just removed.

Are you talking about Kerry... or Bush?

Last year, the White House was clear about not setting a time table for elections or a transfer of power to the new government. This year, we have a date for the transfer and a plan for elections... no, a caucus... no, an appointed government... by the UN... no, not the UN. What is going on?

What changed from last year to this year? Oh yes, it's a election year and the President wants to show that progress is being made in Iraq. In HIS interview with Tim Russert, President Bush said the lesson from Vietnam was not to let the politicians run the war. Good advice.

Moving up the timetable for elections does NOT mean we are pulling out. And if you remember correctly the war was fought with no half measures and over quickly.

If Bush is reelected IMO we will stay until the country is free and democratic. With Kerry I am not sure.

Even though this is a bit speculative I think if Kerry were to make a statement like this or one of similar strength it would only make his election easier, I’d agree the Dem’s need to show some spine.

Of course even if he didn’t believe this he could get elected and then shortly afterwards pull out and blame it on intelligence that indicated they were well on their way to self sufficiency.

I think it is sad that even Democrats and Republicans now believe the hype that has been sold to them and about them:

I remember when I joined AD I was in a discussion about the perceptions of liberals and conservatives. Liberals are characterized as hand-wringing, effeminate and spineless. Conservatives are macho, gun-toting, self-assured cowboys...

this is all garbage and can't be supported by ANY real facts...

It is a fiction written for the consumption of the voters in this country who, despite the facts, think there are only two parties to vote for....


Now I'm hearing Democrats and liberal types wishing their chosen leaders had more spine..and Republicans hoping their leader softens up in order to garner more moderate votes.....

I can tell you that there are seem VERY liberal people in this country who have an awful lot of spine!

..are we to believe there are no conservatives who have ever backed down from a challenge? Of course not!

So Kerry is soft because he voted to empower GW to make war but then says he disagrees with the war? I imagine there were plenty of other people who made that vote, Republican and Democrat alike, who didn't realize that the war plans had already been drawn up and Haliburton already contracted before they were advised....

GW changes his mind (note the connotations: he DECIDED to do it and thus was in control)

Kerry (or any other democrat) is waffling....


We can all have these stereotypes spelled out for us by watching Hannity...lets not do it here.


I have two uncles who were in Vietnam and watched people die, killed people, you name it. One still struggles a lot with his experiences there. Both think this war is heading to Nam-like status and are disgusted by the politization of it.... Can you tell me that these two men have "forgotten how to fight" simply because they no longer wish to fight? What a ridiculous proposition!


If Kerry makes commentary as that article suggests he would not be "strong" or respectable in any way for saying it. If he stands out at a checkpoint looking for car bombs then he is strong.

When was the last time we had a leader of this nation actually go out into a battle they decided the nation must fight? Teddy Roosevelt?


Conferring any sort of character traits on a president based on his willingness to do war is treacherous ground for an argument. A president (or candidate) can, and does, have many motivations for saying and doing the things they do. I think history has cleared up the war issue rather well. No one yet (in World history to my knowledge anyway) has pursued a massive war all in the name of justice. Alexander the Great sought justice for his father's assassination and earlier losses to Persia but that was not why he travelled all the way to India.
The list of justice seekers is long and none turned out to be honest...


I would prefer that my leader DOESN'T join the role-call in the "Righteous War" club.... Rather, I would like to hear about forward thinking policies, unlike those of the cold war.

They NY Times columnist has the right idea but the wrong words. Kerry will be able to do it more effectively because he is a politician and not a columnist.

Let's assume that terrorists pay attention to what goes on in the US. I suppose they do since they're organized a little. Nine 0ne-one came about from organization and study of the US, so I guess this is a good assumption. Unless the war in Afghanistan effectively messed up that organization. But then I'm getting all wrapped up in logic, so just forget it.

Okay, let's assume the US voting public *believes* that terrorists pay attention to what our politicians say. I have no proof of this; it's just a guess. But oh what the heck, everyone's doing it: guessing.

Wait, wait, a poll taken some months back indicated that a majority of US citizens believed that Saddam H. was behind 9/11! Aha! There you go.

But Saddam is in custody. So he isn't a threat any longer. Who's behind the insurgency in Iraq?

Al Qaeda (Queada, 'Kwadda, eh whatever).

Or someone. Whomever it is, it can't be Saudi Arabia though!

Dang, I'm starting to sound like Bush! But that's me. Kerry is smarter in politics than I, and that's where the NYT columnist fails in his attempt to tell a professional what to do. He ought to stick to wordsmithing for newspapers and let the political yammering pros do their things.

Kerry went along with Bush at the get go. He can work that fact. He is now critical of Bush, and if he keeps to post-Iraq war management, he has a good set of points. Exactly what words he ought to use, I have no clue nor desire to get into that type of gig.

Perceptions do seem to be changing. It looks like that will be a trend this political season. Attempts to understand the changes by using references to the past are probably the wrong ways to approach this understanding.

So the old "soft on terror" or "soft on defense" arguments don't hold up. Kerry is not soft on terror or defense, while Bush is just confused on the whole issue and therefore easily manipulated. That's what I see. Maybe others are seeing the same thing or will see this before November.

