Hey Kerry Supporters!

[JoeDaSchmoe]

I need a bit of help from all you knowledgeable Kerry fans out there. My school's having a debate on Monday, with four people on each side arguing about one issue. I'm part of the Kerry group (obviously), and need as much info as I can get my hands on regarding his stance on Iraq. I know plenty already, but I don't pretend to know as much as some of the regulars in this forum (Spence, I'm looking strongly at you here), so any and all help would be appreciated. Think of it as possibly helping me win a few more 18-year-old votes for Kerry.

[Spence]

Kerry's stance on Iraq is that the Bush admin needed the authority to go to war in order to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq, after they had been expelled in 1998. In November 2002, after the Congress voted to give Mr Bush authority to go to war, Saddam Hussein permitted U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country. [By that time, however, the Bush admin was already planning to go to war, no matter what. In all likelihood, the Bush admin was dismayed when Iraq allowed the inspectors back in, as it removed the casus belli for war.]

Kerry argues that the vote for war authorization worked--it frightened Saddam Hussein into allowing the inspectors back into the country for the first time in four years. Kerry argues further that by going to war in Iraq with few allies and no support from the U.N. or NATO, Mr Bush endangered the success of the mission and saddled the United States with the lion's share of the blood and treasure to be spent in Iraq.

Kerry makes a firm distinction between war authorization and war itself. The war authorization Congress approved instructed Mr Bush to go to war if necessary and Kerry argues that it was clearly not necessary--there was no threat from Iraq requiring the use of American force. Mr Bush argues that a vote for war authorization is a vote for war and Senator Kerry is changing his position on the issue. That's incorrect. The wording of the war authorization makes it clear that Mr Bush was not instructed or urged to go to war.

Your opponents may echo Mr Bush's arguments that Senator Kerry's views are far too nuanced. You could reply any number of ways, but reminding them that as Cardinal Richelieu, Chancellor Metternich, and Prince Otto von Bismark demonstrated, diplomacy without nuance is a recipe for disaster. [If they don't know who the three aforementioned titans of European realpolitik are, shake your head sadly and affect profound regret at their ignorance. ;) ]

[SkinsKY]

You could reply any number of ways, but reminding them that as Cardinal Richelieu, Chancellor Metternich, and Prince Otto von Bismark demonstrated, diplomacy without nuance is a recipe for disaster. [If they don't know who the three aforementioned titans of European realpolitik are, shake your head sadly and affect profound regret at their ignorance. ;) ]

:lol1: ends my day on a humorous note (other than seeing a dejected Yankees team).

[Jimreaper007]

The big difference in Iraq between Kerry and Bush is that Kerry intends to seal off the borders of Iraq and actually secure the country. Once he does that he will then concentrate on wiping out the resistance.

Bush secured the oil fields and did not bother to secure the borders so these insurgents continue to wreak havoc.

Basically Kerry will use military tactics 101....something Bush obviously missed

[GibbsRules!]

Kerry makes a firm distinction between war authorization and war itself. The war authorization Congress approved instructed Mr Bush to go to war if necessary and Kerry argues that it was clearly not necessary--there was no threat from Iraq requiring the use of American force. Mr Bush argues that a vote for war authorization is a vote for war and Senator Kerry is changing his position on the issue. That's incorrect. The wording of the war authorization makes it clear that Mr Bush was not instructed or urged to go to war.

Your opponents may echo Mr Bush's arguments that Senator Kerry's views are far too nuanced. You could reply any number of ways, but reminding them that as Cardinal Richelieu, Chancellor Metternich, and Prince Otto von Bismark demonstrated, diplomacy without nuance is a recipe for disaster. [If they don't know who the three aforementioned titans of European realpolitik are, shake your head sadly and affect profound regret at their ignorance. ;) ]

In my short time here I believe I mentioned that Spence is of high Moral and Ethical standards. I consider myself a good judge of character!

[RedskinsDave]

Just stand off to the side and keep repeating "I was in Vietnam" randomly as someone else is speaking. Should get plenty of laughs!!

[Spence]

Just stand off to the side and keep repeating "I was in Vietnam" randomly as someone else is speaking. Should get plenty of laughs!!Not as many laughs as the other guys, who will be boasting about defending the skies of Texas [or was it Alabama?] from the Vietcong.

[Minnesota Mike]

You also probably should be prepared to explain the "I voted for it, after I voted against it" comment that the Bushies like to throw out there.

There were two $87 Billion spending bills offered to pay for part of the war. The one Kerry voted for would have paid the cost by rolling back the tax breaks Bush gave to his rich buddies. The one Bush supported and was ultimately passed, had no revenue source attached to it. It basically just passed the cost of the bill down to you and your HS classmates through the federal debt.

