or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kerry's Clearest Flop to Date
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kerry's Clearest Flop to Date

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
Kerry on 8/1/2004:

Quote:
In an Aug. 1 interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Kerry said he believed his brand of diplomacy would allow the United States to "significantly change the deployment of troops, not just [in Iraq] but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps."


8/18/2004

Quote:
Before the same Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention that Bush addressed on Monday, the Democratic presidential nominee questioned the wisdom of "unilaterally withdrawing" 12,000 troops from South Korea at the same time the administration is negotiating with North Korea - a country, Kerry said, "that really has nuclear weapons."

"Nobody wants to bring troops home more than those of us who have fought in foreign wars," Kerry said. "But it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way. This is not that time or that way."

No matter what side you're on, there is simply no explanation for this. I am starting to wonder if the man has Goreitis. Changing positons within 3 weeks has got to become some kind of record.

But of course, this won't matter to the usual AI crowd. "See", they'll argue, "Kerry just a has a problem with the timing and method of redeployment. Silly SDW, doesn't he understand nuance?"

To add to the hilarity:

Quote:
Kerry foreign-policy adviser Rand Beers said Kerry would consider moving some U.S. troops farther south on the Korean Peninsula to avoid a strike from the North.

So...the troops that are there should be MOVED to avoid their.......mission? OK.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 30
You know that Rand Beers was a former senior bush admin official, don't you?

Oh, and you are pitting sound bytes against each other. Did kerry have a detailed plan that links up with bush's, or do you just have the nothing that you've spammed here?
post #3 of 30
The troops should be moved. For once Bush is doing the right thing, relatively speaking.

Quote:
So...the troops that are there should be MOVED to avoid their.......mission? OK.

Typical ignorance on your part. There are two chief reasons why Kerry, and Rumsfeld for that matter, want to move the troops farther South. This suggestion really isn't even very controversial among the neo-cons and hawks.

Firstly, the North Koreans view our presence as far more provocative than that of the South Koreans. It's really not a wholly irrational view given that we are on the Korean peninsula where frankly we do not belong in ideal circumstances, we have a much more threatening military, in total though not on the peninsula than South Korea, and we are a NewQueLar power, unlike South Korea.

Secondly, Seoul and other cities have basically grown up around where the military set up their bases fifty years ago. The present logistics are detrimental to South Korea areas and they limit US training ability because they are far too urbanized. A move to the South would greatly relieve that pressure. Incidents like the famous one of the tank running over that kid a few years ago are a result of the presently poor situation. Moving them would not materially hinder the troops mission which is to support the South Koreans, more so as a signifying force that the US has South Koreas back than as a tangible fighting force.
post #4 of 30
Are the folks who are complaining about the withdrawel of troops the same folks who declare that we "created" the terrorists by keeping our troops in Saudi Arabia for so many years after the first Gulf War?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #5 of 30
Ones statement says 'changed' . . . . whatever that means?

Then the supposed contradiction turns out, completely unsurprisingly, to amount to nothing and is, in fact, not at all a contradiction: He does not like the notion of unillaterally removing 12,000 troops from the border of the 'Axis Of Evil" #2 . . . . so?! I don't like that idea either . . . . do you?

Oh, and just in case you didn't notice the implied contradiction on your part in 'all the hillarity':

If you fault Beers statement for moving troops south because it "avoids thier mission" then you cannot escape the fact that you condemn Bush's removal of said troops for the same reason!
QED
Um . . . . let me see, the thought never crossed your mind . . . you were simply too giddy at finding your typical partisan misperception to notice?!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #6 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Are the folks who are complaining about the withdrawel of troops the same folks who declare that we "created" the terrorists by keeping our troops in Saudi Arabia for so many years after the first Gulf War?

Nick

While I've not made a decision about the proposed troop movements(I'll wait until I see the actual numbers and relocations), I fail to see what relivence the movement of forces has with your question. Please ellucidate if you will.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #7 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Ones statement says 'changed' . . . . whatever that means?

Then the supposed contradiction turns out, completely unsurprisingly, to amount to nothing and is, in fact, not at all a contradiction: He does not like the notion of unillaterally removing 12,000 troops from the border of the 'Axis Of Evil" #2 . . . . so?! I don't like that idea either . . . . do you?