And the old "bleeding heart liberal" argument doesn't hold up. "Tax and spend" is a gonner. Times have changed, and that means conventional wisdom is wrong.

For example: Predicting that the election will be very close is wrong. The last one was close. That was before 9/11, before Bush turned 180 degrees on foreign policy, before 2-3 million jobs were lost, and before the tax cuts were enacted. This was before peace demonstaters were demonized and before Dean got all huffy about Bush and won quite a following. And it was before Bush threw out, and continues to throw out, meaningless proposals that don't have much chance of ever becoming realities.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure Kerry is spending quite a bit of time on how to say things. Maybe the NYT guy helped out a little. I doubt it.

Since you’ve already discussed in a thread the stereotypical qualities of the Democrats and Republicans then we won’t cover old ground. Whether you or I like it or not these are the perceptions that many voters carry to their precinct on election day.

I was merely suggesting that since the Dem’s are typically considered doves and a position of strength from a Democratic candidate, especially one who fought in a war, then protested against it, would only bolster his position on election day. It’s all marketing whose single purpose is changing perceptions.

I don’t know about you but my ‘perfect’ candidate would have a blend of the perceived and real left and right characteristics. I would prefer a moderate any day and strongly feel a majority of Americans would as well. I don’t believe we’re as polar as the parties are perceived and the political pundits make us out to be.

Wrong. Kerry is a classic tax and spend liberal – even more liberal than Kennedy.

He's a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. He's pretty much textbook, as liberal as you can get," said Tripp Baird, director of Senate relations for the Heritage Foundation (search). "I don't care how you slice and dice his voting record, there is no way he is going to be able to avoid it."
Kerry, 60, has enjoyed the active support of Kennedy, 71, on the recent campaign trail, particularly in Iowa, where Kennedy lost his own caucus bid for president 23 years ago. Kerry won Monday's caucuses with 38 percent of the vote.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109259,00.html

http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0402/23/m11.html

Compared to the "borrow from your kids' piggy bank and spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave" liberal that Bush is.... Kerry isn't too liberal.

But that has nothing to do with this thread, Ted. I think you were looking for the "Is Kerry to Liberal" thread.

I do think that Kerry needs some spinal implants, though, in order to sound more macho to the red state folks who think that macho == good leader.

I don’t think it’s “macho” that is required but a clear recognition of the dangers to this country AND our interests abroad. After all we cannot separate our economic and security interests. They are linked and always will be.

What exactly does Kerry mean by “I hate how George Bush has prosecuted this war”? He is trying to sound tough and insult GW in the same sentence. Pure partisan politics. I still feel Bill C should have perused the Iraq issue at the UN. What do you think Kerry would have done if he was President in 2002? The UN was clearly never going to move on Iraq.

I agree, our security and our economics are linked. Just as our freedom and our economics are linked. Just as our public debt and our economics are linked. And so on. It's all linked. Focusing on one at the expense of another isn't helpful.

To your other points: Kerry is fighting to take GWB's job. That's not "partisan politics" as I understand it. That OK Rep who said that terrorists wanted Kerry to win was definitely partisan, because the OK Rep doesn't have any real skin in the game, but wanted to throw a punch anyway.

Did you feel the same way about BC when he went into Bosnia to prevent an escalating crisis that was affecting multiple countries? Or did you buy into the "Wag the Dog" rhetoric that was being thrown around from the Republicans? Did the Republicans WHO CONTROLLED CONGRESS say that BC should be going into Iraq?

As for the UN: considering that no WMD was found and that Saddam was allowing unfettered access around his country to the WMD hunters in early 2003, perhaps they had the right course in mind. Sometimes diplomacy works... it just takes longer and doesn't always feel as satisfying to people who want to "kick a little butt" to make themselves feel better. (Not saying you on this, just a lot of the banter I've read out here on this topic).

Which is all off topic. Sorry for drifting it. Let me try to bring it back.

What does Kerry mean by "I hate how George Bush has prosecuted this war"? Perhaps Kerry means that we shouldn't have to shoulder the debt burden for this war. Perhaps he means that we could have done more against AQ if we had focused our military efforts in Afghanistan and other countries where AQ has set up operations. Perhaps he means that -- like in Gulf War I -- more Arab nations and the UN should have been directly involved in occupying Iraq. There are lots of reasons to dislike the mess we're in concerning how Bush has handled Iraq and the War on Terror. Perhaps this is what Kerry is railing against.

But I'll also agree that his position has "morphed" from where he was in late 2002 to now. Thank Howard Dean's early success for that.

Maybe Kerry thought:


At least he did in late 2002 (before we went into Iraq).

Kerry is simply the opposition candidate, with little to no vision of where he wants to take the country. His "vision" is limited to the notion that GWB is going the wrong way.

Amlord, thank you for reading my mind and posting that quote, I was looking for it myself.

Maybe someone can explain how Kerry got from there to here, in such a brief time no less. The more he speaks the more he reveals how spineless he is. I thought Clinton was a panderer but this guy makes him look stalwart.

