Friday, October 01, 2004

Debate

So Kerry says invading Iraq after 9-11 was like invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor. How about invading Germany after Pearl Harbor?

When Kerry speaks about North Korea, do you get the idea that he is just taking a position for the sake of being contrary to George Bush? North Korea is a very sticky issue and I would submit that it is quite unclear as to what the best way to resolve it. But does anyone seriously believe that it is our government's refusal to sit down with that regime out of the context of the current multilateral discussions is the primary problem? As if somehow, Bush just needs to invite Kim Il Jong to his ranch and the two of them will work out the whole misunderstanding.

North Korea is a great example of the weakness of negotiations when a WMD program has progressed to the point that the inspected party has attained deterrence with their weapons program. Thank you Jimmy Carter and thank you "the inspections work" crowd.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read and ye shall be pleased

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0904/100104.html

October 1, 2004 at 6:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A smarter email than I could ever write from a reader on www.AndrewSullivan.com

"I agree with your blog on the debates. On the one hand Kerry is getting through with the wedge of his argument: hey, I didn't break this thing, you did! That said, this still leaves Kerry's problem: his critique of the war really does imply unilaterally bugging out unless you take seriously that the UN and France are going to magically calm the situation over there. Plus, Kerry might be forced to concede more succinctly that, yes, he really would have been OK with continued containment (not removal) of Hussein and show how that might have been pulled off. But Bush did show up with his squinty hat on--even if his talking points represented the last word in wisdom on the debate over Iraq and terrorism. Repeating them isn't enough.

It was an "enlightening" debate, though, as you said. Kerry should have been here at the convention, including recognizing without apology (rhetorically) that he DID protest the war in Vietnam and making his claim that this did NOT mean he hadn't fought honorably in Nam, thus framing his service/dichotomy before the easily anticipated Swifties-or-something-like-it thing.The Dem pols get so cynical that they start relying on tactical dirty-tricks stuff or cleverly playing different messages in different towns.

All in all I think Bush is very fortunate that a lot of folks have locked in their vote already--I would guess that this is a 2-3% bounce for Kerry. As someone who distrusts the impulses of the Dem base (way more lefty and anti-Israel than the Kerry on view) this doesn't make me happy but there you go. I don't think the center of gravity of America cottons all that much to intellectualist rationalizations for enrolling terrorists in self-esteem summer camps, but people also don't want a President who comes off as auditioning for Dumb and Dumber."

October 1, 2004 at 6:54 AM  
Blogger Middle East, PHD said...

Kerry, like Bill and Hillary Clinton, doesn't have any real conviction or backbone, and therefore chooses to say whatever the current polls tell him he should say. Kerry, like the Clintons, is not someone who can be trusted with serious issues that often require taking an unpopular stance. Bush, on the other hand, sees through the nonsence and selfishness of World Opinion and is going to do what is ultimately right and just. I found it interesting that Kerry, like many of the other simple-minded liberals, kept harping on the fact that if only we got Bin Laden that somehow this would be the solution to the "War on Terror". Kerry doesn't see the big picture, he never will, and therefore has no right to be the President of the United States, let alone being a Senator in this great country. He should stick to finding rich wives who will bankroll his windsurfing and snowboarding vacations. Kerry clearly does not understand that the "War on Terror" is much bigger and widespread than just Bin Laden and Afghanistan. True, if Bill Clinton had only done his duty and wiped out the training camps in Afghanistan immediately after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, perhaps 70,000 well-trained suicidal maniacs would not be indoctrinated and properly trained to kill Americans. Nevertheless the War on Terror is not about one country or one man -- it is about most of the Middle East and Indonesia, wherever radical muslims exist. Bush and his administration, thank G-d, understands this, and therefore they have chosen Iraq as a strategically excellent first-step towards cleaning up the mess in the Middle East -- a mess that the entire World (the UN included) has been negligent and guilty for allowing to perpetuate. The United States, thanks to Bush, is demonstrating that it is a Leader of the world and sooner or later the rest of the world will come to understand that unless they participate in this most serious of World Wars, they will begin to see no one is immune to the cancer that exists out there in the form of these muslim maniacs.

October 2, 2004 at 10:03 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home