John Kerry: Wrong on defense

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I'm aware of a few officials claiming it shouldn't take long to defeat the actual Iraqi military, but I haven't heard anyone state the overall occupation would be just as easy. Do you have any sources? (not saying it isn't true, I just haven't read it yet)



Honestly, I don't know what particulars make up the unemployment numbers. I'm confident the same criteria is being used that has always been used - at least this gives us a way to gauge the current climate compared to history.

What exactly do you mean by "Curious, are the 150k+ a month additional people in the job seeking market counted when it comes to counting unemployed?"? If they are making 150k+ per month, doesn't that mean they are employed? I'm honestly not sure what you're asking here.

Are you just trying to defend the war at all costs?
Bush's original claims were that this war and occupation would be relatively quick and painless. The major combat was quick, even quicker than expectations. The occupation has now flipped and is even more "major combat" than the first phase of the war. It's cost more American lives and alot of American dollars.

You made a mistake when you read his "150k seeking jobs" and yet responded with people making $150k.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Exactly, and I agree.

Speaking from a campaing perspective, it makes more sense for Bush to decline the debates right now and let Kerry continue on the path he has chosen. There isn't much positive about the Kerry campaign and the Bush admin probably think it's best to let him continue hanging himself. They haven't responded in that fashion, that's just my opinion.

HOLD ON EVERYONE!!!

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

You and I actually agree on something!!!!

 

[DKSuddeth]

I'm aware of a few officials claiming it shouldn't take long to defeat the actual Iraqi military, but I haven't heard anyone state the overall occupation would be just as easy. Do you have any sources? (not saying it isn't true, I just haven't read it yet)

As far as I know, there isn't a single source ever discussing the occupation. Many articles discussing the rebuilding and setup of the new government, but zero about the occupation. Maybe it was avoided completely for that specific reason?

What exactly do you mean by "Curious, are the 150k+ a month additional people in the job seeking market counted when it comes to counting unemployed?"? If they are making 150k+ per month, doesn't that mean they are employed? I'm honestly not sure what you're asking here.

There's alot of economists that guesstimate around 150,000 new people enter the job market every month which goes along with the 'so many number of jobs need to be created to keep up with the burgeoning job market' crap. Are these supposed additions to the job market counted as unemployed or not counted because they haven't worked yet?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
There's alot of economists that guesstimate around 150,000 new people enter the job market every month which goes along with the 'so many number of jobs need to be created to keep up with the burgeoning job market' crap. Are these supposed additions to the job market counted as unemployed or not counted because they haven't worked yet?

At least I understand now! But I still haven't a clue as to that answer. Sorry.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by jimnyc
At least I understand now! But I still haven't a clue as to that answer. Sorry.

The ultimate point is that Bush has done some positive things, but he has significantly damaged his credibility in the world. At this point Kerry would be better at rectifying the US credibility issue and eliciting financial and troop support which will be our best way to finish off the activities in Iraq, and bring our troops back. They've earned it.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
The ultimate point is that Bush has done some positive things, but he has significantly damaged his credibility in the world. At this point Kerry would be better at rectifying the US credibility issue and eliciting financial and troop support which will be our best way to finish off the activities in Iraq, and bring our troops back. They've earned it.

How would Kerry be better? And if he can, how come he hasn't campaigned touting what his foreign policy would be?

Do you realize that Americans are behind GWB on national and global security than on any other issue?

 

[DKSuddeth]

At this point Kerry would be better at rectifying the US credibility issue and eliciting financial and troop support which will be our best way to finish off the activities in Iraq, and bring our troops back.

Not being a kerry supporter, I can't agree with this.

At this point I'm more inclined to trust in Nader's credibility than either Bush or Kerry

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by jimnyc
How would Kerry be better? And if he can, how come he hasn't campaigned touting what his foreign policy would be?

Do you realize that Americans are behind GWB on national and global security than on any other issue?

With all the negative reaction that Bush is getting on the war, that wouldn't be a very positive for him if that's his best issue.

