Kerry isn't a flip-flopper
Flatrater
10-06-2004, 07:42 PM
The Kerry Doctrine
By Jed Babbin ([email protected]) Published 10/5/2004 12:05:38 AM
One reason for the Dems' glee over the President's not-so-perfect performance in last week's debate is that few are paying much attention to some of the amazing nonsense that came out of his opponent. None of us can underestimate Vichy John Kerry's capacity for flip-flopping. In the debate, he seemed to reverse himself on one of the most important issues now facing America: preemption of terrorist attacks. But if you read what he said, it's no flip-flop at all: Kerry still doesn't agree that America can preempt terrorist attacks without asking "mother, may I" of Kofi, Jacques, and Gerhard.
Way back on December 16, 2003, in a much-ballyhooed major foreign policy speech, Kerry said specifically that he would abandon the policy of attacking terrorists before they have the chance to attack us. In that speech, given at Drake University, Kerry said, "We must change this course of unilateralism and preemptive war that is radically wrong…" That was, at least, consistent with what he said in April on Meet the Press, when he reiterated -- and then explained seemingly endlessly -- that the war on terror is primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation, not a military effort. (Don't look for the Drake University speech on Kerry's campaign website. It has suddenly disappeared, as he wishes the position he took would.)
In the debate, Kerry first declared Iraq a disaster: "And now we see beheadings. And now we've got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day. And they're blowing people up. And we don't have enough troops there." Huh? WMD crossing the border every day? Being used to blow people up? Where's Hans Blix now that we really need him?
Jim Lehrer tried to get a straight answer on preemptive war from Kerry, and for his trouble he got a demonstration of Kerry's profound ignorance of the Cold War and a carefully parsed statement on Kerry's doctrine on the limitations that must be placed on preemption: "The president always has the right and always has had the right for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the cold war…But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got 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."
Thus, the Kerry Doctrine: before you strike terrorists preemptively, you have to have sufficient evidence to convince the world that you were right in doing it. All that gibberish proves redundantly that Mr. Kerry -- despite his repeated insistence to the contrary -- will only attack and preempt when he is confident that he will first receive the blessing of the U.N. or Old Europe or both. If you are going to be able to prove to the world that what you did is legitimate, you must prove it in the way that those whose approval you seek will accept your evidence. No one in his right mind can believe that any proof will satisfy the U.N. or the EUnuchs. So why does Kerry? In truth, he doesn't. He's not flip-flopping. He's just blowing blue smoke at the mirrors he's set up all around him.
THE GREATEST FAILURE OF Mr. Bush's performance in the debate is that he let Mr. Kerry off far too easily on that point. He could have hammered Kerry into the ground with it, but managed only to say he wasn't sure what Kerry meant. Soon after the debate, Republicans called Kerry on it. The Kerry campaign's response was a joy to behold.
According to the Washington Post, Kerry foreign policy advisor Richard Holbrooke tried to say it ain't so. "Asked what the Kerry Doctrine actually is, Holbrooke, in a conference call with reporters, replied: 'There is no Kerry Doctrine.'" You only wish there weren't one, Mr. Holbrooke. But there's no use in trying to conceal it. Kerry won't act to defend America against terrorist attack without the blessing of Kofi Annan and our Euro-betters. Conversely, he will act just as Bill Clinton did, and Jimmy Carter always wanted to. Not to defend America. Lt. (j.g.) Kerry will undo all the transformation of our military that has gone on in the past four years to remake it into the peacekeeping force the U.N. wants it to be.
The debate went, as it had to, to the question of the ongoing genocide in the Darfur province of Sudan. In response to that question, Kerry stated the second half of his doctrine: "But I'll tell you this, as president, if it took American forces to some degree to coalesce the African Union, I'd be prepared to do it because we could never allow another Rwanda." Echoing what he's been told by his Carteresque general staff (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6949), Kerry said, "It's a moral responsibility for us in the world."
In John Kerry's mind, there is a moral responsibility for America to put American lives at risk whenever there may be genocide, but we can only preempt terrorist attacks on America when we're sure that the world will agree with us after we've done it. There is an enormous imbalance in Kerry's thinking. In Kerry's mind, America apparently has more of a moral obligation to save others than we do to save our own people. Is he serious? Of course he is.
