Quote:
Greybeard said:
I thought Kerry showed that he's a good debater. However, he didn't really make any significant points to hurt Bush. He made a huge gaff when he talked about passing an international test (getting Kofi Anon's permission) before taking action to defend the US. This will come back to hurt him; big time.
|
As alarikf has already pointed out, what Kerry actually said during the Debate and what the Bush Campaign would like you to believe he said are two different things.
Here's exactly what Kerry said. You can find the full Debate Transcript here (
2440 Debate Transcript)
/Begin exerpt/
LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.
What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?
KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.
I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."
How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.
Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet. But I'll tell you this: As president, I'll never take my eye off that ball. I've been fighting for proliferation the entire time -- anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the Congress. And we've watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table.
You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.
You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.
/End exerpt/
This isn't about calling the Prime Minister of France and asking him 'pretty please, can America attack that country that hijacked one of our Planes'. This is not about asking for permission to defend America. This is about co-operating with the rest of the world; to understand the full consequences of your actions on other nations, and to have others trust you just as much as the American people do (or should).
At this point there's probably not one nation out there that trusts the current Bush Administration, and because of that lack of trust, the US will be 100% alone in any effort it takes to defend itself; and that includes striking pre-emtively.
Without trust, any further pre-emptive strike at this point by the Bush Administration would be construde as yet another self-serving & mistaken effort.
How much more latitude does anyone think the International Community will give the Bush Administration if it's given a 2nd Term and actually invades another country? The answer is little to none. The US has gone from savior to bully, and in the end every bully eventually gets slammed back. You could make a point that the resistance going on in Iraq is that pushing back, but magnify that by about 10,000 and you'll have an idea of what it'll be like if the International Community suddendly says "enough". Imagine how much worse things would get in the US if some of American's largest trading partners suddenly cut off all economic ties? What would happen to the US if the UN suddenly imposed sanctions against the US? No oil and no money mean an economic collapse and another Great Depression.
That's the road the US is on right now, and given enough time, that's the outcome the US is looking at if people don't wake up and replace the current American Administration. John Kerry may not be perfect (nobody in this world is), but he's infinetly better than Bush could ever hope to be. That 'doom & gloom' scenario I laid out may not happen during a 2nd Bush Term, but the possible fallout from such a 2nd Term (and the lingering effects on the Administrations comming afterwards) should be enough to scare the sh!t out of anyone who can think for themselves.
Re: OT: Debate
Hybrid Mode
