Cobb

On foriegn policy its a no brainer. Bush over Kerry.

these two recent post of my illustrate ir very well.
http://blacksforbush.blogspot.com/2004/08/why-koch-is-on-bushs-bandwagon-as-i.html
the first is why Ed Koch is crossing party lines.

http://blacksforbush.blogspot.com/2004/08/kerry-cant-be-trusted-or-kerry-lies.html

the second is my analysis of Kerry's Lies on Cuba issue and how it "really illustrates how weak Kerry will be as a leader. He says he understands nuance but the fact is no bill, or plan will perfect and he seems unwilling or unable to understand that, a leader must be able to act even when the way ahead is not clear."

The reason you haven't been able to get to Kerry's vision too easily is b/c of the SBVs and the "liberal" media's love of good low-brow fight -- not thru any fault of his own (and, geez, i can't believe you'd recommend that Kerry not address the slurs)

But a net-savvy guy like you can get to the goods if you really wanted to. Try Issues200.org or even his own danged web site, John Kerry for President.

Say that you'll vote for Bush because you like his preemptive strike policy, but don't say it's cuz you can't figure out Kerry's stance.

I'm curious as to how you're able to choose a "... foreign policy laced with real politik..." and support the incumbent's demonstrative disdain for diplomacy. I acknowledge 1) this election is a referendum on the incumbent's record and, 2) a challenger's strategy to speak on policy in generalities is both a blessing and a curse. But I believe it's premature, if not irresponsible, to call it 'mindnumbingly dumb'. In fact, it can be argued the person who insists on pursuing the same strategy when its rational has been proven wrong and its results dangerous to our long-term interests is the real dummy.

Now, reasonable minds can disagree over whether affecting Hamiltonian-style democracy by force in the Middle East is a worthwhile pursuit (I happen to think 'no'). I believe therefore that we can and should separate our support for the office of President from supporting those individuals whom happen to populate the office at a given point in time, especially when their results are proving so disasterous. Worse, it appears the current WH has no cogent foreign policy whatsoever. While we're in deep in Iraq, I don't think the situation has become untenable. I'm comfortable taking my chances with a new chief executive.

If John Kerry has a real foreign policy, why isn't he pushing it??? Most "joe voters" aren't going to go to the internet for the info. Why won't he give us any meat to make a decision with??

I get angry about Bush's effectiveness and demeanor. I wish he were a better administrator. But I cannot argue with his direction, which although I think is overambitious for his ability, it is exactly proper for our role geopolitically.

Kerry on the other hand does not accept the geopolitical role of the US as superpower and hegemon. He wants us all to get along, by taking the unilateral card out of our deck. This is defacto disempowerment which I cannot abide. It is difficult as it is to discourage terrorists without handing enemies an understanding that we will not move unless others move with us.

This is not a time for containment, rather it is a time for aggression, and our role is to embolden other countries to take the fight to the enemy.

What's interesting is that Bush campaigned on a platform that expressly denounced 'nation building'. I don't think he was prescient in this, but simply relying on old-fashion America first which may have bordered on isolationism. However the good side of that is that instead of tinkering with other countries through the machinations of the CIA and proxy militaries we have done so with our own military out in the open. That's the way to go. If it were up to me there'd be a Defense Department and a War Department, Defense being 'Homeland Security'.

At any rate, it is this difference between a willingness to go unilaterally which makes it more likely that we take the fight to terrorists and rogues states under Bush. As a spoiled rotten American, I could say that it doesn't matter which man becomes President, because ultimately the President's people will keep us safe. But they can only follow the President's lead, and Bush will lead more ambitiously. We may learn ugly lessons that way, but that's better than sitting on our hands.

Our internationalist sentiment is well supported by NGOs that take American volunteers and money. But the Executive Branch should play hardball.

BTW. Yes I do like his pre-emptive strike policy. He was right. We gave the bluff as much credibility as it needed.

Woo, Cobb, you speak with all the confidence of a man who's never been smacked down for arrogance. Not bad. Fair enough.

Caltechgirl, Kerry has made a number of speeches outlining his foreign policy. He can't help it if the "liberal" media ignores it for some swift boat ballyhoo. I offered the links for those who're actually interested in what he has to say but may be stymied about how to get past the media scandal filter.

I'll check out what Kerry has to say.

I speak from the arrogance of being accustomed to being getting knocked down (but I get up again, you're never going to keep me down). When you are right and you don't get challenged, you generally don't know why. I'd rather be strongly wrong and disproven than weakly right from proactive compromise.

I'd rather be strongly wrong and disproven than weakly right from proactive compromise.

Fair enough, and i think i agree. But i'm not sure i'm a hegelian synthesist either. For me, if i've actually come to a position, it's usually hard won. In the process, i'm paranoid about big chinks in the armour so i cure them by doubting myself. I doubt my initial tack to make sure it holds water against any seas.

Once i've exhausted the merits of alternative positions/mindsets, i can finally (i hope) come to a firm, tuff-to-break position (which may be quite different from the initial one). it's a slow process at times, but reasonably sure.

A pre-emptive strike first policy is arrogance. and i say, in the long run, if Bush and others persist inthis policy the american empire may not be able to survive the economic and military/terror beatdown to come in the future. And it will come. Blocs are already forming. YOu cannot afford to be seen as bellicose bully on the block.

Well of course, an arrogant pre-emptive strike is not what we did in Iraq. We simply ran out of patience before everybody else in the world, which is entirely reasonable considering how long we'd been maintaining NoFly Zones. Our guys were getting shot at every day that we maintained those zones, and the security of the Kurds depended upon our presence. Sure the success of that probably made us believe more assuredly that we could rebuild Iraq, but that doesn't change the direction.

What galls me is precisely what Hitchens says about certain folks' willingness to call Al Sadr's goons "insurgents", as if they were freedom fighters against a corrupt regime.

A strike-first policy in most circumstances means a lack of patience. If you want a rootin-tooter who lacks patience and a diplomacy-first mindset, then fine, it's your grandkids' funeral. I dare say if you look at the costs of internationally-sanctioned containment vs. the war, it's no contest. it's been a steady series after series of 'miscalculations.' why you'd persist in ensuring this guy keeps his job on the basis of his terror-management skillz is beyond me.

anyway, check out this stuff in the wikipedia on preventive war vs. preemptive war. you tell me about what y'all messed around an did in Iraq.

Those Wikis are so weak. If people want to be pacifists, they should step up and say so. On the other hand if you believe dictators should be deposed, especially ones we had a hand in creating, then I don't see how Saddam can be defended.

He needs to be in jail right next to Noriega, and nobody over here was afraid of Panama.

It seems to me that we have three choices when it comes to people ready, willing and able to commit genocide. We can turn our backs and say it's not our problem, we can fund Contras and insurgencies through backchannels like Perot, Richard Secord and 'country two', or we can announce to the world that we're going to bust down the door and rev up the gunboats.

Bush chose #3.

Now there's another option, which is 3(a). That's to do a remote bombing and leave bluehats on the ground as a token force.

BTW, what the hell is NATO for?

BTW, what the hell is NATO for?

Taking advantage of warring countries and lining the pockets of higher up NATO workers.

...I find John Kerry mindnumbingly dumb on matters of foreign affairs.

Just foreign affairs?

I find him blatantly ignorant on several topics, I find him mindnumbingly dumb in general.