Redstate

I don't think I heard the words "Al qaeda" or "Osama Bin laden" once during the whole convention.  

I was curious as to why Kerry used the line "Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn't make it so".   This is the same guy who first voted for then voted against funding that same war.  

let me explain how congress works.  Legislators propose a bunch of bills that basically say the same thing in different ways.  When it came time to fund the war their were two main bills, one that borrowed billions to pay for it, and one that rescinded some of the tax cuts for the extremely wealthy to pay for it.

Kerry voted no on the first one, and yes on the second.  So it's not a matter of voting against the war, it's simply a difference of opinion as to how it should be waged

Since Kerry's voting record is obviously going to be part of Bush's playbook, it's important to point out all the ways his actual record contradicts easy statements like "Kerry voted against freedom", etc.

You are not permitted to combat propoganda with facts.   Facts are only permitted on this site to confound, not elucidate.  This is your last warning!

I know how Congress works.  I also know a little bit about politics. Bottom line......Kerry voted against it.  You can spin it any way you'd like but themz the facts.  

Bush threatened to VETO the bill that Kerry was supporting.  So does that mean he did not support a war he commenced?

Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

And then Kerry did what, again?

... and some very good lines. I could have gone without the slap against France and other allies, though. Not to say that they don't deserve it, but it would not be diplomatic to say it. They've helped in other ways and places during the GWoT, so it's not like they aren't still allies. Maybe just not allied enough?

Bottom line, Kerry voted against it and Bush signed it into law.  

Spin that any way you'd like it but at the end of the day, that is how it happened.  

From John Edwards' speech, via the NYT:

And we - John and I - we will have one clear unmistakable message for Al Qaida and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you.

As Jim Geraghty at the National Review's Kerry Spot just posted:

26 SECONDS FOR 19 years in the SENATE

Nothing like a record to run on.  

Obviously he wasn't talking about his job as a sitting senator.  Perhaps he should resign?  

I agree that a good portion of the President and VP's convention speeches should be aimed at some of the empty platitudes of Kerry's speech.

For example,

"make America respected in the world"

 - America IS respected in the world - its just not respected in the democratic party.

 "We just need to believe in ourselves"

- America has never stopped believing in itself

"I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war."  

- If the President mislead us into war than he did it based on information that all of our allies - Russia, Great Britian, Israel, and even France and German intelligence all agreed upon. Are they all liars too?

"And I will appoint an attorney general who will uphold the Constitution of the United States."

- You mean that he is violating the Constitution by enforcing the Patriot Act that you voted for?

Rhetoric that doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.

Victory in Iraq was obtained 'on the cheap'.  For the results acheived, this was probably one of the cheapest wars in history.  Am I the only one who remembers Wesley Clark and his ilk on CNN and other networks predicting thousands of casualties?  Our military is so much better than anyone else's that we can beat them cheaply.

Kerry talked last night about getting allies into Iraq so we can leave.  This is a pipe dream in that there isn't another military force in the world that is capable of doing what we are doing in Iraq.  Like most of Kerry's proposals, it sounds good only until you think about it.

Hmm.

The only problem with that contention is that every Senator knew the first bill would be passed and the second, because it would be unnecessary, wouldn't be passed.

So no he doesn't get a passing grade on this issue.  He deliberately voted against the appropriations for funding operations and only voted for the second bill as a means of covering his ass.

Reviewing Kerry's career in the Senate, voting to cover his ass is a common theme.

You haven't heard much about bin Laden from Bush for a while.  The last thing I remember him saying about it was that he "didn't think about him very much" and that he was "irrelevant".

Bush really has no idea how to fight terrorists, i.e., focus on the terrorists.  Don't divert the focus to, say, Iraq.

Not many Americans have forgotten we're at war, it's just that few of them believe the hubris that Iraq can be considered part of the war on terror.  Certainly I hope he continues that deception, because I want Kerry to win, which he will if Bush continues showing that he thinks words are stronger than actions.

You seem to hate everything about conservatives, so why do you waste your time.  Go to DailyKos and have a good time.

He's likely interested in conservative thought. Of course, every now and again, some jackass shows up and tells me to leave if I don't agree with him. I can handle it, but I have a thick skin.

Also, this:

....few of them believe the hubris that Iraq can be considered part of the war on terror.

Actually, I'd say that most people I know are sold on this notion.  And no, I definitely don't surround myself with conservatives.

Certainly the legions of terrorists in Iraq are sold on it.

Yeah, I disagree with policy positions with people who's goals I agree with entirely, so therefore I "hate" them.  Nice to see the discourse hasn't evolved much around here, lately.

