Funmurphys: the Blog

Substance over Style

Some substance-over-style reactions that echo my sense of last night's presidential debate. First from the Kerry Spot's roundup of reader comments in More Debate Reaction Than You Can Shake A Stick At (bullets added):

3) "While John Kerry showed poise and looked presidential, I think he is still flip-flopping on Iraq and the war on terror. To summarize his comments:

• It's the wrong war at the wrong time, but I'm committed to winning it;
• We're spending too much on Iraq ($200 billion), but I'd send more troops and equipment;
• I'll bring in more nations to help Iraq, but the other nations currently in Iraq were coerced and do not provide much assistance; Saddam and Iraq were a grave threat, but Osama is the only terrorist worth pursuing;
• Terrorists are pourng into Iraq, but Iraq is a distraction to the war on terror.

I still have no idea what he would do as President to fight this war on terrorism."

Next from the comments section of Reached Down Deep for a Good Post in the In DC Journal

While many viewers of the debate may not pick this up, I think Kerry took some extremely troubling positions in the debate:

1. His idea that taking preemptive action to protect the US should meet some "global test"...his codeword for unanimous international approval, something which is almost impossible to get
2. His idea of bilateral talks with North Korea. Clinton tried this and got snookered; this is what has led to our problems with NK today. Bilateral talks are a codeword for appeasement: basically, the US tries to buy NK cooperation, but of course NK cannot be trusted. Bush is 100% correct in that the only way to apply meaningful pressure to NK is through multilateral talks, largely because of the influence China has over NK. And Kerry's assertion to do both is laughable; once we give NK what they want in bilateral talks, the multilateral talks collapse. Once again, Kerry is trying to have it both ways.
3. His idea to abandon the nuke bunker busting bomb. This is reminiscent of his idea of a nuke freeze during the Reagan era: simply disastrous. Here is a weapon that could really strike fear into the heart of a man like Kim Jung Il and force him into cooperation, and Kerry wants to abandon it. Simply sickening. Basically, Kerry is establishing a moral equivalence between the US and these rogue states: since we are equivalent in Kerry's mind, all we need to do is to stop building nukes, and they will as well, for they have the same motivations we do. It's all so simple, see: we make nice, they make nice. Appeasement all over again.
4. His bizarre scheme to give nuke fuel to Iran: again, more appeasement, and reminiscent of Clinton's deal with NK.

I must say with the 4 above points, any one is sufficient to reject Kerry. One cannot overstate how disastrous those 4 policies of Kerry would be to the US.

Posted by: Another Thought at October 1, 2004 10:06 AM

Ask yourself this: you’re a dictator who has violated the terms of a peace treaty over and over again, and frequently shoots at the planes enforcing the treaties. Who do you fear the most?

1. The magnificent concert of allies in the UN, some of whom you’ve bought off, who are desperate to prove their legitimacy by prolonging the process into the 22nd century
2. The United States, Britain and Australia, who have several hundred thousand troops on your border and frankly are in no mood to put up your crap any longer

There are some substantial differences between the candidates, and once you peel back the anything you can do I can do better atttacks there are some serious contradictions in Kerry's positions. September 11, 2001 changed a lot of things, and adjusted our national priorities. I don't really get that in Kerry's remarks.