----- Original Message ----- From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 10:42 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips
> At 10:16 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > >> At 09:14 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > >> ><quote 2> > >> >Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't > >approve > >> >as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few > >> >persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in > >Afghanistan > >> >and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the > >> >President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a > >> >coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. > >> >Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people. > >> ><end quote 2> > >> > > >> <snip> > >> > > >> >The second reference did discuss seriously considering the views of > >other > >> >countries, although obliquely. Kerry suggested we work more _with_ > >allies > >> >to arrive at our objective. Cheney called that "denouncing when other > >> >countries don't approve". > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> > >> O.k. Dan, call me crazy, but doesn't the word "approve" imply, well, > >> "approval?" And isn't that far more akin to "getting permission" than > >to > >> "serious consideration"? > > > >But, he was referring to Kerry's position which was "serious consideration. > >It is Cheney who indicated no difference between the two. > > Precisely the opposite Dan. For one, John Kerry never articulated a > consistent policy regarding the Iraq War. He went from opposing Gulf War > I, to voting for the authorization of the use of force in Gulf War II > (which he later sent was meant simply to threaten force, not to actually > use it), to voting against fully funding the troops once they were over > there, to who knows what position he takes on the war today. > > John Kerry, however, much like Nick and Dave have done on this list, > however, very often made statements that conflated "serious consideration" > with "approval." For example, they would set the bar so high for "serious > consideration" that the only practical outcome of this would be "approval." But, Bush's idea is that he would only require the US to preach the truth; he cannot fathom that he can be wrong when he knows something a priori. Kerry explictly stated that he did not agree with > Take also for example, the below quote of John Kerry: > > "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the > world only at the directive of the United Nations." Well, that would make things easier, so I'd like to see that too. I'll agree that Kerry was being deliberately ambigious in order to both get the nomination and win the election. This statement sounds like a lot more than it states, and I don't doubt that he made it during the primaries. But, there is an enormous amount of room between Bush's position and giving a veto power to foreign nations or organizations. How about this; show me a quote that from Kerry stating that UN approval is required for US military action, and I'll concede the point. I'll seriously consider any that indicates that that is Kerry's position. > I remember others, but trying to follow Kerry's public pronouncements on > Iraq is enough to make anyone dizzy. Suffice to say, your interpretation > requires that Dick Cheney did not believe that John Kerry was one of the > many Iraq War opponents who believed that explicit UNSC reauthorization > should be a prerequisite before launching Gulf War II. No, it only required Dick Cheney to believe that Kerry would give the UN a veto over any US action. Yes, Kerry jumped around a lot on Gulf War II. He voted for the war, against funding the extended war without raising the taxes to pay for it, but for funding it through taxes. But, I remember his stating explicitly, several times, that the US would allow no foreign power to have a veto right over US policy...particularly just before Cheney said this. Iraq is a unique situation because it is a war of choice against a country that posed no direct threat to the US. Containment was a very practical alternative in '03. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