[MrWiggles]

I need a bit of help from all you knowledgeable Kerry fans out there. My school's having a debate on Monday, with four people on each side arguing about one issue. I'm part of the Kerry group (obviously), and need as much info as I can get my hands on regarding his stance on Iraq. I know plenty already, but I don't pretend to know as much as some of the regulars in this forum (Spence, I'm looking strongly at you here), so any and all help would be appreciated. Think of it as possibly helping me win a few more 18-year-old votes for Kerry.


I suggest going Rove on them. Tell them Bush likes to spit tobaco at small animals and that he and a gay lover adopted several black children when Bush was in Alabama. That is why he can't acount for his time.

[Spence]

If those pro-Bush debaters give you any trouble, just him 'em with this:

Q. What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?
A. Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.

[lakewinola]

If those pro-Bush debaters give you any trouble, just him 'em with this:

Q. What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?
A. Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.

Excellent

[Jimreaper007]

I can guarantee you that the unit GW was in was the safest place on earth from Vietnam.

If you were in that unit you knew they would send girl scouts before they sent the rich kids.

BUSH MENTALITY 101:

While our future president was flying jets and defending Texas from Vietcong attacks, Kerry was in Vietnam slacking.

[Axegrinder]

In my short time here I believe I mentioned that Spence is of high Moral and Ethical standards. I consider myself a good judge of character!
What's the definition of sycophant again?:D

[GibbsRules!]

What's the definition of sycophant again?:D
psycho what?

[Chief Seeway]

Kerry's stance on Iraq is that the Bush admin needed the authority to go to war in order to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq, after they had been expelled in 1998. In November 2002, after the Congress voted to give Mr Bush authority to go to war, Saddam Hussein permitted U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country. [By that time, however, the Bush admin was already planning to go to war, no matter what. In all likelihood, the Bush admin was dismayed when Iraq allowed the inspectors back in, as it removed the casus belli for war.]

Kerry argues that the vote for war authorization worked--it frightened Saddam Hussein into allowing the inspectors back into the country for the first time in four years. Kerry argues further that by going to war in Iraq with few allies and no support from the U.N. or NATO, Mr Bush endangered the success of the mission and saddled the United States with the lion's share of the blood and treasure to be spent in Iraq.

Kerry makes a firm distinction between war authorization and war itself. The war authorization Congress approved instructed Mr Bush to go to war if necessary and Kerry argues that it was clearly not necessary--there was no threat from Iraq requiring the use of American force. Mr Bush argues that a vote for war authorization is a vote for war and Senator Kerry is changing his position on the issue. That's incorrect. The wording of the war authorization makes it clear that Mr Bush was not instructed or urged to go to war.

Good stuff Spence; this is what I've gotten from Kerry but I still don't know what he is going to do about it. Where can we see or hear what he is going to do? I only hear him complain. The only thing specific I've heard is "double the size of special forces" which may sound neat to the layman but that is a silly and probably impossible task; they are called "special" for a reason.

Sorry for swaying off topic Joe, I can't really help ya since I was more concerned with skipping class back in HS.

[Spence]

Good stuff Spence; this is what I've gotten from Kerry but I still don't know what he is going to do about it. Where can we see or hear what he is going to do? I only hear him complain. The only thing specific I've heard is "double the size of special forces" which may sound neat to the layman but that is a silly and probably impossible task; they are called "special" for a reason.I'm not sure Kerry knows what he's going to do about it. The Bush supporters have an interesting argument these days. It goes like this: Things are so awful in Iraq that Kerry's plan to fix things is totally unrealistic. Of course, the first part of that sentence isn't too complimentary towards their own guy, but...

My guess is that Kerry will wind up dramatically increasing funding for training Iraqi soldiers, get them "coached up" [as someone would say] as well as possible and then begin relocating the bulk or all of U.S. forces into Kurdistan. There really are no good options left in Iraq, the country has been so terribly mismanaged the last 18 months and most Iraqis have turned hard against the U.S.

It's a funny thing, though. Kerry gets all the blame for not having a great plan for Iraq. What's Bush's plan? I mean, it's pretty clear he had no plan for Iraq after the fall of Saddam and they've been winging it ever since then. Are we to believe Bush has had an epiphany and suddenly figured out what to do? Because right now it just looks like he's off begging to the Brits to bail us out so we can launch another futile assault on Fallujah. That's his plan.

Look at it this way. You've got two kids. One of them plays around with a priceless vase and smashes it to pieces. Do you ask your other kid what his plan is to clean up that mess or do you send the first little punk to bed without his dinner? I know what I'd do. Bush had his chance to figure this out and he never even tried. I'm long since ready to give someone else a chance. He could hardly do worse and I think he'll actually do better.

[GibbsRules!]

I'm not sure Kerry knows what he's going to do about it.
Bush had the best plan in place the whole time, but decided to go with Rummy. Had he implemented the Powell Doctrine,

Is a vital US interest at stake?
Will we commit sufficient resources to win?
Are the objectives clearly defined?
Will we sustain the commitment?
Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation?
Have we exhausted our other options?

we could have http://www.blackwaterusa.com/index.html in there training Iraqis to police themselves. Unfortunately, many of our soldiers are escorting these contractors around, which by the way does wonders for military morale!

