Posted on 10/01/2004 11:40:19 AM PDT by Wallaby
John Kerry: 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.
In the debate last night, President Bush pursued his campaign's primary strategy of portraying his opponent as a flip-flopper. On the evening's central topic of Iraq, the charge was not difficult to establish.
In his toughest question to Senator Kerry, the moderator Jim Lehrer reminded him of his 1971 congressional testimony in which he famously asked a rhetorical question: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Lehrer pointedly asked whether the Iraq war was a mistake. Kerry quickly responded "No," but then neglected to explain how he could reconcile this response with his new "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" position.
Kerry was intent, of course, to deny that he had been inconsistent on Iraq: "I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat." The line had been carefully crafted: he later uttered it again, verbatim. His defense of his own consistency reached record levels of risibility when he made a categorically absolute declaration: "I've never wavered in my life." There is irony in these repeated and sweeping avowals of one's own consistency, particularly in light of a central result of mathematical logic, proven by Kurt Gödel, that a sure way to guarantee the inconsistency of a rich deductive logical system of propositions is to have the system assert its own consistency!
That Kerry has been conspicuously inconsistent on the question of Iraq raises the question of whether the man has any core beliefs or whether he is simply afraid to share them. The debate provided reason to accept the second alternative.
In response to an excellent question by Jim Lehrer regarding America's right of preemptive action against terror, a question that this space had openly hoped would be put to Kerry at the debate, Kerry responded: "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."
Bush took the opportunity to seize on Kerry's response, and made a rare but effective counter-punch:
"I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test. My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure."Kerry showed himself to be deeply skeptical of Bush's certain faith that America has the high moral ground: "We're telling other people, 'You can't have nuclear weapons,' but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using." It apparently does not dawn on Kerry that America can be trusted to do what is right and to accomplish good in the world, but that North Korea and Iran cannot be similarly trusted. That possibility does not even rise to the level of being acknowledged by Kerry. Why not? The doubts expressed in his closing worry that certainty can "get you into trouble" suggests that he adopts the moral skepticism, if not cynicism, characteristic of the civilization-weary sophisticates on the left and of those who regard moral certainty as naive at best and dangerous at worst.
How then is a U.S. President to lead in a world in which jihadists drive passenger jets into buildings and carry out gruesome beheadings? Kerry's plan: have a summit, share our reasons, listen to the objections of the other side. In the post-modern world of Kerry, what passes for moral objectivity is no more than the notion of truth propounded by philosopher Richard Rorty: what others "will let us get away with." The global test is consensus and Kerry's plan to reach it is this: just talk.
well jennings thinks he can get away with something just 'cause it's only a "newsbreak".
he just said that "on the campaign trail today president bush is accusing senator kerry of turning the security issues of this country over to other countries. in the debate last night the senator said exactly the opposite."
some one send this to the bloggers!!! it was on the 2:00 p.m. news break.
he needs to go back to canada!
Isn’t this another inconsistency with Kerry?
A community of nations would have worked in Iraq we just needed more time and we are now going it alone. (Both by the way are false!)
This Kerry says is the wrong way to get the job done and we should have done the exact opposite.
However, In North Korea
The community of nations we are working with should be set aside and we should go it alone.
Stated more clearly.
In Iraq Kerry possession is….
We need to build a strong alliance with the community of nations and not act unilatterly.
In North Korea Kerry possession is….
We need to set aside (alienate?) our community of nations and act unilatterly.
Is this just fussy logic or another flip-flop?
I have some random thoughts about John Kerry:
1. He is the right guy at the right time for the wrong country.
2. John Kerry's global summit absolves him of responsibility. The summit will be blamed when things go wrong, yet Kerry will take credit when things go right.
3. John Kerry has poor instincts to protect others. I read the navy account of the swift boat attack where a man from Kerry’s boat ended up in the water. It went something like this: After an explosion, Kerry high tailed it out of danger, tossing a crew member overboard, leaving the rest of the fleet to their fate. AFTER it was safe, Kerry returned in time to rescue the guy HE tossed overboard. Kerry bragged about the rescue, but never mentioned that HE caused the accident when HE ran away from the fight! He ran away! He has brought shame to the noble designate of American Veteran. He is a gutless coward and a shameless opportunist.
Jo Nuvark
It isn't fussy logic at all. There is an incongruity here between the multilateralism that Kerry insists upon in Iraq and the rejection of a multilateral approach he recommends in North Korea. Who knows how Kerry would explain the disparity?
My responses:
1. France?
2. spot on.
3. ditto
To Jennings way of thinking, Kerry said last night whatever Jennings thinks his audience wants or should want him to have said.
How do you ask someone to be the last one to die for a mistake? Good question.
It's a standard Hollywood war movie scene: The 'good guy' soldiers get ambushed, or otherwise end up outnumbered and retreating. Obviously, somebody screwed up. As the soldiers are running away, one of their wounded comrades decides he can't run any farther, and is going to stay behind to hold off the bad guys while his friends escape. No one asks him to do it. He volunteers to be the last man to die for a mistake.
Even when it's in a fantasy/SciFi film like "The Thirteenth Warrior" or "Starship Troopers", I'm sure this scene rings as true with most soldiers as it does with my buddies who serve. Duty. Honor. Country. (notice that "personal safety" didn't make the top three.)
Russia's invasion of Afghanistan was a collosal blunder.
Bush's conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq isn't even in the same league.
Trivia question: For perspective, how many American and/or Allied soldiers died in each of the following "Mistakes?" (note that I included some costly victories)
Kasserine Pass
Monte Cassino
Anzio
D-day
The Bocage
Operation Market Garden
The Hurtgen Forest
The Battle of the Bulge
Shoot, the Germans lost (correct me if I'm wrong) over TEN thousand when they overran France in '40!
Makes Bush's eight-hundred-odd combat casualties in three years and two conquered countries (one of which- Afghanistan- had been chewing up and spitting out invading armies for centuries) seem, well, sort of (pardon the pun) bush league.
I am suggesting that Kerry is a traitor to the United States. In the 70's the right country was North Vietnam. In the "Decade of Liberty" the right country happens to be France. But it is also any enemy nation.
John Kerry cannot change his stripes, as they say. It's apparent that his stripes have never been red, white and blue.
Jo Nuvark
You are a good writer. I appreciate the way you nailed Kerry's self validating logic. He's a dangerous man.
But then we are superficial people. We place presentation over content. We choose comfort over sacrifice.
Jo Nuvark
How about ANZAC cove, Gallipoli? It cost the Australian Imperial Force 8,000 dead and 18,000 wounded.
Yes, he's consistent in his core beliefs -- no flip-flopping there. He's consistently anti-American and internationalist in his outlook.
Thanks for the kind words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.