You're the one who said that Kerry is a better debater than Bush. Debating and diplomacy often go hand in hand. Kerry doesn't have the negative stigma that is attached to Bush.

As far as his foreign policy, if you've listened, he has said that he would get more multilateral support. He may even get the U.N. involved. At this point, the best way to resolve the Iraq issue, is simply to get our troops out of there. Many of the attacks are a result of us having U.S. troops there in Iraq. But, we can't leave a void. So we need other units to fill in (i.e. the U.N.).

The U.S. went in and kicked ass. This whole nation building is much better suited for the U.N.

 

[jimnyc]

Debating and diplomacy do not go hand in hand, unless you plan on using those techniques against foreign leaders.

Pulling out the troops one day early can have catastrophic results in Iraq. How does he propose to get this support from countries who aren't willing to give support now?

 

[lilcountriegal]

Sorry to interrupt in here...

I just did a quick search for any reference of Kerry wanting (or even implying) to debate with Bush and came up with no results.

Can someone please provide a link to me referencing that Bush declined to debate Kerry... I cannot seem to even find a link stating the offer of debate was suggested.

Thanks. Carry on.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by lilcountriegal
Sorry to interrupt in here...

I just did a quick search for any reference of Kerry wanting (or even implying) to debate with Bush and came up with no results.

Can someone please provide a link to me referencing that Bush declined to debate Kerry... I cannot seem to even find a link stating the offer of debate was suggested.

Thanks. Carry on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/politics/campaign/14KERR.html

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Debating and diplomacy do not go hand in hand, unless you plan on using those techniques against foreign leaders.

Pulling out the troops one day early can have catastrophic results in Iraq. How does he propose to get this support from countries who aren't willing to give support now?

To take it to the simplest form, both debating and (most) diplomacy involve verbally interacting with each other to achieve a desired end. It requires an ability to listen to and understand the opposing point of view.

You've really butchered that other paragraph. I'll just rephrase it to say replacing U.S. troops with other troops in Iraq will be the best way to bring conclusion to Iraq. The U.N. is better suited for nation building. At least U.S. troops will be out of harms way for awhile. Our troops have already been disproportionately affected. Remember, we can always send our troops back, if circumstances should require it.

The U.N. will be better suited for garnering worldwide support (troops and dollars). The UN doesn't have the damaged relations that Bush has.

Many countries do not wish to support Bush. Bush created a divisive diplomatic strategy. That's essentially Kerry's point, when he says that foreign relations have stated that they support the removal of Bush from office.

That's why Bush wants Kerry to divulge those sources, so that Bush can discredit or punish.

Well, that's my opinion....

 

[lilcountriegal]

Thanks DK

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/politics/campaign/14KERR.html

I love this part from the article:

Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman, said Mr. Kerry had run 17 negative spots — a total of 15,000 times — and spent $6.3 million attacking the president in the primaries. He also noted that Mr. Kerry called his Republican rivals "the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen" last week.

"Senator Kerry should finish the debate with himself before he starts trying to explain his positions to the voters," said Mr. Schmidt, who frequently describes Mr. Kerry as a flip-flopper on issues.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
To take it to the simplest form, both debating and (most) diplomacy involve verbally interacting with each other to achieve a desired end. It requires an ability to listen to and understand the opposing point of view.

You've really butchered that other paragraph. I'll just rephrase it to say replacing U.S. troops with other troops in Iraq will be the best way to bring conclusion to Iraq. The U.N. is better suited for nation building. At least U.S. troops will be out of harms way for awhile. Our troops have already been disproportionately affected. Remember, we can always send our troops back, if circumstances should require it.

The U.N. will be better suited for garnering worldwide support (troops and dollars). The UN doesn't have the damaged relations that Bush has.

Many countries do not wish to support Bush. Bush created a divisive diplomatic strategy. That's essentially Kerry's point, when he says that foreign relations have stated that they support the removal of Bush from office.