[Chief Seeway]

My guess is that Kerry will wind up dramatically increasing funding for training Iraqi soldiers, get them "coached up" [as someone would say] as well as possible and then begin relocating the bulk or all of U.S. forces into Kurdistan. There really are no good options left in Iraq, the country has been so terribly mismanaged the last 18 months and most Iraqis have turned hard against the U.S.

It's a funny thing, though. Kerry gets all the blame for not having a great plan for Iraq. What's Bush's plan? I mean, it's pretty clear he had no plan for Iraq after the fall of Saddam and they've been winging it ever since then. Are we to believe Bush has had an epiphany and suddenly figured out what to do? Because right now it just looks like he's off begging to the Brits to bail us out so we can launch another futile assault on Fallujah. That's his plan.


I agree with the first paragraph I quoted but has Kerry said this? Don't you think he should give at least some specifics to potential voters? I think the average American with average or above intelligence (i.e. not the rattlesnake weirdos etc...) realizes that no plan is fool proof and every plan should be flexible.

I'm not arguing who gets the blame or who deserves the blame; I guess I'm asking about the politics side of the election, "You should vote for me because..." fill in the blank. It just seems like most of the Kerry supporters are more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry and the Bush supporters are more pro-Bush and don't seem to know what Kerry wants to bring to the table.

[Jimskin]

This is pretty heavy! Wizard of OZ...stuff...."If I only had a Brain"...

[tommahawk]

I agree with the first paragraph I quoted but has Kerry said this? Don't you think he should give at least some specifics to potential voters? I think the average American with average or above intelligence (i.e. not the rattlesnake weirdos etc...) realizes that no plan is fool proof and every plan should be flexible.

I'm not arguing who gets the blame or who deserves the blame; I guess I'm asking about the politics side of the election, "You should vote for me because..." fill in the blank. It just seems like most of the Kerry supporters are more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry and the Bush supporters are more pro-Bush and don't seem to know what Kerry wants to bring to the table.

The reason Bush supporters don't know what Kerry can bring to the table is they only listen to Bush and knowbody else.

[Spence]

I agree with the first paragraph I quoted but has Kerry said this? Don't you think he should give at least some specifics to potential voters? I think the average American with average or above intelligence (i.e. not the rattlesnake weirdos etc...) realizes that no plan is fool proof and every plan should be flexible.

I'm not arguing who gets the blame or who deserves the blame; I guess I'm asking about the politics side of the election, "You should vote for me because..." fill in the blank. It just seems like most of the Kerry supporters are more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry and the Bush supporters are more pro-Bush and don't seem to know what Kerry wants to bring to the table.I can honestly say I'm very pro-Kerry. I met Kerry several years ago and was very impressed with him. I decided to support Kerry [with my work and money] back in June 2003 and I stuck with him through the dark days of Dean-mania. I'm sure many people are more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry, but that's not unusual. How many Republicans were really enthused about poor old Bob Dole in 1996? I suspect most who voted for him just couldn't stand Bill Clinton. That's usually how it is with elections featuring incumbents, especially polarizing ones like Clinton or Bush 2.0. The percentage of Kerry voters who really like the Democrat went up considerably after the debates so there are definitely more people like me than there were a month ago.

Kerry's attitude towards Iraq will be VERY flexible. [That appears to be Mr Bush's chief criticism of Senator Kerry.] My guess is that Kerry will do most anything it takes to allow U.S. troops to withdraw with honor from that debacle. It is Bush, I think most would agree, who has shown little flexibility towards Iraq. Almost every decision he has made has been wrong, but rather than admit this he merely bulls ahead as if his unwillingness to change direction would enable him to change facts on the ground.

It's pretty unlikely Kerry will get any troops out of our allies, though Mr Bush could have had troops in 2003 had he been willing to cede some authority to the U.N. What Kerry probably will get, however, is money. Allies unwilling to spend blood in Iraq will probably be willing to spend money because a U.S. failure in Iraq is not in their interests. As long as the official attitude of the U.S. government is disdain for the opinions of others in Iraq, we'll get no help at all. Bush is radioactive in the world. You've travelled enough to be more sophisticated about international opinion than most Republicans here at home, Tom. We cannot afford to have so much of the world loathe our government. It's too expensive and we're left to cozy up to repulsive thugs like Vladimir Putin. [I can still recall Mr Bush claiming to have seen into Mr Putin's soul and pronouncing him sound. Had Mr Bush looked a bit harder into the KGB agent-turned Russian strongman, he would have seen nothing inside Mr Putin except the conscience of a dead-eyed lizard.]

[Spence]

The reason Bush supporters don't know what Kerry can bring to the table is they only listen to Bush and knowbody else.My impression of Seeway is that he's not that sort of person. He's definitely a Republican [or a GOP sympathizer], but not one of these people who thinks whatever Bush says must be correct because God chose him to rule America.