I'm still waiting for the explanation on how he 'voted for the $87 billion in troop support funding before he voted against it'. The Senate must have been a very lonely place that day since noone else seems to recall that 'first' vote.

This guy is a total fraud and placing the defense of freedom and democracy in his hands would be a disaster. I've come to the point where I can stomach the hatred of Bush more than the support for this crumb. At least the Bush-bashers are committed and steadfast, even though they are mistaken.

To think this is the best the Democrats could come up with is pitiful.

amf

Fine it’s not partisan politics just a lie or nonsense – pick one.

As far as BC is concerned HE and not the congress should have forced the Iraq issue in 1998. I have posted all the quotes by literally every liberal and some not so liberal Dems in 1998 maintaining that Saddam was a nutcase with WMD. So what did they do? Did the President propose anything? This is not the job of the Congress but BC and his staff. And they CLEARLY walked away and dropped the issue. A year later (1999) France proposes to drop all sanctions against Iraq and we protest but still do squat.

BC did the right thing in Bosnia. Another UN disaster.


So the inaction gives the Iraqis years to hide the WMD and then you seem surprised that the inspectors could not find them in 2002. They could have search for decades and never found them. Meanwhile the UN was doing what???? They were skimming 10% off of the oil for food program and yesterday we learned that Sadam beat the program for 10 BILLION in cash. Great work huh?? Would have been nice to just keep that little scam going for a few more years while Saddam, the worst butcher since Stalin, continued his reign of terror and pursuit of WMD.


Kerry, if elected, IMO will bail out of Iraq as soon as he can and let the whole region go down the tubes. This country is too dependant on oil to allow that region to be completely unstable as it was with Saddam in power.

The original statement wasn't made by Kerry, and Kerry's rhetorical style is a lot different, but Kerry agrees that we should stay in Iraq. Here is a link to a speech he gave about his plans for fighting terrorism:



And speaking of dependence on oil, this is from the same speech:



I know there is plenty to agree with or disagree with, depending on if you think the UN would be good for Iraq or not. But I think it is at least clear that Kerry has a plan for what to do in Iraq and that he is firm about staying in Iraq now that we're there.

Sorry I don’t buy a word Mr. Kerry says. “Alternative fuels” has been funded and is many years away at best. We have been talking about “energy independence” for decades and it has only gotten worse – regardless of the party in power. The Dems won’t even let our oil companies drill for oil Alaska.


Kerry has flip flopped on every issue and he is very soft on defense. With AQ saying they can easily lay hands on a small nuke we need to be more vigilant – not less.


http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/TerroristBombIntro.html


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...e/comments.html

Drilling in alaska wont solve anything. Americans pumped their oil earlier than most places and as a result ran out faster. Weve been in decline since 73 and thats not for lack of drilling, just ask Dubya with his failed oil exploration company.

There are billions of barrels of oil in the “oil reserve” section of the ANWR. The fact that we prefer to pay through the nose for foreign oil while we refuse to even drill on our own land where we KNOW oil is to be found in quantity is ridiculous. Congress shows no signs of forcing the auto industry to raise the mileage requirement. Even liberal Kerry is not saying he would even try.

Ted,



US Oil Imports

Interestingly enough, we import much more oil from Venezuela, Mexico and Canada than from the ME, as the above link shows. I was surprised to see this, but had heard that Venezuela is our top source. As the link explains, this changes from time to time.

The ME wasn't "completely unstable when Saddam was in power," and if you take the events since he was bumped out of power, instability in Iraq sure has resulted. Surrounding countries are probably no longer worried, but I don't think anything has become more stable for these countries.

Of course, your definition of "stability" might differ from mine. I think in terms of populations rather than political allies. So, if political stability would go away by departing Iraq before it has a workable government, we'd lose 8% of our oil imports, probably because the crazy clerics would take over.

Or not. Crazy clerics probably like to sell oil, as did Saddam. The figures in the above link are dated December, 1999.

Another possibility is that the Iraqi people will figure things out for themselves. After all, they started civilization pretty darn early in that region.

Just to provide an updated link:

U.S. Petroleum Imports And Exports

We import about 9% of our total needs from the Middle East. That's it. We import as much from CANADA as we do Saudi Arabia. Go figure.

Also, we'd only get about 1 million barrels per day from ANWR and the lifespan of the reserves is about 30 years, so drilling there is only a short-term solution.

Just to clarify some things.

I will agree, though, that neither candidate is really talking about what it will take to eliminate that 9%. We did it with water usage; we sure as heck have the technology to do it with oil.

Both yourself and amf have said the same thing here. We don’t get the majority of our oil from the ME but the reality is that because there is a world market with a limited supply capability this is irrelevant. If the supply is interrupted anywhere in the world to any degree, and especially in the ME that where the highest concentration of oil producers in the world are, the price of oil will be effected and along with it our economy. Not every oil producer belongs to OPEC yet OPEC can and does affect the price of oil worldwide by quotas on oil sold to the market by it’s members.

Thus the ME is an area that is VITAL to our economic and national security.
Thus the message that we will NOT bail out of Iraq by Kerry is the right one although I do not trust the man to follow through on this particular campaign promise.