Oh, and just in case you didn't notice the implied contradiction on your part in 'all the hillarity':

If you fault Beers statement for moving troops south because it "avoids thier mission" then you cannot escape the fact that you condemn Bush's removal of said troops for the same reason!
QED
Um . . . . let me see, the thought never crossed your mind . . . you were simply too giddy at finding your typical partisan misperception to notice?!

I know that you know that I know that you wouldn't put the deadly iocane powder in your own glass.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #8 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Are the folks who are complaining about the withdrawel of troops the same folks who declare that we "created" the terrorists by keeping our troops in Saudi Arabia for so many years after the first Gulf War?

Nick

Show me one person that said that?

and even if you could, which I doubt (possibly SJO however) . . . N Korea is not Saudi Arabia . . . and your equation of the two for the purpose of attempting to weaken an argument is too weak an argument: it only ends up weakening the position you are trying to defend . . . if indeed you are tryng to at all . . . . I mean, who can tell really.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #9 of 30
It was funny to read the NYT's twisted logic about why moving troops out of where they are not needed is a bad thing. Anything goes at the NYT when it's time to slam Bush.
post #10 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001

So...the troops that are there should be MOVED to avoid their.......mission? OK.

First off, I read this a few times to see where you where coming from. I don't... Kerry makes a good and valid point; that being N.Korea has nuclear arms and an ego menanicle leader.

What I really don't get is tre quoted idea that shifting troops below the 38th parallel somehow prevents them from doing their job. Do you expect N.Korea's army to flood across the 38th simply because we move the bulk of our troops further south (Kerry's plan). Think about it for a little while. Mull it over. I'm sure when you've done that you'll say "No N.Koreo would not attack S. Korea if a significant US presence was still on the pennesula though shifted some distance southward."
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #11 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
It was funny to read the NYT's twisted logic about why moving troops out of where they are not needed is a bad thing. Anything goes at the NYT when it's time to slam Bush.

Yeah . . they're such a partisan lap dog biased trash news source that they unquestioningly foisted pro-Iraq war propganda on the people before the war and used a total of 3,028 words to retract their mistake . . .
What a bastion of left wing propganda!!!
They only print Safire and Will because those guys are commies!! I mean Safire reads for crissakes!! that whimp!!

BTW, Scott, I'm surprised you even look at that swill, that cesspool of bias


Let me guess, they force you too in that lefty institution that you infiltrate
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #12 of 30
Ooooh, I want to play, I want to play!

THEN:

Quote:
Even though experts say "diverting any water from the Great Lakes region sets a bad precedent" Bush "said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien about piping water to parched states in the west and southwest." He said, "A lot of people don't need [the water], but when you head South and West, we do need it."

- AP, 7/19/01; Bush statement, 7/18/01

NOW:

Quote:
"We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin. (Applause.) You might remember what my opponent said earlier this year about Great Lakes water diversion. He said it would be a delicate balancing act. It sounds just like him. My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water."

- President Bush, 8/16/04
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #13 of 30
i do agree that kerry seems to be trying to hard to not piss anyone off (see: gore, 2000 for reference). i mean, look at bush... he's pissing plenty of folks off, but he is counting on the fact that those who are on his side are more fervent in their support and outnumber the opposition. of course, while this works to win an election, it sucks as far as establishing a long term nationwide sense of unity.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #14 of 30
I believe Kerry's central criticism was that we should use troop withdrawals from SK as a bargaining chip, not just do it for no reason. Hard to argue with that. We could try to sell it as "neutralizing" the penninsula, even if we're doing it to give us more freedom to act aggressively. The argument is that if we withdrew all our troops from the South, we'd have greater freedom to confront NK, since we could pretend to be acting completely independently from the South. Basically, we could airstrike/nuke NK without (theoretically) the North having any good reason to invade the South in response.

I can't help but wonder, though - this redeployment plan has been in the works since the Iraq war, and the net effect is going to be to shift 2-3 divisions back to CONUS. Where they will be available for "temporary" overseas deployment to someplace where they'll be really needed next year, when the next round of troop rotations happens. Germany is still a lot closer to the Middle East than Colorado, so I don't see a strategic advantage - unless they're not actually going to stay in Colorado.
post #15 of 30
The people that run Bush could give a shit about national unity, or governance in general.

They're only about securing low to negative taxation, slim to no oversight, and diminished to specifically prohibited regulation for themselves and their friends, even when that runs counter to the interests of the vast majority of Americans.

