John Kerry's response to Iraq Elections

[gh0st]

Not surprisingly, another bumbling, incoherant, waffling treat from John Kerry about the elections.

Here's something that immediatly caught my eye, feel free to Draw your own conclusions from the rest:

---

RUSSERT: Do you believe that Iraq is less a terrorist threat to the United States now than it was two years ago?

KERRY: No, it's more. And, in fact, I believe the world is less safe today than it was two and a half years ago.

.....

RUSSERT: Is the United States safer with the newly elected Iraqi government than we would have been with Saddam Hussein?

KERRY: Sure. And I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone, and I've said that a hundred times.

---

See that stern! The worlds safer now JOHN KERRYS RIGHT HAHAHAHAHA. Seriously though, this is the best the left has to offer? He cant even maintain credibility through one interview.

Heres another:

---
RUSSERT: Specifically, do you agree with Senator Kennedy that 12,000 American troops should leave at once?

KERRY: No.

RUSSERT: Do you believe there should be a specific timetable of withdrawal of American troops?

KERRY: No.

RUSSERT: What would you do?

KERRY: I understand exactly what Senator Kennedy is saying, and I agree with Senator Kennedy's perceptions of the problem and of how you deal with it.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50306-2005Jan31.html Heres the full article.

 

[Korgoth]

hmm lets see is iraq more of a terrorist threat now = yes
is the new government safer than saddam = yes
since terrorism and the government are seperate this makes sense, and you lose....

 

[Mechagodzilla]

hmm lets see is iraq more of a terrorist threat now = yes
is the new government safer than saddam = yes
since terrorism and the government are seperate this makes sense, and you lose....

Quoted for emphasis.

And what exactly is so awful with not agreeing with the specifics of the other guy's plan.
"I agree with his opinion but would do things differently."
OMG!!

And since the election is long over, this is one dead horse that didn't need flogging. Let alone flogging based on poor comprehension.

 

[gh0st]

hmm lets see is iraq more of a terrorist threat now = yes
is the new government safer than saddam = yes
since terrorism and the government are seperate this makes sense, and you lose....

Uh try learning how to read guys. iraq being more of a terrorist threat to the united states, and 2 lines later he says america is safer? He's full of shit, dont you see that? Just trying to play both sides of the issue at once. The elections have nothing to do with this, he's still a prominent senator, who is spouting bullshit.

 

[Korgoth]

uh you learn how to read, here let me bold the important parts for you.


RUSSERT: Is the United States safer with the newly elected Iraqi government than we would have been with Saddam Hussein?

KERRY: Sure. And I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone, and I've said that a hundred times.

So just in case you're still having trouble, he is saying once again, Iraq is more of a terrorist threat now, which is correct. As we can see terrorism is rampant in that country now. Then he says we are safer from government sponsored attack, which is true, saddam hussein is out of power and a western friendly government will be in. It makes perfect sense to me, why its taking you so long to figure it out, well that one I can't answer.

 

[gh0st]

uh you learn how to read, here let me bold the important parts for you.


RUSSERT: Is the United States safer with the newly elected Iraqi government than we would have been with Saddam Hussein?

KERRY: Sure. And I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone, and I've said that a hundred times.

Innervision youre completely ignoring everything else.

RUSSERT: Do you believe that Iraq is less a terrorist threat to the United States now than it was two years ago?

KERRY: No, it's more. And, in fact, I believe the world is less safe today than it was two and a half years ago.

Ok, the world is less (and America, as in bold) are now LESS SAFE, right? Thats what he's saying. Fastforward to

RUSSERT: Is the United States safer with the newly elected Iraqi government than we would have been with Saddam Hussein?

KERRY: Sure. And I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone, and I've said that a hundred times.

Now, he said before america is LESS SAFE based upon the iraq war. NOW he's saying that America IS safer. It isnt very difficult.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

As a Kerry voter myself, I think gh0st has a point here. From the standpoint of the fact that the two questions are both asking "is the U.S. safer from Iraq now" (though it was never proven that Iraq was a direct threat), then yes, Kerry just said two different things. But yes, too, he responded to the questions meaning "safe from terror" vs "safe from government". I don't really know what to think.

I think that this invasion of Iraq was 80% a Republican re-election tactic, and most of our government could care less about what happens most of the time. The only "mission accomplished" was that attention was diverted from the failure in capturing Osama, and the majority of the U.S. is unable to tell two mideastern countries apart anyway.

/ two cents
// red herring

 

[Korgoth]

But its asking are we safer from two (2) different enemies.
One (1) being Saddam, and he answered that we are safer, Saddam is in jail.

