General discussion


Which John Kerry is right?

By maxwell edison ·
December 2005:

Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, who has called for the withdrawal of 20,000 troops after elections in Iraq on Dec. 15, told reporters that the president failed to address what he called a fundamental reality -- that ''the presence of our troops itself . . . presents food for the insurgency. And you need to reduce that presence over a period of time in order to be able to succeed, not fail."

June 2005:

Sen. John Kerry, Mr. Bush's Democratic opponent in last year's presidential election, told NBC's "Today" show that the borders of Iraq "are porous" and said "we don't have enough troops" there.

Make up your mind, Senator Kerry. Which is it?

(And there are people who actually voted for this guy!)

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Not entirely fair, Max

by road-dog In reply to Which John Kerry is right ...

Those statements were issues 6 months apart and the nature of the warzone and reconstruction efforts has changed somewhat in those six months. A fair examination of the differences should take that into account.

Personally, I think he is wrong in BOTH positions based on the facts. Each is wrong. I believe that this is so because I conclude that he has no core beliefs upon which to base his opinions. He is not pro-anything; he is anti-Bush. His conflicting opinions are his attempts to articulate an anti-Bush message in light of changing circumstances and the prevailing perceptions of those changing circumstances.

His position in June was based upon his attempts to exploit public perception that the insurgency was not under control and that it was building not waning, as statistics show to be false. He was simply finding an anti-Bush position that fit with the flawed perceptions presented by the media at that time. Remember, this was the time of the dramatic countup to 2,000 deaths in Iraq.

He is at this time trying to get ahead of projected public opinion that fewer troops will be necessary after the election in Iraq. If Bush does indeed draw down the number of troops post election, Kerry will attempt to rewrite history by claiming "victory", his previous positions conveniently ignored by the media.

This time he is wrong because those troops may very well be needed to watch the Iranian border as the world community begins to come to the conclusion that Iran's nuclear pursuits must be dealt with now, rather than later. He's once again basing his position on the etherial.

I feel sorry for the guy, really. He has long relied on the flexibility that opposition has to offer that he cannot demonstrate any kind of core belief system that people can rely on and will vote for. At least anything resembling a majority vote anyway....

He will not be judged kindly by history. I suspect he will be barely remembered at all, let alone judged. He is an opportunist, not a man of vision, but a man of words. Only men of vision and action are remembered by history.

Bush will one day take his place in the pantheon of American heroes along side of Reagan, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Washington.

Kerry will be a footnote and maybe a Trivial Pursuit question.....

Collapse -

I both agree and disagree

by maxwell edison In reply to Not entirely fair, Max

I disagree with the comment that my quotes are not fair. I'd welcome anyone to put those quotes into full context (I provided links), and compare them to the respective TRUE situation in Iraq. Moreover, I could probably leap-frog back at six month increments and find equally contradictory positions. It all kinda' all falls into the "I voted for it before I voted against it" category. And it's fair because people believe this guy, and they repeat what he says. And it's fair because of the things you said with which I'm in full agreement.

The man has absolutely no principle, because nothing he says is rooted in core values. He not only exploits public perception, but he adds to deceiving the public's perception, and creating a perception that's contrary to reality. Anything I can provide to show those things to be true is very fair. Contrast what his various positions have been to President Bush's unwavering and steady positions.

And I agree that President Bush "will one day take his place in the pantheon of American heroes along side of Reagan, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Washington." This is one of the most monumental events in the history of mankind. And the false perceptions being perpetrated by the likes of John Kerry, is creating a situation in which many people don't even realize it.

Collapse -

Just tossing out a disclaimer, Max!

by road-dog In reply to I both agree and disagree

A fair discussion of two statements made 6 months apart should acknowledge that the situation may have changed between those two statements.

For instance, the statement "the traffic light is ________", is right or wrong due to the constant change in the indication of the light. Although obvious, the fact is worth mentioning.

I fairly pointed that out and then spoke about why I feel that the differences between this two statements were in NO way related to the fluidity of the situation.

Kerry's fluid position is due to his constant desire to exploit what he believes is the prevailing public opinion based upon the erroneous and unbalanced media coverage.

I removed a possible opposing argument before it could even come into play. A preemptive strike, if you will. Sorry it sounded like a dig, Max. I didn't intend it as such, although I realize it sounded like one. I'll level the playing field more carefully in the future!

with kind regards,

the road dog

Collapse -

That is the funniest post I've ever read.

by nighthawk808 In reply to Not entirely fair, Max

In a sad way. If Bush is ever compared to Washington, it will be how he attempted to dismantle everything our founding fathers believed in. You know, little things like freedom of speech, integrity, due process, equality, and other minor things like being against torture, treason (yes, authorizing spying on American citizens and outing an undercover American agent qualify as treasonous), and imperialism.

