on this: [color:blue]CINCINNATI -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Wednesday criticized President Bush's proposal to recall up to 70,000 foreign troops as a hastily announced plan that raises more doubts about U.S. intentions and commitments than it answers.</font color=blue><br><br>I understand the point--the decision does seem more political than strategic, and does seem a bit insensitive in relation to the allies in Europe. Still, I agree with Bush's point that the deployment of US troops overseas is a relic of the Cold War and needs to be undone.<br><br>To be fair to Kerry, he makes my points pretty well himself. Of course, the Bush campaign is misrepresenting Kerry's statement as a flop-flop: [color:blue]The Bush campaign also pointed out that Kerry appeared receptive to the idea of troop redeployment just two weeks ago.<br><br>"If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world -- in the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps," Kerry said on the Aug. 1 broadcast of ABC's "This Week."</font color=blue><br><br>I guess the point about diplomacy is a little too nuanced for Mr. Bush?<br><br>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
the sound bite i saw had kerry focusing on the removal of troops from south korea and the message that sends to south korea -- especially in light of the fact that we've made north korea part of the "axis of evil." this is certainly a good point and i have read up on it and still don't understand why we'd do that.<br><br>but, the troops leaving europe are going to destroy the communities where they have been a productive part of those local economies -- not that we should be concerned with local economies (and, this is only me talking and not kerry, fwiw). but, i know how devastated my hometown has been while the troops have been deployed to iraq. businesses are being forced to close their doors forever or to close their doors and wait until the troops come back (if they come back). crummy stuff.<br><br>"We actually misnamed the war on terror," he said. "It ought to be the Struggle Against Ideological Extremists Who Do Not Believe in Free Societies Who Happen to Use Terror as a Weapon to Try to Shake the Conscience of the Free World." -- Dubya
I have to admit I haven't been keeping up as much lately (I guess you could say I'm no longer wondering about who to vote for), but wasn't Kerry just asked a few days ago if he would have voted to invade Iraq if he knew then what we know now? And he said yes!?<br><br>If he didn't say that, and I'm falling victim to the sound bite-itis that is sweeping the country, then nevermind. But, if that is what he really believes.... what an idiot! C'mon John, we've already got a "war president" with his finger on the trigger. We don't need another one.<br><br>
kerry voted to authorize dubya with the power to use force on iraq. he did not vote for a war in iraq. he has said repeatedely that dubya misused that power and was reckless in how the iraq situation was handled. kerry said giving the president that power was the correct decision to allow the president to enforce the weapons inspections (dubya kicked them out, fwiw) and to help give the president some credibility as he asked for world support (squandered). anyway, this is a complex issue, so most of america will just reduce to to a vote for a war in iraq, unfortunately.<br><br>"We actually misnamed the war on terror," he said. "It ought to be the Struggle Against Ideological Extremists Who Do Not Believe in Free Societies Who Happen to Use Terror as a Weapon to Try to Shake the Conscience of the Free World." -- Dubya
This is sort of silly, and the Kerry people probably know it. <br><br>70,000 troops over 10 years is a drop in the bucket. This should have been done a long time ago. Nothing new here. There's no more Soviet Union to defend Europe against, so why are we there? Furthermore, are they really entitled to further, free protection?<br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>kerry said giving the president that power was the correct decision to allow the president to enforce the weapons inspections<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well, that's not what O'Reilly said he said!<br><br>just kidding, if that is his only reason for the authorization it is very heartening. I do wish he would present a bit more of an anti-Iraq war platform, though.<br><br>
Sean got it right. I've heard Kerry say, reasonably, that if he had been president, he would have wanted to have the authority that he voted for. I can understand that an executive would want such power, but personally, I think Kerry's wrong about that too. Either Congress votes for war, or it doesn't. Conceding the authority to the executive branch is weaseling out of the constitutional duty that Congress has to declare war.<br><br>I also think that Kerry could have answered the question, which apparently was laid out for him as a trap (so I've heard, anyway), in a very different way. It was Bush and Co. who were obsessed with Saddam. Had any other person been president, I would bet you that the question of granting the president authority would never have come up because the president would have been focussed on the main event--al Qaida.<br><br>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Conceding the authority to the executive branch is weaseling out of the constitutional duty that Congress has to declare war.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Exactly! Or you could say "rolling over"?<br><br>"Oh good morning Mr. President! Patriot Act you say? No, I haven't read it, but where do I sign?" <br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.