Two (2) being Terrorists, we are not safer from them, they are growing in numbers, and especially in Iraq.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

There's more to life than black and white, you know.

He is very clearly saying that the Iraqi government is better but terrorism is not.

Also, if you'd like to get very anal with the grammatics of it all, which I think you would, he responds inb the first question that the world is less safe in the first question, and says 'sure' in response to the position that America is more safe.

Now, are those two bold terms the same?
No, they are not.

America is not the world, and your argument now is more baseless.
Baselesser?

 

[gh0st]

But its asking are we safer from two (2) different enemies.
One (1) being Saddam, and he answered that we are safer, Saddam is in jail.

Two (2) being Terrorists, we are not safer from them, they are growing in numbers, and especially in Iraq.

Youre right, but he generalizes, asking if america is safer. He has two completely different answers. One moment were less safe, the other we're more safe. He says the world and america are less safe because of the war, then he says were safer.

There's more to life than black and white, you know.

He is very clearly saying that the Iraqi government is better but terrorism is not.

Also, if you'd like to get very anal with the grammatics of it all, which I think you would, he responds inb the first question that the world is less safe in the first question, and says 'sure' in response to the position that America is more safe.

Now, are those two bold terms the same?
No, they are not.

America is not the world, and your argument now is more baseless.
Baselesser?

Its not clear, its skewed in such a way that it appeals to everybody except people who see that he's full of shit. Thank god that happened to be the majority of the country.

Okay the world. He still has 2 different answers. At one moment the worlds more safer, another they are different. He can make 2 different connotations, but his meaning is the same.

 

[dys4iK]

Keep up the right vs left! Come on! Let's split the country even more.

 

[gh0st]

Keep up the right vs left! Come on! Let's split the country even more.

Youre absolutely right! Politics are ruining the country, people arent allowed to have points of view, other people might disagree with them and we'd be... SPLIT!!!1

 

[Mechagodzilla]

If the questions are identical, why did the reporter ask two identical questions?
Could it be that the questions are, in fact, different?

And, since we're apparently under the assumption that Kerry's statements are 100% exactly reflective of his personal opinions, how is it impossible for the world to be less safe and america more safe? Please clarify.

Also 'gh0st': you, as a Bush supporter, are saying that poor speaking skills are equivalent to political incompetance?

I guess we've misunderestimated you.

 

[gh0st]

If the questions are identical, why did the reporter ask two identical questions?
Could it be that the questions are, in fact, different?

And, since we're apparently under the assumption that Kerry's statements are 100% exactly reflective of his personal opinions, how is it impossible for the world to be less safe and america more safe? Please clarify.

Also 'gh0st': you, as a Bush supporter, are saying that poor speaking skills are equivalent to political incompetance?

I guess we've misunderestimated you.

my poor speaking skills on teh intarnet are none of your concern and the 0 is because somebody took the o

Anyhow, I would hope that Kerry's statements are 100% reflective of his personal opinions. The reporter asks if America is safer. He replies with the world. I suppose you could find parallels between the two, at least in his own little world, so its safe to assume he really means America. Maybe he misunderestimated what Russerts question meant

And no, speaking skills have nothing to do with it. Julius Caesar had a high pitched voice, Kerry has a low drone, and Bush is a skidmark on the underpants on the english language. That lessens the power of their rhetoric but it doesnt make them inferior politicians. If you only listen to the manner in which something is spoken, not the idea itself... well, thats sad.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I think that this invasion of Iraq was 80% a Republican re-election tactic,

What? That is a ridiculous claim. If anything, Iraq drastically hurt the President's chance of re-election.

 

[burner69]

RUSSERT: Do you believe that Iraq is less a terrorist threat to the United States now than it was two years ago?

KERRY: No, it's more. And, in fact, I believe the world is less safe today than it was two and a half years ago.
RUSSERT: Is the United States safer with the newly elected Iraqi government than we would have been with Saddam Hussein?

KERRY: Sure. And I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone, and I've said that a hundred times.

Question one: Is Iraq less of a terrorist threat?
Question two: Is the US safer with the newly elected Iraqi government?

Note the difference: Terrorist threat ---> Iraqi government
Are the terrorists the Iraqi government? No. Is the first question the same as the second question? No. If you answered yes to question one, would you have to answer yes to question two? No.

Simple.
Let's move on, and remember that anyone who wants to charge into Iran (Kerry) is hardly the best candidate for a "left" figurehead.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Question one: Is Iraq less of a terrorist threat?