Mr. Kerry's "moral responsibility" filters national security through the clouded lens of Carterism. Carterism's first and only solid principle bases all else on consideration of human rights. If we think first of human rights, we will distance ourselves from Pakistan, Turkey, and a whole list of allies with whom we must be joined to defeat the terrorist nations. We won't use dirty, nasty people for the dirty, nasty work of intelligence and covert operations. We won't shoot first and ask questions later. We will get shot first, and then Kerry and however many of his staff survive will sit around debating just who shot us. Kerry will demand certainty in the intelligence describing terrorist threats and attacks, and when he's told that intelligence is not certain, and never was, he'll refuse to preempt or even respond.
Though he tried to, Mr. Kerry didn't really flip-flop on preemption. He doesn't get it, and doesn't want to. Preemption is the only way we can beat the terrorists and the nations that support them. We mustn't be spending the lives of our troops on the basis of some globalist "moral imperative." John Kerry doesn't see that. He can't.
Mr. Kerry is not a "9-12" candidate. The clock in his head stopped somewhere between August 15, 1969 and April 23, 1971.
By Jed Babbin ([email protected]) Published 10/5/2004 12:05:38 AM
One reason for the Dems' glee over the President's not-so-perfect performance in last week's debate is that few are paying much attention to some of the amazing nonsense that came out of his opponent. None of us can underestimate Vichy John Kerry's capacity for flip-flopping. In the debate, he seemed to reverse himself on one of the most important issues now facing America: preemption of terrorist attacks. But if you read what he said, it's no flip-flop at all: Kerry still doesn't agree that America can preempt terrorist attacks without asking "mother, may I" of Kofi, Jacques, and Gerhard.
Way back on December 16, 2003, in a much-ballyhooed major foreign policy speech, Kerry said specifically that he would abandon the policy of attacking terrorists before they have the chance to attack us. In that speech, given at Drake University, Kerry said, "We must change this course of unilateralism and preemptive war that is radically wrong…" That was, at least, consistent with what he said in April on Meet the Press, when he reiterated -- and then explained seemingly endlessly -- that the war on terror is primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation, not a military effort. (Don't look for the Drake University speech on Kerry's campaign website. It has suddenly disappeared, as he wishes the position he took would.)
In the debate, Kerry first declared Iraq a disaster: "And now we see beheadings. And now we've got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day. And they're blowing people up. And we don't have enough troops there." Huh? WMD crossing the border every day? Being used to blow people up? Where's Hans Blix now that we really need him?
Jim Lehrer tried to get a straight answer on preemptive war from Kerry, and for his trouble he got a demonstration of Kerry's profound ignorance of the Cold War and a carefully parsed statement on Kerry's doctrine on the limitations that must be placed on preemption: "The president always has the right and always has had the right for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the cold war…But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got 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."
Thus, the Kerry Doctrine: before you strike terrorists preemptively, you have to have sufficient evidence to convince the world that you were right in doing it. All that gibberish proves redundantly that Mr. Kerry -- despite his repeated insistence to the contrary -- will only attack and preempt when he is confident that he will first receive the blessing of the U.N. or Old Europe or both. If you are going to be able to prove to the world that what you did is legitimate, you must prove it in the way that those whose approval you seek will accept your evidence. No one in his right mind can believe that any proof will satisfy the U.N. or the EUnuchs. So why does Kerry? In truth, he doesn't. He's not flip-flopping. He's just blowing blue smoke at the mirrors he's set up all around him.
THE GREATEST FAILURE OF Mr. Bush's performance in the debate is that he let Mr. Kerry off far too easily on that point. He could have hammered Kerry into the ground with it, but managed only to say he wasn't sure what Kerry meant. Soon after the debate, Republicans called Kerry on it. The Kerry campaign's response was a joy to behold.