I'm just trying to set up some counter arguments for target practice for you guys, which I certainly which DailyKos had -- it's just an echo chamber over there, you know?  If only I could get some conservatives to post over their and offer some arguments, it would be a much more fruitful site to visit.

One would think contrary arguments would be as welcome here as they are at DailyKos, which makes me wonder how dedicated RedState is to actual, you know, debates.  But, then, I think it isn't really; the mission is more about promoting the GOP, explicitly so, which makes me think more and more that I am in the wrong place.  If anyone has suggestions as to which sites are better for real cross-talk, PLEASE suggest them to me, 'cause I agree with UnusualCandor, I'm wasting my time here . . .

He was running a tough race against Dean at the time, and he needed anti-war credentials.  That's it.  Since he intended it to be an anti-war statement, there's no need to try to defend him.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't very few of the insurgents in Iraq actual terrorists?  Most of them are militia members, Baathist hold-outs, angry Iraqis, and the like.  Certainly I accept that they could be mostly terrorists, but that's just not the story I've heard coming out of the Bush Adminstration or other independent reports.  

After all, military personnel are generally not targets of terrorism; civilians are.  That's why they call it "terrorism".  A group that attacks primarily military targets are usually called militants, soldiers, rebels, mercenaries, etc.; their aim is to defeat a military enemy, not to spread terror among a country's population.  Though I certainly agree that element has a strong presence among insurgents, I just don't see that as the major source of the problem, which is that our guys are being targetted.

Seriously.

Red State's debate is meant more for intraparty and intra-conservative stuff.

You rightly point out a confusion in terminology on this count.  I would simply reply that for our purposes, violent Islamists of any stripe are our enemies.  Having seen how inseparable the worlds of the terrorist and the mujahideen are in Afghanistan, Kashmir, Chechnya, Algeria, Egypt, Israel and now Iraq, there is no meaningful difference between the two.  You cannot war on one without warring on the other; nor can you disengage from one in favor of engaging the other.

violent Islamists of any stripe are our enemies

Though something in my gut tells me that support for the insurgency in Iraq is very secular in nature, despite the fact that many insurgents are decidedly Islamist.  Now if only we could get these secular-minded Muslims on our side, the war would be won post-haste.  The question is "how?".

You're right, as usual . . .

A contradiction in terms according to Islamic orthodoxy.  Which is not to say there aren't any -- just not many, for that reason.

As for the nature of the insurgency within Iraq, every assessment I've seen has indicated that whatever Arab nationalist (ie, Ba'athist) leadership the insurgency had is now subsumed by the Wahhabi element.

If this is the mission of RedState, maybe you should make that clear.  I've enjoyed coming over here, having a little fun and, on occasion, learning something (as I did just now in a conversation with Angry Red).  But as an active dKos poster, I also understand the need and pleasure in having "a space of our own."  If INTER-party debate is more appropriate for tacitus.org, I'm happy to take it over there, and I truly wish you guys the best of luck with your web site.

May the best party win in November.  Yes, it will be the Democrats. ;-)

Color me unnuanced, but when people use car bombs and suicide missions to kill civilians, including innocent women and children, indiscriminantly, I consider those acts of terror, hence the people who commit them are terrorists.

What do you consider them, freedom fighters executing military flanking manuevers?

spend so much time discussing liberals?

I mean, if the purpose of this club is to further conservative thought among conservatives, why bother with that?

If it were a debate over how to best attack Kerry and therefore win the election, I'd understand. But I see a whole lot of chest thumping going on and I don't understand the point.

Just letting you know, if you get pushback on some over the top lefty rhetoric, that's why.  So long as you stay within the posting rules, you're cool here.  (See links to that and the mission statement at left.)  But yeah, it will be more rhetorically constricting here for you than it would be at, say, tacitus.org or elsewhere.

Why then spend so much time discussing liberals?

Silly question.  Conservatism and blogging both do not occur in a vacuum.  Varied opinions help further thought.  Y'all just have to watch any ridiculous rhetoric that's all.

I see a whole lot of chest thumping going on and I don't understand the point

We're happy because we're right, our party will win, and the world will be a better place as a result.  Conservatism in action, which is what Red State seems to be trying to cultivate, requires a little chest-beating.  Not to say some could use a little more humility than others...

With it's accompanying emphasis on liberal/conservative distinctions. I think things will shift after November to a more internal focus.

Some of it's also brought on by the liberals here, frankly. Incidentally, I have no problem with liberals/left-wingers being here -- a few in fact are valuable, as a way for us to sharpen our points. But this place is intended to be a sort of workshop for conservative thought and principles: don't be surprised if you hit a lot of resistance while you're here.