In what sense?

Question two: Is the US safer with the newly elected Iraqi government?

Over the next decade yes.

 

[Steve]

Keep up the right vs left! Come on! Let's split the country even more.

Nothing ever gets done without a little bit of conflict, dude.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

What? That is a ridiculous claim. If anything, Iraq drastically hurt the President's chance of re-election.

That wasn't the plan though. This whole 'quagmire' scenario was unanticipated, and the prez was totally certain in his beliefs that Iraq had huge ties to Al Qaeda and WMDs. If the war had worked out the way it did in Bush's head, he'd gain bushels of popularity.
Problem was there weren't any adequate facts to back up those WMD beliefs, and the war didn't end in a few weeks with the aircraft carrier speech.

Although I'm not as pessimistic as whoever said 80%, the planned Iraq war wouldn't be inconsistent as a re-election stunt.

It would explain the rush behind everything, to be certain.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Before the Iraq war he had a good amount of approval. If needed (for re-election's sake), he could have continued on in soley Afghanistan gaining all the popularity in the world.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Indeed, but the planned Iraq would have been the nail in the coffin, so to speak.

Two Afghanistans are better than one, and two utterly successful anti-terror wars would have cemented his victory.
Hell, if Iraq had actually worked that smoothly, and there were actually evidence of a real threat, I'd have voted for him myself.

Although I'd like to think that the war wasn't that politically motivated, re-election politics were undoubtedly a factor in the decision-making process.

Had Bush known that Iraq would end up unpopular as it has today, I doubt very much that he would have gone ahead with the plan.

 

[Scoobnfl]

hmm lets see is iraq more of a terrorist threat now = yes
is the new government safer than saddam = yes
since terrorism and the government are seperate this makes sense, and you lose....

please remove teh blinders there mr. sheeple

RUSSERT: Do you believe that Iraq is less a terrorist threat to the United States now than it was two years ago?

KERRY: No, it's more. And, in fact, I believe the world is less safe today than it was two and a half years ago.

see this is the part where Kerry says Iraq is more of a threat to the USA.

.....

RUSSERT: Is the United States safer with the newly elected Iraqi government than we would have been with Saddam Hussein?

KERRY: Sure. And I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone, and I've said that a hundred times.

And this is the part where in the same interview he says we're safer now.

And no it doesn't make sense, and yes you lose.


What flavor is the Koolaid today?

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Kerry who?

Must be one of them Canadian Prime Miniseries.. Or Kings, or Chiefs, or Warlords???? DAMN! What's the other Government in Canada besides French?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

And since the election is long over, this is one dead horse that didn't need flogging. Let alone flogging based on poor comprehension.

You only made this statement for the defense of what you consider your political party. Flogging someone else's point John Kerry cant walk a street line while reciting the alphabet coherently in his political drunk test, just makes it look like your trying to dissent his point because you know it landed a good hit.

 

[gh0st]

I think we have a Michael Savage fan among us.

Oh Id just like to point out that he said these elections werent credible because a large percentage of people didnt vote. Uhh... the average election anywhere? Anybody?

 

[olistead]

Okay, firstly, cos it's bugging me. I think that Mechagodzilla was accusing Bush of poor speaking skills more than he was you, gh0st. Secondly, quality of speech is massively important because an idea lives or dies on its presentation. The specifics of any political stance stand squarely in what is said, and anybody who can get a fantastic point dead on and also firmly into the minds of his electorate is obviously going to be a better leader. Thirdly, to gh0st and more to Scoobnfl, and his patronising 'blinkers', you are excluding the possibility that, had Saddam remained in power, the terrorist threat may have still increased, but at a _greater rate_. Thus, although the terrorist threat is now worse than it was, it is still better than if Saddam had remained in power. I watched your election, and was distraught at the result.

 

[OCybrManO]

If I piss off tons of baseball fans by buying out all of the teams and change all of their uniforms to big, frilly dresses to get a ratings spike will that make me safer in terms of "terrorism" from the baseball fans? No.

Will I be safer with the people that benefit from said ratings spike? Yes, because they're making more money.

The people now in control because of us are less likely to attack us? Yes, they don't want to be the second target of a regime change and they benefit from the change in power.

The people that live in the midst of the turmoil created by the conflict in Iraq are less likely to attack us? No. Many people were living normal lives before and now have dead civilian relatives, destroyed buildings, etc... do you think they like us more than they did before? Also, some people just don't like any kind of change. The people angry at their previous gov't weren't likely to strike us instead of their own gov't... but the new enemies we have created are... thus, making a net increase in the number of people that might potentially attack us.

