INTERVIEW
I read this
long interview with John Kerry (thanks to
this comments section), and I don't think I understand him any better. He naturally goes through a long list of reasons why the W stands for wrong, instead of answering the direct, completely un-vague question that was posed.
IMUS: What is this plan you have?
KERRY: Well, the plan gets more complicated every single day because the president...
IMUS: Try to simplify it for me so I can understand it.
...
KERRY: Well, Don, I realize that, but the fact is that the president is the president. I mean, what you ought to be doing and what everybody in America ought to be doing today is not asking me; they ought to be asking the president, What is your plan?
He rambles for a bit, and then the interviewer throws him a ba-zing:
IMUS: We're asking you because you want to be president.
Indeed. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas in Cambodia. But what are you going to do about it, Kerry? Stop saying what we should be asking the President and start explaining why we should vote for you. What would you do differently, and don't give me this bullcrap about bringing allies to the table. No single country has agreed to do anything differently, even if you're President. You criticize the President for "not having a plan to win the peace"; explain why you think the world will be more peaceful if you yank all the troops out. Explain it, please. Cuz last year you said
Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.
More stuff from the interview:
IMUS: Did you read "Unfit for Command?"
KERRY: No.
IMUS: Did anybody on your staff?
KERRY: I have no idea.
IMUS: Why wouldn't you want to know what's in it? It's the No. 1 "New York Times," of course, it says nonfiction bestseller.
KERRY: Because they have right wing people to buy them in bulk, and that's what they're doing.
Can't possibly be individuals who want to search for the truth themselves rather than buying what CBS is peddling? It's gotta be Karl Rove buying books by the crate and turning them into fertilizer for Bush's secret cocaine stash. Please. You can't be president if you believe in a book-buying conspiracy. (By the way, none of these conspiracy nutjobs are mature enough to be president either.)
Here's a zinger of a question:
IMUS: Back in May of 2001 on "Meet the Press," you said you yourself have committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers in violation of the Geneva Conventions. And my question, Senator Kerry, is, is there a difference between what happened in your case in Vietnam and what happened at Abu Ghraib, in that both were acts in violation of the Geneva Conventions?
KERRY: There is a difference.
IMUS: What is it?
KERRY: There is a difference. What I was referring to in that testimony was the general categorization of free-fire zones in Vietnam and the general categorizations of some of the weapons that were being used, which were in violation of the accords. We didn't learn that until we came home. I didn't know any of that while I was there. I didn't know any of that over there, nor did most soldiers.
That sounds mighty different from what he said before about Jengis Khan. That wasn't just weapons types, that was
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
Why can't we get a straight story out of this man?
IMUS: Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq -- any?
KERRY: Not under the current circumstances, no, there are none that I see.
But he just got done saying something that sounds different...
KERRY: Let me explain it to you. I felt in 1998, and I said that Clinton ought to have the power, the authority to use force, in order to force Saddam Hussein to have inspectors, to be able to disarm. The only way to get the inspectors in was to be tough, to have the threat of force and the authority to use force. I was prepared to use the force if he didn't do what he needed to do. But I warned the president, as did many people, take the time to build up the international coalition, don't rush to war, because the most difficult part is not winning the military part of the war; it's winning the peace. [emphasis added]
Kerry would've gone to war if "he didn't do what he needed to do." Who is "he"? Saddam, I guess. What did he "need to do"? "Have inspectors" and "be able to disarm". That's an extremely vague sentence, and it would be nice to know what exactly the last straw would've been for Kerry. What exactly would've made him decide it was time to go to war? What exactly would've made it too imminent for him?
What exactly is his platform?
Posted by: Sarah at
04:29 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 958 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Jay Leno says Bush got back at Kerry for the "W" line. "Everyone knows 'wrong' begins with 'R'."
I would guess Dubya could laugh at that. Kerry could never laugh at his own expense.