That's why Bush wants Kerry to divulge those sources, so that Bush can discredit or punish.

Well, that's my opinion....

But you haven't explained how Kerry plans on getting additional support that Bush can't get.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
Kerry is the one who is willing to talk issues with monthly debates against Bush. Bush has declined for obvious reasons.

Obvious? And precisely what are these obvious reasons I assume you have proof of?

Perhaps he's waiting until Kerry is the Democratic nominee in fact, and not just in all likelihood. I haven't heard President Bush decline the offer to debate, have you?

All this dribble and mudslinging that both Kerry and Bush are slinging back and forth at each other, is ultimately just a waste.

It would seem that I see it quite differently than you must. I don't think discussion of John Kerry's voting record is 'mudslinging'. I think calling it 'mudslinging' and having the liberal media constantly charaterizing these advertisements as 'attacks' is a good way for the Democrats to make any meaningful coversation about Kerry's capacity to be President strictly off-limits. It's quite clever really, but of course would be impossible without the complicity of the media, and is therefore not an option for the GOP. This President as been continously attacked (generally on baseless accusations) since even before his inaguration.

Any mention of Kerry's voting record as a Senator is automatically considered negative campainging. How convenient.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
Many countries do not wish to support Bush. Bush created a divisive diplomatic strategy. That's essentially Kerry's point, when he says that foreign relations have stated that they support the removal of Bush from office.

Did Kerry actually say foreign relations have stated to him they support the removal of Bush? If so please provide a source or link?

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by Zhukov

Obvious? And precisely what are these obvious reasons I assume you have proof of?
Already asked and answered.

Perhaps he's waiting until Kerry is the Democratic nominee in fact, and not just in all likelihood. I haven't heard President Bush decline the offer to debate, have you?
Kerry's winning in Illinois puts him over the top for the Democratic nominee. So, are you saying Bush is ready to debate?


It would seem that I see it quite differently than you must. I don't think discussion of John Kerry's voting record is 'mudslinging'. I think calling it 'mudslinging' and having the liberal media constantly charaterizing these advertisements as 'attacks' is a good way for the Democrats to make any meaningful coversation about Kerry's capacity to be President strictly off-limits. It's quite clever really, but of course would be impossible without the complicity of the media, and is therefore not an option for the GOP. This President as been continously attacked (generally on baseless accusations) since even before his inaguration.
Maybe you can't recognize negative campaign ads when you hear them.

If you really believe in "discussion", then the debates would be one of the best ways to have that "discussion". In the debates you could ask Kerry directly about his voting record. I'd be interested in hearing the answers as well.
Of course, you'll be listening ONLY to find faults....
No matter, it would still increase the substance of the political discussions.

Have you ever had those paranoia tendencies checked?

Any mention of Kerry's voting record as a Senator is automatically considered negative campainging. How convenient.
No... just the negative campaigning. If you want a substantive discussion of Kerry's voting record then use a forum where both sides can speak on it.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
If you want a substantive discussion of Kerry's voting record then use a forum where both sides can speak on it.

No need to. He's been asked about his voting record many times already since he started campaigning. There has never really been an answer as to why he has flip flopped so many times.

Also, let me add this. Let's suppose for a second that GWB refuses ongoing debates because he feels it may hurt his campaign. Sounds to me like that would be a smart move then. The only benefit to a debate now would go to Kerry. Bush is speaking of his policies and exactly what he'll do and how almost every day. Kerry rarely speaks of issues and when he does he makes bold statements about where he'll take us but can't say how he'll do that.

Again, letting be off on his own to hang himself is in the best interest of GWB.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
Many countries do not wish to support Bush. Bush created a divisive diplomatic strategy. That's essentially Kerry's point, when he says that foreign relations have stated that they support the removal of Bush from office.

I'm going to repeat the question becuase I'm really curious.
Did Kerry actually say foreign relations have stated to him they support the removal of Bush? If so please provide a source or link?