Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Democrats

Journal pudge's Journal: Context 29

Journal by pudge

I've been accused of taking a Kerry statement out of context. Fine, so here's the full transcript.

Frankly, I think the full transcript here is more damning than what I initially recorded, especially in Dean's rebuttal of Kerry's position on the war at the time, using the same words Kerry uses to describe the war now; and in the final exchange where Stephanopolous and Dean wonder if Kerry is trying to have it both ways.

At the very least, I think it is unreasonable to say I am being unreasonable in my interpretation of what Kerry said, since fellow Democrats Stephanopolous and Dean apparently thought it could be interpreted similarly.

And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA): George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Now Governor Dean, you've criticized Senator Kerry on the campaign trail, saying he's trying
to have it both ways on the issue of Iraq. Was that answer clear enough for you?

GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN: Let me be very clear about what I believe. I'm delighted to see Saddam Hussein gone. I appreciate the fact that we have a strong military in this country and I'd keep a strong military in this country. But I think this is the wrong war at the wrong time, because we have set a new policy of preventive war in this country and I think that was the wrong thing to do, because sooner or later, we're going to see another country copy the United States, and sooner or later we're going to have to deal with the fact that there may well be a Shi'a fundamentalist regime set up in Iraq, which would be a greater danger to the United States than Iraq is.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: But do you believe Senator Kerry is still trying to have it both ways?

GOV. DEAN: That's not up to me to judge that. That's up to the voters to judge that, and I'm sure they will.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Context More

Context

Comments Filter:
  • And get back to the forged documents?

    (/kidding)

    Seriously, Kerry is starting to look silly. It was obviously wrong to accuse Kerry of "flipping" on Iraq before -- the entire "I supported it before I voted against it" BS. He clearly was in favor of supporting the troops, but wanted to do it differently. Great. That never should have been an issue...

    But there have now been too many statements on this issue which appear to contradict themselves... or at least cause my head to spin when I try and reconcil
  • Dean's stated position on Iraq is perfection. Kerry's stated position sucked then, and it sucks now. But he and Kerry are not far apart at all in reality. And much closer to each other than Kerry is to Bush.

    On Saddam:

    Kerry: I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein ... and I support the fact that we did disarm him.
    Dean: I'm delighted to see Saddam Hussein gone.

    Dean said it better, but they said the same thing.

    On Timing:

    Kerry: I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a gr

    • It is true that Kerry's position, in these statements, can not be distinguished from Dean's. However, it is also true that Kerry's position cannot be distinguished from Bush's.

      Kerry isn't exactly a flip-flopper. He takes positions which are sufficiently caveated / legalistic / vague to allow the listener to draw whatever conclusion they want.

      Why can't he be like Bush? That guy takes a stand, boldly and without equivocation. And then days later reverses himself [washingtonpost.com] just as strongly. Now there's a president!

      Al
      • Why can't he be like Bush? That guy takes a stand, boldly and without equivocation. And then days later reverses himself just as strongly. Now there's a president!

        That's a canard. He meant both, on two different levels. The fault lies not in Bush changing his views, but in being trapped by the language he's used to frame the struggle in the first place. On one level, you cannot completely eradicate terrorism. This is what he meant when he said we couldn't win. This is the same criticism people have ma
        • Have you seen this piece by Novak [suntimes.com]?

          And on the UK side, perhaps even sooner [guardian.co.uk]?

          I'm not crowing -- I read an Iraqi female blogger, and it pains me to think of her wearing a veil for the rest of her life.

          • Novak was against the war from the beginning, has always thought it was a bad idea, and has always viewed it as progressing poorly. He is not quoting any actual person. His article is completely irrelevant.
            • I had the impression Novak was quite the partisan hack. Even if he is against the war, is it in his interest to suggest that Bush is lying?

              TalkingPointsMemo speculates [talkingpointsmemo.com] it was leaked to give people who doubt the war a reason to vote for Bush.

              But I guess you're right -- either way, it seems unlikely that this article sheds light on their real plans.
              • I had the impression Novak was quite the partisan hack.

                He is, but he is a Party of One. :-)

                Even if he is against the war, is it in his interest to suggest that Bush is lying?

                He criticizes Bush all the time. His criticism of the war before and after the invasion pulled no punches, and he hasn't pulled them sense.
              • Separate reply about what TPM said on that same page about Brooks. I don't have time to read Brooks piece, but one thing that bugs me about Kerry even if he is not calling for a retreat -- argue that as you like, whatever -- he is certainly putting the focus on getting out instead of winning.

                The first thing Kerry says about Iraq in that speech is, "if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight." OK, how do we win?

                "Nearly 90 percent of the troops - and nearly 90 percent

                • As near as I can tell, Kerry's winning strategy for Iraq boils down to the fact that he is not George Bush.

                  Way back when [perl.org], I stated that the anti-war crowd appeared to have only two reasons they were opposed to the war: 1) George Bush was an imperialist conqueror, and 2) George Bush was an idiot. The message hasn't changed substantially. There is still noone from that side clearly stating under what conditions it would have been right to go to war. The only problem with the war they have seems to be th

                  • So nobody has a good plan to fix Iraq -- exactly how is that a Bush advantage?

                    • Re:huh? (Score:2)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                      I think Bush's plan is a fine one (and so is Kerry's, since he copied his from Bush :-). It could be argued that he is not executing that plan well, but if you'd asked me a year or two ago if I thought things would be this *good* in Iraq by now, I'd have said no. I supported the war knowing this, and I continue to.

                    • You are starting with the Kerry axiom that Bush does not have a good plan. Remember, the only concrete problem Kerry has with Bush's plan is that Bush is the one doing it. The only difference Kerry offers us is the fact that it will be him, and not Bush, executing it. Recognizing this, we see at last that this whole thing has been one big Bush-hating fest from the start. It's all about people who hated Bush and said Bush was stupid.

                      If this is not the case, tell me -- concretely -- what Kerry will do d

                    • Could you point me to some primary sources that share this optimism?
                    • Well, McCain said on Fox News Sunday a few days ago that we could have elections in January if we right now went in and took out the insurgents.
                    • Okay, seriously now? A primary source.
                    • A senator on the Armed Services Committee is not a serious, primary source?

                    • Er, primary sources are for you to read and pick up facts and form your own opinion (optimistic or pessimistic). Or else, what did you mean by primary source?

  • Don't worry about it, pudge. Distorting Kerry's meaning is the new spectator sport. It happens all the time. [talkingpointsmemo.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

It is impossible to travel faster than light, and certainly not desirable, as one's hat keeps blowing off. -- Woody Allen

Close