According to the Washington Post, Kerry foreign policy advisor Richard Holbrooke tried to say it ain't so. "Asked what the Kerry Doctrine actually is, Holbrooke, in a conference call with reporters, replied: 'There is no Kerry Doctrine.'" You only wish there weren't one, Mr. Holbrooke. But there's no use in trying to conceal it. Kerry won't act to defend America against terrorist attack without the blessing of Kofi Annan and our Euro-betters. Conversely, he will act just as Bill Clinton did, and Jimmy Carter always wanted to. Not to defend America. Lt. (j.g.) Kerry will undo all the transformation of our military that has gone on in the past four years to remake it into the peacekeeping force the U.N. wants it to be.
The debate went, as it had to, to the question of the ongoing genocide in the Darfur province of Sudan. In response to that question, Kerry stated the second half of his doctrine: "But I'll tell you this, as president, if it took American forces to some degree to coalesce the African Union, I'd be prepared to do it because we could never allow another Rwanda." Echoing what he's been told by his Carteresque general staff (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6949), Kerry said, "It's a moral responsibility for us in the world."
In John Kerry's mind, there is a moral responsibility for America to put American lives at risk whenever there may be genocide, but we can only preempt terrorist attacks on America when we're sure that the world will agree with us after we've done it. There is an enormous imbalance in Kerry's thinking. In Kerry's mind, America apparently has more of a moral obligation to save others than we do to save our own people. Is he serious? Of course he is.
Mr. Kerry's "moral responsibility" filters national security through the clouded lens of Carterism. Carterism's first and only solid principle bases all else on consideration of human rights. If we think first of human rights, we will distance ourselves from Pakistan, Turkey, and a whole list of allies with whom we must be joined to defeat the terrorist nations. We won't use dirty, nasty people for the dirty, nasty work of intelligence and covert operations. We won't shoot first and ask questions later. We will get shot first, and then Kerry and however many of his staff survive will sit around debating just who shot us. Kerry will demand certainty in the intelligence describing terrorist threats and attacks, and when he's told that intelligence is not certain, and never was, he'll refuse to preempt or even respond.
Though he tried to, Mr. Kerry didn't really flip-flop on preemption. He doesn't get it, and doesn't want to. Preemption is the only way we can beat the terrorists and the nations that support them. We mustn't be spending the lives of our troops on the basis of some globalist "moral imperative." John Kerry doesn't see that. He can't.
Mr. Kerry is not a "9-12" candidate. The clock in his head stopped somewhere between August 15, 1969 and April 23, 1971.
Flatrater
10-08-2004, 11:14 PM
No takers here? Are we conceding defeat?
tenguzero
10-09-2004, 01:21 AM
I still think they're both equally incompetent, this is made especially true to myself when trying to figure out this cluster-F of a war. So I've decided that, if I were to vote, I'd take a different route entirely, namely that of looking beyond this ridiculous issue that seems to have the country captivated. NO ONE, not Bush or Kerry, stands any chance at reigning in the damn Iraq issue- if Bush stays in power, the policy will continue the way it has, and we'll continue to unflinchingly, doggedly, pursue this war abroad, while severely neglecting our issues at home. This administration sucks at dealing with budget issues, it sucks at dealing with immigration issues, it sucks at dealing with security issues, it sucks at dealing with healthcare issues, it sucks at dealing with employment issues, and it sucks at dealing with education issues. And you know what? I don't see them changing their policy at all over the next 4 years. The problem with Kerry, is that, even if he WERE to be elected, and he WERE to follow through on his promises, he's not going to be able to get to far because there will still be a large contingent of holdovers from this administration, and there WILL be constant headbutting. So, as I originally stated, I've decided to look past this particular quagmire, and instead consider other issues. SCREW foreign policy... yeah that's right, I said it. There are other issues just as important at hand right now. Obviously, I won't even pretend for a second that Kerry would faithfully pursue every one of his promises, but on the other hand, I already know where the current administration's have taken us, so I figure, what's the hurt in trying someone new? So, overlooking this damn issue of Iraq that hangs so many people up before they get to consideration of the other 50% of policy known as the domestic sector, if I were to vote for one of these dinks, it would probably be Kerry. I've just looked at all the factors in the fields of science, the economy, and healthcare in particular, and I see Kerry's aims as far more