One of the most enjoyable discussions I've had here to date was the one with VoiceintheWeb and the differences/distinctions between him and other-styled conservatives. It's probably not of general interest, but if you're interested in conservatism it's an important subject.

There is a reason this place is called REDSTATE.

"There's a reason it's called Redstate"

Does it involve communism ; )

And the Iraqi civilians blown up by "insurgent" bombs proves this somehow?

We probably need a new lexicon, since plenty on the left (Reuters, for one) never seem to use the word  "terrorist" to describe a Muslim regardless of what he is doing; and many on the right tend to see nothing but terrorists in the ME.  That said, your distinction is useful, but the number of insurgents in Iraq seems much smaller to me than to you.  We must read different news stories.

It is refreshing to hear solid ideas instead of slammin' rhetoric.  Kudos Redding.  I bet some savvy Bushie catches wind and rides your suggestions like a rented mule.  If you don't get credit, WE know.  

in the recent past.  The nuances of their voting patterns are hard to defend in short arguments.  For instance, a number of the military programs Kerry has voted against (based on lists I have seen) are ones that the John Boyd contingent thought were boondoggles, and that crowd is hardly anti-military.

I am not saying he was right or wrong, just that his position is not clearly anti-military based on those votes.  

If I was going to attack his voting record, I would do it on how little he seems to have voted recently.  But then, I don't live in the Bay State, so I don't really care.

Proliferation Security Initiative

We have made victories, we have even accomplished missions ....  [W]e can achieve victory in the fight against terrorism .... [T]his country ... will not fail in defense of freedom.

In his acceptance speech, Kerry preempted much of this argument by pointing out that "proclaiming mission accomplished certainly doesn't make it so" and asserting "We need a strong military and we need to lead strong alliances. And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win."

I deliberately lifted the phrase "long twilight struggle" from Kennedy not only because it is a great piece of American rhetoric, but because it applies not only to the Cold War of Kennedy's time, but our war against terrorism as well.

But this likens the War on Terror to the Cold War, and Americans did not seem hesitant to change leadership during the Cold War.  

[T]his nation is not about doing what is popular, but about doing what is right. The liberation of Iraq was the right choice, and I will not waver in fighting tyranny and oppression wherever it stands.

Kerry can respond that alliances are not about popularity - they're about helping us fight better while reducing the burden on America.  I'm sure he could come up with examples (say, Russia or Saudi Arabia) where Bush is on the side of tyranny and oppression.  Deciding to fight tyranny and oppression around the world would involve a drastic change in US foreign policy, a change that should be considered on its merits rather than in the context of providing a unifying theme to a speech and campaign.  

Kerry could respond to the list of allies with an even longer list of governments that did not support our Iraq policy, and note that the right tends to pretend that this group consisted solely of France (like Bush in this interview).

As President I will not wait until we are attacked to act against the threat of terrorism. By then it is too late. We must not allow another September 11, and that is why we must not wait for the threats to come to us before taking action.

As a Democrat, I like these lines because they remind me of the fact that Bush did nothing about the threat of terrorism before 9/11, despite learning of "patterns of suspicious activity [by al-Qaida] in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

Kerry also might characterize the Bush doctrine in the following less compelling form:  The United States can declare war against any country provided that the country 1) might develop weapons of mass destruction at some point in the future and 2) might, at some point in the future, decide to conduct terrorist attacks or to help terrorists commit attacks.  

That is why our commitment to freedom must be based on more than rhetoric and empty promises.

Democrats might note that promoting freedom and democracy has become a central Bush talking point but wonder what, besides starting two wars with still-unclear consequences, has been done to promote these ideals.

That is why I say to every dictator, despot, and tyrant - look to Saddam Hussein. If you wish to avoid his fate let your people go.

Many people around the world would hear this Jewish reference and consider it to be highly ironic, coming from a President who has given unprecedented support to Israel's occupation and oppression of Palestine and Palestineans (not that this is my view, but the rhetoric is not ideal for winning Arab hearts and minds).

A more mainstream reaction in America would be to wonder if Bush really wants to go around starting more wars, especially against countries that have a stronger military than Iraq (including countries that actually do have WMDs).  Many Americans, and the despots who Bush is trying to scare straight, will see how our troops have their hands full in Iraq, hear Bush's threat, and wonder "you and what Army?"