So, a quick recap:
new government - more safe
people living under new government and US occupation - more dangerous

Yeah, his statements may sound funny but they work.

Oh I'd just like to point out that he said these elections werent credible because a large percentage of people didnt vote. Uhh... the average election anywhere? Anybody?

In a study of 32 nations* over the last decade the US was 1 of the 6 (5 if you don't count Venezuela because it was right on the 50% mark) to not have a majority turnout. So, it would seem that you're just saying the Iraq elections are legitimate in order to defend your own country's poor turnout. Voting percentages don't extrapolate properly in all regions... nor does voter turnout. A lot of the people that don't vote do it for the same reasons and are in the same socioeconomical categories. They could easily tip an even relatively close election. Should we stop everything and keep trying over and over until we get at least a majority? No... but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking the vote represents the will of the people as a whole when less than half of them bother to show up for the vote... or that it is normal for every election to be that way.

What was it in Iraq? 72%? That puts us to shame.

[size=-3]* Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Domican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, and Venezuela[/size]

 

[burner69]

see this is the part where Kerry says Iraq is more of a threat to the USA.
And this is the part where in the same interview he says we're safer now.

And no it doesn't make sense, and yes you lose.

Safer from Saddam. Not safer from terrorists.

How hard is that to grasp?

OK, I'm in the woods hunting bears. I get phoned up by my mate who says a wild pack of maneating wolves is loose. Suddenly a bear appears and I shoot it, leaving me with only two bullets left.
Now, am I safer from the bear? Yes
Am I safer from the wolves? Oh no.

Do you see the difference? It's right there in black and white, wolf and bear, Saddam and terrorist.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Course, you talk of difference -- then your quote puts on emphasis on a higher rating of civilian casualties due to Carpet Bombing.

 

[Korgoth]

please remove teh blinders there mr. sheeple




see this is the part where Kerry says Iraq is more of a threat to the USA.




And this is the part where in the same interview he says we're safer now.

And no it doesn't make sense, and yes you lose.


What flavor is the Koolaid today?

I'm sorry that the concept of two different bad guys is so hard for you to comprehend. May I suggest you remove your head from your ass? And the kool aid is delicious.

 

[Pericolos0]

this thread just shows how people only read things the way they want to read it

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You only made this statement for the defense of what you consider your political party. Flogging someone else's point John Kerry cant walk a street line while reciting the alphabet coherently in his political drunk test, just makes it look like your trying to dissent his point because you know it landed a good hit.

Uh, no.
Like many people, I only supported Kerry as a Bush alternative. Since I am canadian, Kerry is no more "my party" than yours is the NDP.

Basically, I'm not in support of Kerry in this case. I'm in support of common sense.
Both the questions and the answers were not worded as well as they could be, but to willingly assume that Kerry thinks the US is more safe with growing numbers of terrorists, or that he has suddenly changed his opinion that Saddam is bad, based on nothing but these brief comments is foolish. gh0st was being foolish.
When five people translated what was said into something more clear, everyone dismisses it as lies. So what's the alternative?

Does Kerry answer the first question with "yes the world is more safe from terrorists" even though that is not his opinion?
Does is answer the second question with "I am sad Saddam is gone" even though that would be inconsistent with everything he's said about Saddam up until now?

I mean, Don Rumsfeld said that Osama bin Laden was caught, and Saddam was still at large.
So did anyone assume that Rumsfeld said that on purpose because he wanted political popularity, or did they assume that Saddam escaped at the exact moment bin Laden was captured?
Or did they do the sensible thing and assume that he actually just said the wrong name?

And did anyone make a long post, specifically addressed to seinfeldrules saying "HAHAH You are wrong about what you believe! Rumsfeld let Saddam go! He said! He said! Vote Kerry 2004!" ?

There is a difference between a lie and a mistake, and gho0st made a harshly partisan post making a soundbyte out to be a lie without any evidence that it was.

And the focus on Kerry shows that the election was a factor in his choice of subject. He's not singling out all the other senators that oppose the war. Just Kerry. And the literally "I told you so" tone of the whole thing just comes across as a comeback after the fact.

 

[satch919]

Im a Kerry supporter and Im also glad that Saddam is gone. However, we went in there under the guise of Iraq having WMDs. We went in there saying that they(Iraq) were an imminent threat. How could they be a threat to us and our freedoms if he didn't even have the technology to hit the US nor did he even have chemical weapons in mass quantities that they were so sure that he had? Like Kerry has said before, it was the wrong war at the wrong time.

