Author Topic: No "European Vacation" for Kerry (Read 734 times)

Sabre · « **on:** September 27, 2004, 02:27:48 PM »

I'd like to see Kerry spin this.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36048bf8-0ff7-11d9-ba62-00000e2511c8.html

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #1 on:** September 27, 2004, 02:29:54 PM »

Is Chevy Chase involved?
-SW

Sandman · « **Reply #2 on:** September 27, 2004, 02:30:06 PM »

Sounds like "no european vacation" for our troops.

Sabre · « **Reply #3 on:** September 28, 2004, 02:11:20 PM »

I'm surprised the Bush campaign isn't making more of this. Kerry's only two points on foreign policy so far are,

a) Bush has done everything wrong.

and

b) I [Kerry] will [somehow] be more successful in getting international cooperation in Iraq and the wider war on terror.

Since two of the contries he was counting on to help have snubbed him, even before the election, it would seem a great point to attack him on now.

"See!" the Bush campaign could say after pointing out the French and German declarations, "We were able to forge a coalition of 30 countries for the Iraq war. Kerry's promises that he'll do better are so much campaign bluster!"

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #4 on:** September 28, 2004, 02:16:02 PM »

You realise that you appear to support this infighting between the presidential candidates?

Guess that's why these campaigns focus on smearing rather than issues and ignoring the other party... they know they have an audience for this ****.
-SW

Sabre · « **Reply #5 on:** September 28, 2004, 03:49:21 PM »

Is it wrong to point out the inconsistancies and lack of substance in a political candidate's position on an issue? All I said is, I found it strange that one candidate's campaign missed an opportunity to point out a major flaw in the opposition's platform. I believe that is what an election campaign is supposed to be about; not what happened or didn't happen 30 years ago, but what the candidates are claiming they're for/against today (along with their political records, of course).

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #6 on:** September 28, 2004, 03:58:05 PM »

it would seem a great point to attack him on now.

That's what I was focusing on. I'd prefer if candidates would just list what they are FOR. If it's questioned by a third party why they are for this, while their opponent is against this, then they could elaborate.

We're voting for a decent person to lead the country, not the best **** digger and poop flinger.
-SW

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #7 on:** September 28, 2004, 07:53:55 PM »

Quote

In fact, high-ranking German officials are privately concerned at the prospect of Mr Kerry becoming president, arguing it would not change US demands but make it more difficult to reject them.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #8 on:** September 28, 2004, 08:00:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
it would seem a great point to attack him on now.

That's what I was focusing on. I'd prefer if candidates would just list what they are FOR. If it's questioned by a third party why they are for this, while their opponent is against this, then they could elaborate.

We're voting for a decent person to lead the country, not the best **** digger and poop flinger.
-SW

reguardless of who's attacking who the fact still remains that kerry's premise for Bush's failings in Iraq are in fact inadequate at best.

I would like to see how he (kerry) spins this as well.

Nash · « **Reply #9 on:** September 28, 2004, 08:02:32 PM »

In otherwords they can easily say no to Geedub, but will find saying no to Kerry harder.

"That said, Mr Kerry seems genuinely committed to multilateralism and as president he would find it easier than Mr. Bush to secure the German government's backing in other matters."

The whole point of this article seems to be "Kerry won't get troops from us, but Bush won't get *anything* from us."

If this is supposed to make Kerry look bad, what does it say about Bush?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #10 on:** September 28, 2004, 08:04:41 PM »

It doesnt say much about either Bush or Kerry, but it says volumese about Germany and probaly France as well..

Nash · « **Reply #11 on:** September 28, 2004, 08:09:26 PM »

Yeah, it says way more about them, for sure.

But it's much worse looking for Bush than it is for Kerry.

Why it would get posted as a condemnation of Kerry is beyond me. Kerry doesn't say "Germany" - he says "Allies".

If Germany sits back while the rest of the world pitches in, then yeah, this article says more about Germany.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #12 on:** September 28, 2004, 08:24:42 PM »

It's intersting that you mention Kerry doesnt saty Germany or France but that he says "allies."

Remember the standard anti-war criticism is that we we went into Iraq without "allies." Which, since we had the UK, Italy, Spain, Australia, Poland, etc really meant that we went in without France and Germany..

So Kerry's "allies" are clearly France and Germany, and now we see they arent willing to help.

As to why this may be seen as a criticism of Kerry's plans. Well its simple, it blows a hole in his big campaign promise on Iraq - that he will get our "allies" more involved.

See:

Quote

In fact, high-ranking German officials are privately concerned at the prospect of Mr Kerry becoming president, arguing it would not change US demands but make it more difficult to reject them.

Kerry will ask the same as Bush, and he will get the same as Bush - only our "allies" will feel a little bit more sad in telling us to piss off... Which again is why I feel this is much more about them than either of the candidates.

Nash · « **Reply #13 on:** September 28, 2004, 08:48:46 PM »

"it would not change US demands but make it more difficult to reject them."

Meaning that they might not reject them...

Who knows...

Certainly we know that what politicians say isn't exactly what happens all of the time.

And considering the fact that the leaders of foreign nations know full well how their statements will impact their US relations, being made so close to an election, it seems to me they are hedging their bet.

Hedging them by not coming out with a full public support of Kerry (while intimating Kerry would be a more plausible president), and by not attacking Bush directly (in case he wins).

I reckon that in this article, Kerry at least has a chance with Germany. With Bush, goose egg.

Either way.... it's Germany....

Neither way... a condemnation of Kerry.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #14 on:** September 28, 2004, 08:53:37 PM »

On that we disagree Nash.