Contrary to what Rush Limbaugh says, changing your opinion based on new information isn't a display of spinelessness, it is the admirable ability to accept facts that demonstrate that you were wrong and be honest enough to change based on that new evidence. Bush is proud that he never changes course. That is the surest sign of a small mind. After all, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

To put this in a TechRepublic mode, let's say that you're dropping packets like mad. Here's what the two men would say:

John Kerry -- He says that we should buy another router. When we're still dropping packets, he says that it might be a flawed infrastructure or a bandwidth problem. He suggests doing a deeper analysis instead of buying a third router.

George Bush -- maybe we should put the packets into double Ziploc bags. That way they won't get hurt if they get dropped. When this doesn't work, he suggests triple-bagging them. If we don't, then the terrorist packet-droppers will have won.

Which one of these two is the idiot?

Collapse -

Here's an interesting fact.

by barghesthowl In reply to Which John Kerry is right ...

People who are intelligent do, from time to time, change their minds! Now I know this might be a shock to you, but the situation in Iraq is different now then it was a year ago. It is perfectly acceptable to change your views based on a change in situation-in fact, it is unacceptable NOT to be willing to change your views even in the face of a changed situation.

It is left as an exercise to the reader to figure out who it is that always wants to "stay the course". That's not always the right thing to do.

Collapse -

I disagree

by maxwell edison In reply to Here's an interesting fac ...

It shows that John Kerry has no long-term vision for transforming the middle-east, nor does he have a vision and/or goal to eliminate the threat of terrorism. Six months is nothing in the larger scheme of things. This war on terrorism will last longer than W.W.II did. And it will, if executed correctly, transform part of the middle east, not unlike Germany and Japan were transformed in the 1940s. We didn't see the leaders of the 40s change their minds every six months based on ups and down or changing dynamics of the circumstances.

To constantly change one's mind based on dynamic events over a six month period is not only irresponsible, but it would result in failure.

This war on terrorism will have its ups and downs, just like the stock market. But over the long-term, it will be successful. Your assertion would lead people to buy and sell stocks based on the ups and downs in the market instead of the more successful method of steady investing for the long-term.

The bigger picture and the long-term gains elude John Kerry. And he is failing to keep his eyes on the longer term target goal. The guy's an imbecile.

Collapse -

How, exactly, do you figure?

by barghesthowl In reply to I disagree

WWII strategy was changed constantly. Now, that doesn't mean that plans weren't made, or stuck to. It does mean that war is an extremely dynamic, unpredictable event, and requires an extremely dynamic, flexible strategy.

Now, on this -particular- issue, I do disagree with Kerry's new position. We made the mess, and now, like it or not, we're going to be stuck picking it up. That could indeed last for quite some time, but I think immediate withdrawal would be a poor move.

However, you should always debate someone's position on its merits/flaws, not on the fact that they thought something else at an earlier time. This current war will require a great deal of flexibility, not a single, unchanging plan. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make ANY plans-just means that we should leave ourselves open to adapting them as circumstances inevitably will require. That's the right way to approach this, even if I disagree with the particular position in this case.

In the case of stocks, the comparison's effectively inaccurate. Buy and hold does indeed tend to work well for established, stable stocks, but not if you're dealing junk bonds. We are not dealing with an established, stable situation in the Middle East, we are dealing with an unpredictable, dynamic one. Domestic planning is a better example of where the "buy and hold" strategy tends to be a good one, but even then sometimes inertia must be overcome and a change made.

Collapse -

You said . . . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to How, exactly, do you figu ...

"W.W.II strategy was changed constantly."

Of course it did. But the desired goal -- unconditional surrender -- never changed.

My initial question was merely wondering exactly what Senator Kerry's goal really is ..... or was ..... or will be. He's constantly "changing strategy", as you suggested, but not to achieve any particular goal. Or would you care to guess what that is?

(That was a rebuttal.)

Collapse -

I responded to that same challenge below.

by barghesthowl In reply to You said . . . . . .

Same as the title.

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to Which John Kerry is right ...

Not having heard those words myself, I cannot reflect on the meaning or intent by Kerry.

Based on past commments that were ridiculously taken out of context before, I'd have to see other sides, transcripts.

"John Kerry flip flopped regrding his view on the Iraqi invasion."
No he didn't, not at all. He said he was FOR the use of force to enforce inspections, if all others measures were exhausted, again though, the USE OF FORCE... not a full scale invasion. When Bush decided to invade on fa;\lse pretenses, Kerry was opposed, which in turn had people calling him a flip-flopper.

So I guess, pretty much ANYTHING the ciased press tells us is pure horse sh*t and muct be taken with a grain of salt.

I am not 'for' Kerry any more that I am against him, but the obvious bias spun against him was simply incredulous.

Related Discussions

Related Forums