If the Iraqis needed liberation so much, they should have fought for it. We were able to beat the English empire without anyone else coming in and telling us that we needed to. We came up with the idea ourselves and I believe the French came to our aid. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the Iraqis had collectively risen up against their leader and tried to overthrow him, I'd be all for it because it was THEIR idea. I would also be willing to give them humanitarian/military aid as well. A country has to decide its own fate. Would we like it if Mexico, France, Canada, Japan, Germany, China, and Russia came into the US and wanted to take Bush out because they believed he was a bad influence on his own people? Im sure you wouldn't want tanks rolling down your street or having to dodge gunfire every time you go outside.

Its not our place to go around telling everyone else how they should be governed.

Is Kerry's record flawless? No. Has he said some stupid stuff? Yes. However, I think you're just twisting the article around to benefit your views.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Safer from Saddam. Not safer from terrorists.

How hard is that to grasp?

OK, I'm in the woods hunting bears. I get phoned up by my mate who says a wild pack of maneating wolves is loose. Suddenly a bear appears and I shoot it, leaving me with only two bullets left.
Now, am I safer from the bear? Yes
Am I safer from the wolves? Oh no.

Do you see the difference? It's right there in black and white, wolf and bear, Saddam and terrorist.

Sadam supported, trained and funded terrorists. The terrorists we are fighting over there today are part of the apparatus sadam had in place.

How hard is that to grasp?

I'm sorry that the concept of two different bad guys is so hard for you to comprehend. May I suggest you remove your head from your ass? And the kool aid is delicious.

it is you that is suffering from cranial rectal inversion.

Sadam funded trained and supported terrorists. The terrorists we're fighting over there today, the ones that are being funded, trained and supported by the remnants of the Iraqi baathist regime currently being harbored by Syria are part of the terrorist apparatus created by Sadam.

They are one in the same.

 

[firemachine69]

Holly hell how'd I miss this one.

 

[staticprimer]

Sadam supported, trained and funded terrorists.

Source?

it is you that is suffering from cranial rectal inversion.

Sadam funded trained and supported terrorists. The terrorists we're fighting over there today, the ones that are being funded, trained and supported by the remnants of the Iraqi baathist regime currently being harbored by Syria are part of the terrorist apparatus created by Sadam.

They are one in the same.

Actually, many of the terrorists are from neighboring countries (IE Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan) and unconnected with the Baathist. They're just there because Iraq presents an easy, local opportunity for them to strike at Americans - an opportunity that wasn't there before the war, hence Iraq is a greater terrorist threat now.

 

[burner69]

Sadam supported, trained and funded terrorists. The terrorists we are fighting over there today are part of the apparatus sadam had in place.

How hard is that to grasp?

If he did, they clearly don't need him to function - either way I'd like to see evidence that he was training, supporting and funding terrorism. What you seem to be doing is blurring all the nasty people into the world into one evil grinning skull; Saddam had an evil 'police' force. Terrorists they are not. Saddam had an army, some are still fighting against the invaders of their country - they are not terrorists. Terrorists are also in Iraq.

Sadam funded trained and supported terrorists. The terrorists we're fighting over there today, the ones that are being funded, trained and supported by the remnants of the Iraqi baathist regime currently being harbored by Syria are part of the terrorist apparatus created by Sadam.

They are one in the same.

So if they're still operating, as you said there, then Kerry was right when he said we are safer from Saddam, but not terrorists. Right? I am right aren't I?

 

[el Chi]

And since the election is long over, this is one dead horse that didn't need flogging. Let alone flogging based on poor comprehension.

Good call. Besides, if this had been the other way around, and it was someone criticising Dubya, gh0st et al would be the first to launch the tirade against anyone who dared to mock him not only as a politician, but also as a sentient emotional being. The poor dear just doesn't need that kind of hassle, now does he? ;(

 

[K e r b e r o s]

el Chi, theres bound to be some political goof up thats going to occur somewhere in your country? ... and you know what? Then will be able to hassle you.

Its only a matter of time really.

 

[gh0st]

Good call. Besides, if this had been the other way around, and it was someone criticising Dubya, gh0st et al would be the first to launch the tirade against anyone who dared to mock him not only as a politician, but also as a sentient emotional being. The poor dear just doesn't need that kind of hassle, now does he? ;(

No. I'm just mature enough not to discredit someone based upon their accent. This has nothing to do with the mechanics of his speaking, its the way he goes back and forth between ideas.