Posted by: Mike at September 17, 2004 07:44 AM (MqNKC)
2
Now that we have gone to war, we have discovered that there was no pressing reason to go to war. So... how was Bush right again?
Posted by: yettrab at September 20, 2004 10:56 PM (9AAwc)
3
IMUS: Back in May of 2001 on "Meet the Press," you said
you yourself have committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers in violation of the Geneva Conventions....
KERRY: ... What I was referring to in that testimony was the general categorization of free-fire zones in Vietnam and the general categorizations of some of the weapons that were being used, which were in violation of the accords. We didn't learn that until we came home. I didn't know any of that while I was there. I didn't know any of that over there, nor did most soldiers.
That sounds mighty different from what he said before about Jengis (sic) Khan. That wasn't just weapons types, that was
[Referring to Winter Soldier Investidation]
They told the stories at times
they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
Why can't we get a straight story out of this man?
Um, I think it's because he's talking about two different things.
Posted by: Cash Flagg at September 21, 2004 04:42 AM (uScBg)
4
Please. You can't be president if you believe in a book-buying conspiracy.
Huh, I didn't know that one. I thought the only qualifications for being President were being at least 35 years old, being a natural-born citizen, living in the U.S. for 14 years, and (except in Bush's case) winning a plurality of the vote.
PS. From
The New York Times BestSeller List:
A dagger (+) indicates that some bookstores report receiving bulk orders.
Looks like the New York Times can't be President.
Posted by: Cash Flagg at September 21, 2004 05:01 AM (uScBg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
COST
I just heard part of John Kerry's speech to the National Guard, just the live snippet that the news played. In it he criticized the President, saying that 95% of the cost of the Gulf War was paid by our allies. That was shocking to me, so I looked it up. The
two figures I found amounted to only 88%, so I'm not sure how he got 95%. But still, 88% is a big number. A
closer look revealed that more than half of the cost was shouldered by Kuwait (makes sense) and Saudi Arabia. I'm not sure I want Saudi Arabia considered one of our "allies", as Kerry's speech classified them. Japan paid a big chunk of change in 1991, much appreciated, and Korea paid a bit. Germany forked over a bit more than $5 million. Appreciated too, but I'm not sure what point Kerry is trying to make today. He criticizes the President for not getting our "allies" to help pay in 2004 like they did in 1991, but France isn't even on the list. And isn't that really who we always mean when we talk about "getting allies on our side"? And would we really be happier with the current war in Iraq if Saudi Arabia were helping to foot the bill? I'm not sure I would be.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:07 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Another example of Liberals seeing only what they WANT to see, and not the whole picture. Now for the other side of the coin: since you're in a looking-things-up mood, did we make any HUGE loans or concessions to any countries right around the time they were "paying" for the cost of the Gulf War? (The US "persuaded" the World Bank to forgive Egypt's $14 billion debt and dropped our opposition to the Bank making huge loans to Iran, for starters.)
Posted by: CavalierX at September 16, 2004 06:20 PM (sA6XT)
2
You poor, poor things, you're really confused aren't you?
The Bush II administration clearly vastly underestimated what this war would cost (it will be more than double the first war), but we had a real coalition the first time and they helped deferr the costs. This time we're assuming the entire cost for what Bush claims is making the world a safer place. Isn't that rather stupid? Sadly, yes.
Posted by: bushgirlsgonewild at September 16, 2004 07:44 PM (vzHiG)
3
IT's a shame that we couldn't get some of our old friends to shoulder the monetary burden . But then again since they did the last time even our good friends in the UK woudln't allow us to take Baghdad or do anything about Saddam . As the world goes on and on about how this war is so horrible an even worse thing happens in Darfur and other places where they turn a blind eye. Amazing isnt it. But then again , if there's something to be done . The US must lead the way or no one goes and does much of anything.
Posted by: MorningSun at September 17, 2004 01:52 AM (EPBbn)
4
Learn history, read, do something rather than display your inability to research to the entire world 'cos France sent troops to Gulf War I!