Everything else is just smoke and mirrors designed to make that stark truth more palatable to the average voter, or to change the subject altogether.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #16 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Yeah . . they're such a partisan lap dog biased trash news source that they unquestioningly foisted pro-Iraq war propganda on the people before the war and used a total of 3,028 words to retract their mistake . . .
What a bastion of left wing propganda!!!
They only print Safire and Will because those guys are commies!! I mean Safire reads for crissakes!! that whimp!!

BTW, Scott, I'm surprised you even look at that swill, that cesspool of bias


Let me guess, they force you too in that lefty institution that you infiltrate

Ummm...really, do you even READ the NYT? If you cannot see the obvious and blatant bias in that publication, then I'm at a loss.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/19/po...D-KERR.html?hp


Quote:
Kerry Calls Ad Group a 'Front for the Bush Campaign'
By MARIA NEWMAN

Published: August 19, 2004



After weeks of standing by as a group of Vietnam veterans criticized his wartime record, Senator John Kerry fired back today, saying the group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is "a front for the Bush campaign" and that the president "wants them to do his dirty work."

Members of the organization, led by a commander of one of the Swift boats that served alongside Mr. Kerry's boat in Vietnam in 1968 and 1969, have accused the Massachusetts senator of lying about his wartime record to win several medals.

That's one example from the "non-analysis" section, even though they frequently put News Analysis on the front page. Can you not see that every campaign statement bush makes is qualified with "Bush sought to paint himself as...." or "Bush is attempting to build-up his...." or "Mr. Bush seeks to portray Mr. Kerry as...."??? Meanwhile, Kerry's statements are just factual: "John Kerry said, X, Y and Z". Or, sometimes it's far worse:

Quote:
After weeks of standing by as a group of Vietnam veterans criticized his wartime record...

I mean, come on. "Weeks of standing by" my ass. I read the front page every day just to laugh.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #17 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
First off, I read this a few times to see where you where coming from. I don't... Kerry makes a good and valid point; that being N.Korea has nuclear arms and an ego menanicle leader.

What I really don't get is tre quoted idea that shifting troops below the 38th parallel somehow prevents them from doing their job. Do you expect N.Korea's army to flood across the 38th simply because we move the bulk of our troops further south (Kerry's plan). Think about it for a little while. Mull it over. I'm sure when you've done that you'll say "No N.Koreo would attack S. Korea if a significant US presence was still on the pennesula though shifted some distance southward."

I was sort of just fooling around, but it kind of sounds stupid to me, no? I don't agree that North Korea is less likely to attack if our troops arent right next to the DMZ. In fact, I'm not sure it makes any difference at all. If they attack, they'll do it with one million men. We'll need a lot more than 37,000 GI's. If they attack, the US will need to bring to bear the full extent of its air power.

All I'm saying is that I'm all for withdrawal and redeployment. The South Koreans don't want us there anyway. As for Kerry, well, the contradiction is clear as day. 17 days ago, he surmised that we could look at moving troops around, including in south Korea and Europe. Then, he came out against Bush's plan. Though several members seem to get off on attacking me, I haven't heard a good explanation yet.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #18 of 30

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #19 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I was sort of just fooling around, but it kind of sounds stupid to me, no? I don't agree that North Korea is less likely to attack if our troops arent right next to the DMZ. In fact, I'm not sure it makes any difference at all. If they attack, they'll do it with one million men. We'll need a lot more than 37,000 GI's. If they attack, the US will need to bring to bear the full extent of its air power.

All I'm saying is that I'm all for withdrawal and redeployment. The South Koreans don't want us there anyway. As for Kerry, well, the contradiction is clear as day. 17 days ago, he surmised that we could look at moving troops around, including in south Korea and Europe. Then, he came out against Bush's plan. Though several members seem to get off on attacking me, I haven't heard a good explanation yet.

Fair enough.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #20 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Did someone say flip flop?

http://www.muchosucko.com/video-bushvsbush.html

That's why The Daily Show is the best source of news on TV.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #21 of 30
post #22 of 30
I don't get it. The statements that started this thread were a "flip flop" how?

Grasp... gotta... get... those... straws.
post #23 of 30
Are SDW Scott and Nick rich? Why the hell else do you "conservatives" support Bush? Are you just religious fundies? Or what? I can't see a rational reason to support Bush except greed or being a Jesus Freak.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #24 of 30
Let's look at the NYT op-ed here.


