Kerry, Newest Neocon

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:19 am

You know, you have to wonder... which side Kerry is on?

October 4, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Kerry, Newest Neocon
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Washington

As the Democratic Whoopee Brigade hailed Senator Kerry's edge in debating technique, nobody noticed his foreign policy sea change. On both military tactics and grand strategy, the newest neoconservative announced doctrines more hawkish than President Bush.

First, on war-fighting in Iraq: Hard-liners criticized the Bush decision this spring not to send U.S. troops in to crush Sunni resistance in the Baathist stronghold in Falluja. Our forces wanted to fight to win but soft-liners in Washington worried about the effect of heavier civilian casualties on the hearts and minds of Iraqis, and of U.S. troop losses on Americans.

Last week in debate, John Kerry - until recently, the antiwar candidate too eager to galvanize dovish Democrats - suddenly reversed field, and came down on the side of the military hard-liners.

"What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground," Kerry volunteered. "And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of Falluja and other places and send the wrong message to terrorists. ... You've got to show you're serious." Right on, John! Although he added his standard softener of "sharing the stakes" with "the rest of the world," he issued his radically revised military policy: wipe out resistance in terrorist strongholds like Falluja, which requires us to inflict and accept higher casualties.

Just as Kerry propounded his get-tough tactics, the first phase of the assault on centers of insurgency had begun. U.S. troops, blazing the way for recently trained Iraqi forces, have kept their appointment in Samarra. More than 200 insurgents have been killed or captured in that city in the Sunni triangle, beginning to open the area for elections.

At the same time, our aerial strikes at the safe houses of Zarqawi killers in Falluja have intensified. Kerry's belated but welcome hawkish call to "change the dynamics on the ground" supports the joint U.S.-Iraqi seizure of control of that terrorist haven. It will be bloody, but such use of firepower in "serious" denial of sanctuary should save lives in the long run.

Next, to grand strategy: Kerry was asked by Jim Lehrer, "What is your position on the whole concept of pre-emptive war?" In the past, Kerry has given a safe never-say-never response, but last week he gave a Strangelovian answer: "The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive strike." He pledged never to cede "the right to pre-empt in any way necessary'' to protect the U.S.

But in embracing his right to pre-empt - always derided in horror by the two-minutes-to-midnight crowd as impermissible "preventive war" - Kerry felt the need to interject: "That was a great doctrine throughout the cold war. And it was one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control."

Hold on; nuclear pre-emption was never America's "great doctrine" during confrontation with the Soviets. Our strategic doctrine, which some of us remember, was at first "massive retaliation," later "mutual assured destruction.'' Maybe arms control negotiators listed pre-emption or preventive war as a dangerous notion of extremists, but only kooks portrayed by the likes of Peter Sellers called for a nuclear final solution to the Communist problem.

If Bush had defined pre-emption as such a "great doctrine throughout the cold war," we would have seen sustained snickering on cable and horrified eye-rolling from the Charles River Gang.

Bush did not pick up on Kerry's faulty memory. Instead, the president focused on the Democrat's sugar-coating of his first-strike pill of prevention: his assurance that his pre-emption had to be one that "passes the global test" to make it legitimate. By ridiculing Kerry's notion that such a surprise attack had to have prior world-public approval, Bush was able to prevent his opponent from out-hawkishing him.

On stopping North Korea's nuclear buildup, Kerry abandoned his global-testing multilateralism; our newest neocon derided Bush's six-nation talks and demands America go it gloriously alone. And in embracing Wilsonian idealism to intervene in Darfur's potential genocide, Kerry's promise of troops outdid Pentagon liberators: "If it took American forces to some degree to coalesce the African Union, I'd be prepared to do it. ...''

His abandoned antiwar supporters celebrate the Kerry personality makeover. They shut their eyes to Kerry's hard-line, right-wing, unilateral, pre-election policy epiphany.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

this may be news to you, but not to me... it make this curmudgeon smile knowlingly and wryly...

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:23 am

amazing the shit these guys feed you Joel you eat up.

Please for your sake cut SAFIRE loose. As I've said before.....he's a jerk that knows nothing what he speaks about. He's the equivalent of Rush.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:40 am

DVD Burner wrote:amazing the shit these guys feed you Joel you eat up.