Sorry for being heavy but I feel like you must have watching CNN World.
Posted by: Tadhgin at September 29, 2004 03:46 AM (eoRrs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
GOVERNATOR
I can't get the link at C-SPAN to work, which is disappointing because I'd really like to hear Gov. Schwarzenegger's charming voice as he gives
this speech. I'm with Lileks: I like him.
MORE TO GROK:
Kalroy's link worked. Heh. Arnold just said "girlie-men", and George H.W. Bush and I both cracked up!
Posted by: Sarah at
02:29 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Both Arnold and Laura Bush did an outstanding job. Arnold is a good speaker, and Laura Bush is nothing but "class"--a good night for the Republicans. I guess Michael Moore couldn't take the heat. He's not going back to the convention. He's a bully; he can sure dish it out, but when the tables are turned, he runs pretty fast.
Posted by: Nancy at September 01, 2004 03:26 AM (+jEfD)
2
I kind of felt sorry for Laura, Arnold was one tough act to follow. His pride in this country was just beaming out of him every minute of that speech. Rudy's speech the night before was the best so far IMO. Even McCain impressed me, and I'm not a huge fan of his. GO BUSH!
Oh, and I agree, she's one classy lady. Can't even imagine "The Razor" as first lady. UGH!
Posted by: MargeinMI at September 01, 2004 08:28 AM (EAKX6)
3
Actually, I felt sorry for Ah-nold - he had to follow Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. If you didn't see it and doubt me, pull it up on CSPAN.org and watch the replay.
Posted by: Glenmore at September 01, 2004 08:46 AM (n38Cr)
4
Try this one.
http://a235.v126583.c12658.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/235/12658/v0001/streaming.gopconvention.com/video/20040831_schwarzenegger.wmv
Maybe it'll work for you.
Kal
Posted by: kalroy at September 01, 2004 06:14 PM (q1aeu)
5
Hey nice LaDY!!!
Okay, I found this on the GOP Convention site. Supposedly it's got the video of Arnie, and others, on it.
http://www.gopconvention.com/rewind/
Looking at the list, it's amazing how many speakers I got bored into missing.
Kalroy
Posted by: kalroy at September 01, 2004 11:39 PM (q1aeu)
6
You should have listened to the speech, and read the entire text of the article you cited. Arnie never claimed to have seen soviet tanks in his hometown. He talked about visiting Soviet occupied Austria, and even talked about going through the checkpoint into the Soviet occupied area.
Also the Soviets were quite scary to those who lived next to them and in their shadow. As to his statement of leaving socialist Austria, he said that it had become socialist which is debatable if one uses the Soviet Union as your comparison, but is entirely true when comparing it to the US.
Nice try at propagating propaganda though.
Kalroy
Posted by: kalroy at September 05, 2004 11:46 AM (q1aeu)
7
Funny...The Soviets also were responsible for ousting the Nazi occupiers. Again, you use sematics to muddle the issue.
Posted by: curveball at September 06, 2004 10:00 AM (XxIKf)
8
What does the Soviet role in World War II (guess the allies didn't take part in it at all, since you claim the Soviets were responsible) have to do with whether or not Arnie saw Soviet Tanks while in the Soviet occupied zone of Austria?
Again, you propagandize to hide the inanities of your own argument.
Just admit that you haven't read the transcript of his speech and are simply spouting the party line. Had you read, or listened to his speech you'd have realized he was talking about the Soviet occupied zone. Had you done any research, you'd have found that Arnie himself has already clarified that when he mentioned entering the Soviet Occupied zone, what he meant was that he was in the Soviet Occupied zone.
I'm guessing you're a journalist, since you exhibit all the qualities of one.
Kalroy
Posted by: kalroy at September 06, 2004 11:22 AM (q1aeu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
58kb generated in CPU 0.0141, elapsed 0.0849 seconds.
49 queries taking 0.0765 seconds, 161 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.