According to the NYT Bush blew it because
  • "strain crucial alliances"
  • "increase overall costs"
  • "dangerously weaken deterrence on the Korean peninsula"

Meanwhile it will
  • "do nothing to address the military's most pressing current need: relieving the chronic strain on ground forces that has resulted from failing to anticipate the long, and largely unilateral, American occupation of Iraq"


The Times says Bush's reasons are

"The Bush administration justifies these movements by pointing to fundamental changes in the geography of threats since the end of the cold war. In Asia, however, that geography has not changed all that much."

Let's take them one at a time.

"strain crucial alliances"

The Times offers no support for this at all. It's an empty hypothesis. Just tossed in to sound bad.

"increase overall costs"

The Times claims that it costs more to base troops in the US rather than Germany. Why? Germany pays for some of the deployment. The Times doesn't offer any support for this claim. I guess it's just self evident that basing 70K troops and 100K family members over in Germany is cheaper than doing it in the US.

The Times gives some advantage for keeping troops in on a Cold War battle field. They are...
  • cost the taxpayers money

    I covered that one
  • military will also lose the advantage that comes with giving large numbers of its men and women the experience of living in other cultures

    I'm not seeing the fantastic military advantage of having so many american military living in Germany culture?

They offer up that Iraq and Afghanistan are closer to Germany than the US they answer the question themselves. "The administration seems to be planning to establish new installations in Eastern Europe, but they are more likely to be used for occasional exercises than as permanent bases" Doesn't it make sense that in a world where you can't predict where the next threat is coming from to have a bunch of smaller basses to operate from at will rather then amass your troops far from home?

But then we have

"dangerously weaken deterrence on the Korean peninsula"

I'll just call Bulls Shit on this one. South Korea has 600K troops North 1100k US has (what?) 40K. Meanwhile the nature of warfare has changed. With the flick of a switch the US can undertake an impressive attack on NK without setting foot in the country.

But the NYT thinks the US is giving it away for free. "instead of building those reductions into a bargaining proposal requiring constructive North Korean moves in return". This is stupid. NK has never been very good at holding up their end of the bargain. The carrot doesn't work. The US policy has been to pull it. Going back now would be a dangerous waffle.

The NYT thinks it's all just politics for not supporting the war or US policy wrt NK. But then in the beginning they write " has been known for some time that the Pentagon wants to pull back perhaps half of the roughly 70,000 soldiers now in Germany and a third of the nearly 40,000 troops in South Korea."

Which is it? Pentagon planning or Bush playing politics? Rather I think it's the NYT op-ed playing politics with their crafted criticisms that doesn't stand up to critical review.
post #25 of 30
So, what, the "flip-flop" thing didn't hold water so now we're onto the "liberal media"?

It's like a worn and tattered deck that just keeps getting shuffled.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #26 of 30
What do you mean? Kerry has tons of flip flops. Soon he'll have to retract his long standing tale of being in cambodia on christmas while deployed in Vietnam.
post #27 of 30
Maybe Bush intelligence -- now there's an oxymoron, with the emphasis on "moron" -- is pointing toward the possibility of an attack on Seoul in the near future, and Bush doesn't want our boys around when it happens. Just a thought.
post #28 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Maybe Bush intelligence -- now there's an oxymoron, with the emphasis on "moron" -- is pointing toward the possibility of an attack on Seoul in the near future, and Bush doesn't want our boys around when it happens. Just a thought.


You never fail to invent something sinister.
post #29 of 30
Is that anything like an Administration inventing a war?
post #30 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Ummm...really, do you even READ the NYT? If you cannot see the obvious and blatant bias in that publication, then I'm at a loss.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/19/po...D-KERR.html?hp
Quote:
Kerry Calls Ad Group a 'Front for the Bush Campaign'
By MARIA NEWMAN

Published: August 19, 2004

After weeks of standing by as a group of Vietnam veterans criticized his wartime record, Senator John Kerry fired back today, saying the group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is "a front for the Bush campaign" and that the president "wants them to do his dirty work."

Members of the organization, led by a commander of one of the Swift boats that served alongside Mr. Kerry's boat in Vietnam in 1968 and 1969, have accused the Massachusetts senator of lying about his wartime record to win several medals

That's one example from the "non-analysis" section, even though they frequently put News Analysis on the front page.

Reading this post was like watching the guys from the halfway house down the street yell at the sidewalk cracks. I really honestly seriously mean that. Seriously. I'm not even saying it for dramatic effect.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kerry's Clearest Flop to Date