Have been mulling over the first debate. Was struck by Kerry's smooth delivery. Was even more shocked at the content. Good review from NRO. Kerry actually flip-flopped during the debate! Several times. Iraq war as mistake, but solidiers not dying for a mistake. Multilateral coalition to cure Iraq, Bilateral talks to cure N. Korea. On and on. Where did I read about a politico being a "slick operator without the slick"? Kerry's debate was slick without the "operator."
Was not very impressed with the President's performance either, although I can see how it would be difficult to remain stone-faced after hearin Kerry's arguments. I do think the president should have nailed Kerry down on some of his "nuances" and let him try to explain it away. The President was able to get his messages across, even if at times he seemed exasperated.
I think the most important result of this debate is Kerry's position on American national security. That's what this debate was about, afterall. At one point, Kerry said something about bringing (Iraq I think, I'll check the transcript) to the table and asking them, "what can we do for you?" I really thought this moment during the debate was instructive and haven't seen it highlighted anywhere else. Does he mean to say that in an effort to enforce UN sanctions and to further our own foreign interests that we capitulate at the negotiations? Do we begin these discussions from a position of weakness? Do we want our President approaching any other country, let alone brutal dictators, sponsors of terrorism or terrorists themselves, with this negotiating tactic? Everybody heard the "global test" response to the policy of preemption. Absolutely ridiculous. President Bush was right, the policy of preemption depends on the security of the American people, not the whims of France, the UN or anybody else.
Here's an interesting thought: I believe that Kerry's one substantive strength was his immediate response regarding nuclear proliferation. He said it is the most important threat facing America. He also claims that the best way to resolve Iraq is to include our "allies", France, Germany, Russia (paradoxically, the answer to North Korea is unilateral negotiations). Uh, Mr. Kerry, where do you think Iran, North Korea and other countries are getting the technology to enhance their nuclear programs? Seems like our "allies" are not very concerned by nuclear proliferation, especially Russia. Is it because our best interests do not figure in the long term plans of France, et al?
Is this another reason why these "allies" didn't want to join us in the liberation of Iraq? They didn't want to attack a former/current business partner? Kerry's position on the Iraqi coalition is disingenuous. Stop belittling the 30 plus countries that are putting their soldiers in harms way. To remain consistent, shouldn't Kerry also be criticizing these "allies" for their lack of help in defeating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Are these "allies" against terrorism or not? Jeeze, maybe we wouldn't have had to split our troops between two theaters if somebody pulled their own weight in Afghanistan!
Good article from NRO's Mr. Levin. Many of Kerry's points raised my eyebrows as well. If Iraq was such a "colossal error in judgment", then why would Kerry promise to continue this mistake, saying "we don't have enough troops there"?
ReplyDeleteBut I have one issue with a quote from Mr. Levin:
"Interestingly, as I reviewed the debate transcript, I found no such factual errors or gaffes from the president."
How hard did he look? I mean, let's be fair and call a spade a spade.
Here's a handful to get Mr. Levin started:
- President Bush definitely misquoted Kerry's "I'll get the troops out of Iraq in six months". Kerry actually stated in an Aug. 6 NPR interview that he could "significantly reduce" US troop levels.
- President Bush stated that 75% of al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice. The Associated Press has reported that this "75%" figure refers to bin Laden's network at the time of the 9/11 attacks--not the current al Qaeda organization. This figure has also been inflated by Bush from two-thirds--the original count reported by the CIA.
- Speaking of nuclear proliferation, Bush said that he's increased spending to curb nuclear proliferation by "about 35 percent". Actually, the Washington Post reported that Bush proposed a 13% cut (about $116 million) in his first budget.
- President Bush also stated that "My administration worked with the congress to create the department of homeland security." Bush opposed this separate department for nearly nine months before "flip-flopping" and supporting it.
One topic that I wished the candidates would have commented on is the exit strategy for Iraq. Setting aside the reason of why we're there, how do we get our troops home?
Johnny, I fully agree with your points on the possible ways that some countries are gaining nuclear technology. They certainly aren't doing all the research themselves.
And lastly, a few points about Bush's "coalition". It should be noted that while _29_ countries are involved in Iraq, there is not a single Arab country in the coalition--unlike the Gulf War. Ninety percent of the troops fighting in Iraq have been provided by the U.S. and Britain. Seven countries that initially joined the coalition have since pulled out there soldiers--and this doesn't take into account the other countries that have reduced the number of their troops.
Sorry, one more thing.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the "global test" that everyone is upset about--
I thought that I had missed something, so I went back to the transcript to read the "global test" quote. Kerry stated about preemptive military action:
"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
Nowhere does it mention anything about calling for an international pre-clearance of American military action.
Apparently, Kerry was using Webster's third definition of the word "global": of, relating to, or applying to a whole. "Global test", as in "global test statistics", is an established scientific term to describe methodically testing assumptions against reality.
In the quote above, what Kerry is describing is being accountable to the country for the decision--a preemptive strike must make sense.
The whole "asking France for permission" is a fabrication made up by the Bush campaign.
So when Bush said, "I'm not exactly sure what you mean, 'pass the global test'"--he sure didn't. It was just that C average shining through.
Not surprisingly, Condolezza Rice doesn't know what it means, either (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/kerry.global/).
Wow.
Well, part of communication is making sure your audience understands what you are trying to say. I watched the debate live and my interpretation of what Kerry said is the same as President Bush. In the context of the debate, it appeared that Kerry meant having the approval of other nations. He kept referring to "summit conferences" and insinuated that the president had alienated our "allies." In that context, it's not unreasonable to infer he meant "the rest of the world" or the center of the Kerry universe, France.
ReplyDeleteNice of you to read the dictionary (or did you get that from another site?). But if Kerry meant to use the 3rd (and therefore the lesser used) version, he should have taken a few seconds to make that distinction. Based on the context of the debate, he meant the former.
I think the "What can we do for you?" comment was about Iran because I've read recently that Kerry has a plan to provide Iran with nuclear material and then ensure that they use it to generate power and not weapons. Of course, the byproduct of nuclear power plants is plutonium, so this seems like a bad idea all around.
ReplyDeleteThe one foreign policy issue that no one seems to talk about, and which will loom large in the next decade I think, is Taiwan's independence and/or reunification with China. China has made it quite clear that it will not tolerate a formal declaration of independence by Taiwan and they've conducted a series of military exercises around Taiwan the last few years. Although Taiwan has been an ally for 50 years, I don't think we would want to get in a military confrontation with China over Taiwan. Anyway, I'd like to see someone address this issue because I think it ranks right around North Korea and maybe above Iran in importance in terms of national security.
I guess Kerry _should_ have broken it down for our "Pet Goat" president.
ReplyDeleteI just think that it's ridiculous how the Bush campaign twisted it all around--"He's gonna ask other countries for permission!"". Come on! To even suggest a policy like that, especially in this day and age, would be perposterous. Even _I_ give Kerry that much credit.
I think running with this little gem shows how much the Bush campaign is scared. Is this all they have?
But on a general note--I think that the debates should be opened up to everyone that is on the ballot, not just the two main candidates.
But my favorite thing about the debate--I was overjoyed when I discovered that the candidates didn't get the questions ahead of time. I think this wil affect Bush more than Kerry. Bush isn't a strong debater.
Yep. Couldn't agree more. Asking other countries permission to do anything is ridiculous.
ReplyDelete