Victory?  Not when we're weaker and more vulnerable than ever before. As a Reagan Democrat, I have to tell you I find a lot of comments on this site to be very foolish and this post is the worst. I ask you: What have we won?  Saddam is in prison, his creepy sons are dead and that's winning?  Because of the sanctions, he was already in prison. With 900 American troops dead, 10,000 wounded and Al-Qaeda stronger, I don't see how Bush can claim victory. He has lost so much for us.  He has surrendered our honored place in the world.  The American people will always be winners, but the folks in the White House today aren't.  The only hope for us to keep the legacy of Ronald W. Reagan alive is to remember how far the Bush and the Elites have taken us from his vision.  Victory?  Not when we're weaker and more vulnerable than ever before.  If you are real Republicans, you know this is true.  How can we fix this mess if we don't admit the truth to ourselves?  People, we are going to lose this election because we continue to lie to ourselves.  Victory?  Not even close.

All Bush has to do to counter those arguments is ask the most fundamental question of the Bush Doctrine - should we, as Kerry seems to argue, wait for an attack before taking action. That's a prima facie dumb argument for Kerry to make. If you put that question to the American people, Kerry's arguments won't hold water.

The fact is, Kerry's position on this is issue is both incredibly weak and incredible inconsistant. Between making the case for removing Hussein in clear terms and pointing out that Kerry himself made all the same arguments - and they have the tape to prove it - they can show that if Bush "mislead" us into war, Kerry was right alongside him doing the exact same thing.

In other words, for Democrats who have already come to the conclusion that the war was wrong, your arguments might be effective. For everyone else, Bush can easily show why the Bush Doctrine is critical to maintaining national security.

SO long, friend.

Keep up the good work, Krempasky

You and others who agree with you think we are weaker now.  I and those who agree with me don't.

How can we determine which is correct? Is it even possible?

Let me say you're great for comic relief.

My father is dead, so I can't poll him on these issues, but I suspect that as long as we keep killing bad folks before they can come within spitting distance of killing us, he'd be with Bush with tassels on. Lord knows my mother is.

The bulk of Reagan Democrats either joined the Republicans formally or stopped being Democrats in anything but name over two key realms: Foreign policy and domestic social law. Essentially, they were belligerent populists who thought (not incorrectly) that the Democrats were the party of the three As (no, not the roadside assistance company) and playing patty-cake with the Soviets. I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that the vast bulk of Reagan Democrats won't see anything in Kerry to make them change their minds and come weeping home to their former party; I further suspect most will be voting Bush again this year.

America has been engaged in preemptive activities in the past, often covertly. Our record in this regard isn't very good. We have too often either failed in our intervention, eg the Russian Civil War or supported thugs, eg the Shah or Pinochet. Worse, we have a history of not staying the course. Once we manage to overthrow the thug we don't like and install the thug we do, we go away, assuming that our self-described good intentions are enough. They have proven time and again to be insufficient. When our intervention goes bad, we try to look like the kid with chocolate all over his face saying he didn't have any candy. This is not a partisan problem. Republicans and Democrats have both been willing to get involved in such interventions without considering the long-term consequences.

Unfortunately, there are long-term consequences. Countries have shown that they prefer to suffer under a homegrown dictator than have a new one imposed on them from outside. They carry resentments against those who have been responsible for the new dictators. We have to remember that as we try to implement a working democracy in Iraq. I hope we succeed, we need to succeed, but we have to recognize that this success might not be what we want in the short run. The government that is elected in January may look very anti-American and pro-Iranian and we will have to support it, even if they kick our troops out. Unless we are willing to do that, we will have accomplished nothing.

Our government can state clearly, in a treaty with Iraq, that we will withdraw without question when asked by the elected government. We haven't made it clear enough that we will. We cannot say that the new Iraqi government won't ask, no matter how convinced we are that they will not, since explicitly stating that they won't ask implies that they won't be allowed to ask, not a good thing. I don't expect our troops to be asked to leave while an insurgency exists, but we must avoid the mistakes of the past. We can no longer treat other countries as idiots that cannot run their own affairs.

If he hadn't said that, the criticism against him would make a whole lot less sense.  He indicated that he'd support the legislation even if his amendment failed.  He lied.

. . .I think the best solution to Moby trolls is to find the guy who articulated the idea in the first place (that is, Moby) and permanently attach a gadget to him that zaps him with a significant amount of electricity every time someone makes a Moby troll post on a blog.

OK, I know that wouldn't stop the practice, but at least one could read them knowing that karma was being equalized elsewhere. . .:-P*

*  The preceding comment was not intended to be taken seriously.  After all, in times when energy conservation is being considered seriously, using signficant amounts of electricity to torment an idiot is an unconscionable waste of resources, and should not be contemplated--at least until 24-hour video can be arranged along with it.