progressive. Does the idea of potentially higher taxes concern me? Sure it does. But then again, when I consider aspects like for instance the tax level of the higher grossing tax bracket, I don't see Kerry's plan as "raising" taxes, merely as re-adjusting them to where they were BEFORE the current administration lowered them in an attempt to kickstart the economy. Don't think for a second that the Bush administration wouldn't consider raising them back up once they consider economy "progress" is really being made... hell, they're bumping the interest rates back up, and guess who has the highest amount of debt that a hike like this would apply to? The middle class (see: long term school loans, automobile loans, credit card lines, etc.) And you know what? I really don't see the upper classes as being in any way "threatened" after all, where is all this extra money they're supposed to be saving going? Certainly not into paychecks, healthcare, and other benefits. No sir, all I've seen from this class of "entrepreneurs" and private business owners since these tax cuts, is a surge in their purchasing of more expensive cars, larger SUVs, pricier home entertainment bundles, boats, and other such toys, meanwhile the wages and benefits they provide for their middle class workers aren't keeping up with inflation... and yet they're still whining that they'll be "devastated" if the tax rate were to slide back up. Yeah, right. Devastated all the way to the gas pump, where they'll dump 70 bucks worth of gas into their Landrover on the way to their quaint ski weekend (I've worked in a grocery store in the Lakes Region of NH, these kinds of people are all over the place come winter.) Hell, for all we know, had the gas tax proposed by Kerry and supporters several years back gone into effect, perhaps we would never have had the proliferation of huge gas-guzzling vehicles that we do now! I mean, when gas is only 90 cents a gallon, 40 or 50 cents more, while not unmanageable, might still have deterred gas (and therefore crude oil consumption) before reaching its current disgusting levels. We could already be well into our third or fourth generation alternative/hybrid fuel vehicles. But instead, John Doe found he was able to fill the massive tank of one of these "cool" SUVs at a reasonable price, and voila! the large vehicle craze began. And it's still going strong - right alongside increasing demands for, surprise surprise, OIL! The only difference is, while these people can always afford to fill their massive gas tanks, I CAN'T. But yet I pay the same ridiculous rate at the pump, despite the benefits I present by owning a small vehicle.
I guess what it comes down to, is that I don't see how this war, and our standing with the world at large could get any more convoluted than it is now. I mean, there's a reason why it's THE hot topic. Therefore, upon consideration of the REST of the candidates policies, I would have to choose Kerry, because his initiative just seem to be more progressive.
President Bush said this evening, at their second debate, that we must, as a country, always remain "on the offensive." Well you know what? I'm not going to spend my life on the damned offensive. There's more to life than constant military build up, flexing of superpower status in the world, and attempting to make policy for other countries through force if needed. You know what that sounds like to me? The policies of the Cold War. And we all know where that got the world. I'd like to hear from people about their views on the candidates domestic policies- the environment, alternative fuels, healthcare, immigration, education, federal aid programs, science/medical advancement, etc. I know, I know, it sounds like blasphemy to even think about other issues besides friggin' Iraq right now. So sue me (just don't let that suggestion get around to John Edwards :icon16: )
I guess what it comes down to, is that I don't see how this war, and our standing with the world at large could get any more convoluted than it is now. I mean, there's a reason why it's THE hot topic. Therefore, upon consideration of the REST of the candidates policies, I would have to choose Kerry, because his initiative just seem to be more progressive.
President Bush said this evening, at their second debate, that we must, as a country, always remain "on the offensive." Well you know what? I'm not going to spend my life on the damned offensive. There's more to life than constant military build up, flexing of superpower status in the world, and attempting to make policy for other countries through force if needed. You know what that sounds like to me? The policies of the Cold War. And we all know where that got the world. I'd like to hear from people about their views on the candidates domestic policies- the environment, alternative fuels, healthcare, immigration, education, federal aid programs, science/medical advancement, etc. I know, I know, it sounds like blasphemy to even think about other issues besides friggin' Iraq right now. So sue me (just don't let that suggestion get around to John Edwards :icon16: )
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025