Please for your sake cut SAFIRE loose. As I've said before.....he's a jerk that knows nothing what he speaks about. He's the equivalent of Rush.

the "shit" they feed me? equivalent of Rush.... DVD your credibility is as weak as your positions.

Could you point out where Mr Safire has misquoted Senator Kerry?

and for the sake of fairness here is a link to the debate transcripts.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:15 am

Simply Joel wrote:
DVD Burner wrote:amazing the shit these guys feed you Joel you eat up.

Please for your sake cut SAFIRE loose. As I've said before.....he's a jerk that knows nothing what he speaks about. He's the equivalent of Rush.
the "shit" they feed me? equivalent of Rush.... DVD your credibility is as weak as your positions.

Could you point out where Mr Safire has misquoted Senator Kerry?

and for the sake of fairness here is a link to the debate transcripts.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html

Who said anything about misquoting?

I was just saying that Saphire was as full of shit as Rush. it's all in as much as his first sentence:

As the Democratic Whoopee Brigade hailed Senator Kerry's edge in debating technique, nobody noticed his foreign policy sea change. On both military tactics and grand strategy, the newest neoconservative announced doctrines more hawkish than President Bush.

First, on war-fighting in Iraq: Hard-liners criticized the Bush decision this spring not to send U.S. troops in to crush Sunni resistance in the Baathist stronghold in Falluja. Our forces wanted to fight to win but soft-liners in Washington worried about the effect of heavier civilian casualties on the hearts and minds of Iraqis, and of U.S. troop losses on Americans.

This is the shit I'm talking about that people like Rush, Safire and Fox/Murdock feed to people to mix shit up.

Fact of the matter is, American forces or anything asscociated with Americans over in Iraq is going to get the shit kicked outta of them because they do not belong there first off, second, the so called leaders that send the boys and girls over there are not as smart as who Americans are fighting. third, U.s. troops are gonna crush whomever over there like their "mission is accomplished" over there.

Eat it up all you want, there will always be some American ass kicked over in Iraq as long as Americans are in Iraq no matter how big a bomb any American drops. Belive anything else and it's just stupid.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:18 am

DVD Burner wrote:
Simply Joel wrote:
DVD Burner wrote:amazing the shit these guys feed you Joel you eat up.

Please for your sake cut SAFIRE loose. As I've said before.....he's a jerk that knows nothing what he speaks about. He's the equivalent of Rush.
the "shit" they feed me? equivalent of Rush.... DVD your credibility is as weak as your positions.

Could you point out where Mr Safire has misquoted Senator Kerry?

and for the sake of fairness here is a link to the debate transcripts.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html
Who said anything about misquoting?

I was just saying that Saphire was as full of shit as Rush. it's all in as much as his first sentence:

As the Democratic Whoopee Brigade hailed Senator Kerry's edge in debating technique, nobody noticed his foreign policy sea change. On both military tactics and grand strategy, the newest neoconservative announced doctrines more hawkish than President Bush.

First, on war-fighting in Iraq: Hard-liners criticized the Bush decision this spring not to send U.S. troops in to crush Sunni resistance in the Baathist stronghold in Falluja. Our forces wanted to fight to win but soft-liners in Washington worried about the effect of heavier civilian casualties on the hearts and minds of Iraqis, and of U.S. troop losses on Americans.
This is the shit I'm talking about that people like Rush, Safire and Fox/Murdock feed to people to mix shit up.

Fact of the matter is, American forces or anything asscociated with Americans over in Iraq is going to get the shit kicked outta of them because they do not belong there first off, second, the so called leaders that send the boys and girls over there are not as smart as who Americans are fighting. third, U.s. troops are gonna crush whomever over there like their "mission is accomplished" over there.

Eat it up all you want, there will always be some American ass kicked over in Iraq as long as Americans are in Iraq no matter how big a bomb any American drops. Belive anything else and it's just stupid.

and now you have crossed the line with me.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:22 am

Sorry about that. Truth hurts huh?

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:46 am

Seriously though dood,

Not trying to hurt your feelings, just cut Safire loose. He makes no sense.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:19 am

Credentials

Columnist Biography: William Safire

William Safire, winner of the 1978 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary, joined The New York Times in 1973 as a political columnist. He also writes a Sunday column, On Language, which has appeared in The New York Times Magazine since 1979. This column on grammar, usage, and etymology has led to the publication of 10 books and made him the most widely read writer on the English language.

