|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
11:45 PM - Presidential Debate (I) The president seemed to hold his own for the first twenty minutes or so, but after that he grew increasingly petulant and repetitive. The contender, by contrast, seemed to maintain a calm, almost presidential demeanor throughout, even when being sharply attacked. Style points aside, I did not get the sense that John Kerry has a clear and distinct vision for our foreign policy, and not for lack of trying. Since I am rapidly becoming more and more of a single issue voter, my primary goal in following this debate was an attempt to discern any genuine and specific In his first turn at the microphone, John Kerry claimed that "America is safest Way back in August the editors on the New Republic asked of the Democratic nominee, "does he honestly believe a 'fresh start' will induce countries to dispatch forces to a war they opposed to begin with?" It is a pointed question, and lead to an even more pointed statement, "If the Democratic presidential candidate knows of specific countries that would send their young to Iraq in the event of a Kerry presidency, he ought to stop waxing Nixonian and identify them." Thus far, we have yet to hear any specifics. Kerry went on to say that he will "fight the war on terror by strengthening our military, strengthening our intelligence, by going after the financing..." all Republican talking points which ring hollow when spoken by someone who has so often voted against funding such efforts. He spoke loftily of "reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done," an interesting claim in light of Kerry's stringent critiques of the "Saudi-friendly Bush administration." Perhaps the Democratic contender intends to reach out to every part of the Muslim world other than its ideological heart and soul? In Bush's first turn at the microphone, he almost immediately hit upon what was to become the crux issue of the evening, "In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell. America and the world are safer for it. We continue to pursue our policy of disrupting those who proliferate weapons of mass destruction." Unsurprisingly, Bush did not go into specifics as to whether and how Iraq actually was the cause of such proliferation. However, he did go on to claim that "a free Iraq will be a major defeat" for terrorists and "their ideology of hatred." Kerry retorted that the "president has made...a colossal error of judgment" in waging war in Iraq, firstly by failing to "build a true alliance," and more secondly by choosing military invasion and regime change over earlier policies of inspection and containment. Bush countered the latter point first, noting that Kerry "looked at the same intelligence I looked at and declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat." Presumably, Bush was alluding to the Kerry's remarks two years ago on the Senate floor, "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region." Bush then addressed Kerry's accusations regarding alliances, "I went to the United Nations...hoping that, once and for all, the free world would act in concert to get Saddam Hussein to listen to our demands. They passed the resolution that said, 'Disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences.' I believe, when an international body speaks, it must mean what it says." The candidates then turned to the balance of resources between the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Mr. Bush claimed that "Iraq is a central part in the war on terror," and that this is why "Zarqawi and his people are trying to fight us." Kerry countered that "Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it." He then said that Bush "rushed the war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace." This is an interesting contention. If anyone out there is aware of Kerry's actual "plan to win the peace," please e-mail me a copy, as I've yet to find any substantive details at www.JohnKerry.com or anywhere else. John Kerry went on to make what was probably the single most inexplicable claim of the evening, "we've got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they're blowing people up." WTFO? If car bombs count as WMD, then Senator Kerry will have to retract all of his claims to the effect that we've not found any in Iraq. Perhaps, though, he is claiming that actual WMD are leaving Iraq? On the former interpretation, Kerry is delusional, and on the latter he is paranoid. Either way, I'm disturbed. The next question regarding Iraq was when it would be appropriate to pull out U.S. troops. Bush's answer was when "Iraq is ready to defend herself from these terrorists," once they have held elections and become "a nation that's free." The president's rationale for this criterion was that "A free Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror, and that's essential. A free Iraq will set a powerful example in the part of the world that is desperate for freedom. A free Iraq will help secure Israel. A free Iraq will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran. A free Iraq is essential for the security of this country." By contrast, Senator Kerry's apparent answer was that "there was no viable exit strategy" and that our troops are "occupiers in a bitterly hostile land." He did not Thankfully, the moderator was unwilling to let Kerry off the hook on this point, since a few questions later he asked the question again and more pointedly, "Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario, time lines, et cetera, for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq?" Senator Kerry replied that "our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there, with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace." Once again, he did not provide any specific scenarios, time lines, or criteria, and once again Mr. Bush again failed to call him on it. Instead, both debaters digressed into argument over Prime Minister Allawi and the recognition that Iraq has now become a central part of the war on terror. I am not being entirely fair to Mr. Kerry, since he did elucidate at least one thing he would do differently in Iraq, that is, calling a "global summit" to bring world Bush has been critisized heavily and often for his conviction that we ought to "stay the course" in Iraq, but I must wonder why Kerry has not fallen under similarly heavy ciriticism for his insistence that we change the course, without laying out any substantive specifics on exactly how and why we should do so. Perhaps I've missed something? (
By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words to promote or to oppose that happiness. by online poker propecia discount prescription drugs - buy cheap prescription drugs online In this winter season, its good to warm yourself |
|||||||||