Before joining The Times, Mr. Safire was a senior White House speechwriter for President Nixon. He had previously been a radio and television producer and a U.S. Army correspondent. He began his career as a reporter for The New York Herald Tribune. From 1955 to 1960, Safire was vice president of a public relations firm in New York City, then became president of his own firm. He was responsible for bringing Mr. Nixon and Nikita Khrushchev together in the 1959 Moscow kitchen debate. In 1968, he joined the campaign of Richard Nixon.

He is the author of Freedom (1987), a novel of Lincoln and the Civil War. His other novels include Full Disclosure (1977), Sleeper Spy (1995) and Scandalmonger (2000). His other titles include a dictionary, a history, anthologies and commentaries.

Mr. Safire was born on Dec. 17, 1929, and attended Syracuse University; a dropout after two years, he returned a generation later to deliver the commencement address and is now a trustee. Since 1995 he has served as a member of the Pulitzer Board. He is married, has two children and lives in suburban Washington, D.C.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:21 am

DVD Burner wrote:Seriously though dood,

Not trying to hurt your feelings, just cut Safire loose. He makes no sense.

he writes in english and complete sentences, maybe that is your problem

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:24 am

That don’t make any difference.

Condoleezza Rice has a Doctorate. She is still an idiot.

I know personally plenty of people with Doctorates and plenty of world experience in lots of areas that are still idiots.

Credentials dont mean shit. It's weather one has common sense. Safire and Condoleezza both lack the essentials.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:26 am

Simply Joel wrote:
DVD Burner wrote:Seriously though dood,

Not trying to hurt your feelings, just cut Safire loose. He makes no sense.
he writes in english and complete sentences, maybe that is your problem

Americans are still gonna get their asses kicked everyday till they leave Iraq. That's a fact.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:48 am

You're pig wrestling here Joel. But you know that.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:50 am

Isotopia wrote:You're pig wrestling here Joel. But you know that.

yup, i realized that fact a little too late once again.

on the other hand, i do imagine a number of heads exploding if Bush/Cheney win on 2 Nov 04.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:13 am

Simply Joel wrote:
Isotopia wrote:You're pig wrestling here Joel. But you know that.
yup, i realized that fact a little too late once again.

on the other hand, i do imagine a number of heads exploding if Bush/Cheney win on 2 Nov 04.

Ok ok,

I took my eye off the ball.

It really should be...............

Bush has an MBA and he's still an idiot:

091 George W. Bush (R)

Is that better?

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:14 am

In case anyone did'nt get it that is G.W.'s I.Q.

A whopping 91

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:22 am

you left out

republican water boy

in your list of credentials

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:25 am

stuart wrote:you left out

republican water boy

in your list of credentials

and cheerleader.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:26 am

Yeah I know I fucked up.

Cheerleader=waterboy

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:38 am

In case anyone did'nt get it that is G.W.'s I.Q.

A whopping 91

For some reason the word 'affinity' comes to mind here.

skagg · Post by **skagg** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:20 pm

Also left out: 5X arrested,alcoholic sociopath.

skagg · Post by **skagg** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:27 pm

Bushy that is. No reference to Mr. Safire.

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 6:02 pm

I have to admit that while watching the debates I was struck by how hawkish Kerry seemed. I'm sure he was trying to show swing voters that he's Tough On Terror (SM) but to me it just came off as "every bit as dick-headed belligerent as Bush and Cheney."

Which is when I realized that I fully support the idea of breaking down the 2-party system.

Which is when I realized that I was on the fast track to tossing my votes away to the likes of Ralph Nader.

Which is when I realized that I'm just going to have to vote for Kerry anyway.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 6:07 pm

Hey will the debate have a 7 second delay in case Cheney says something my virgin ears should'nt hear?

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:17 pm

Which reminds me, did you know that dems gave Sen Patrick Leahy a highly visible seat at the debate? Not sure if they were trying to rattle Cheney or capture air time to remind voters of Dick's outburst.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:23 am

Alpha wrote:Which reminds me, did you know that dems gave Sen Patrick Leahy a highly visible seat at the debate? Not sure if they were trying to rattle Cheney or capture air time to remind voters of Dick's outburst.

as i previously stated somwhere on the e-playa before... Senator Leahy relied on his staff to discuss the VP's comment... Senator Leahy should have just faced off with the VP.

as a personal observation (speculation), i doubt if the VP gets rattled by a whole lot these days.