Maybe kerry was right?

[ticatfan3]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6463.html

In the 2004 presidential race, John Kerry offered a very clear approach as to how the United States should deal with Iran: have the international community offer Iran nuclear fuel to be used in a peaceful nuclear energy program. As Kerry put it at the time, "We should call their bluff and organize a group of states that will offer the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they can't divert it to build a weapon."

Nonsense, said the Bush gang, which argued such an approach would effectively be "appeasement." Condi Rice dismissed Kerry's approach, telling Fox News, "This regime has to be isolated in its bad behavior, not quote-unquote 'engaged.'" Frank Gaffney Jr., a former Pentagon official and Bush ally, knocked Kerry's plan in an op-ed entitled, "Kerry's Nuclear Nonsense." Gaffney boasted, "Mr. Bush understands the folly of going that route." National Review ran an item calling Kerry's proposal "ignorant" and "dangerously wrong."

But Kerry was unyielding, insisting that this was the best approach, even working his idea into an answer in one of the presidential debates. ""I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together," Kerry said. "The president did nothing."

That was 2004. Now, suddenly, after deriding Kerry in the campaign for his dangerous ideas, Bush is staring to think, "You know, maybe that Kerry guy was on to something."

President Bush's endorsement of a plan to end the nuclear standoff with Iran by giving the Islamic republic nuclear fuel for civilian use under close monitoring has left some of his supporters baffled.

One cause for the chagrin is that the proposal, which is backed by Russia, essentially adopts a strategy advocated by Mr. Bush's Democratic opponent in the 2004 election, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.

"I have made it clear that I believe that the Iranians should have a civilian nuclear power program under these conditions: that the material used to power the plant would be manufactured in Russia, delivered under IAEA inspectors to Iran to be used in that plant, the waste of which will be picked up by the Russians and returned to Russia," Mr. Bush said at a news conference yesterday. "I think that is a good plan. The Russians came up with the idea and I support it," he added.
Maybe so, but he was against the idea before he was for it.

Just out of curiosity, any chance we'll see National Review blasting Bush's new approach to Iran as "ignorant" and "dangerously wrong"? Or maybe Condi Rice will explain why the idea rewarded Iran for bad behavior when Kerry recommended it, but it's brilliant leadership when Bush recommends it?
__________________

[thegame]

I won't know what to think until Fred Barnes tells me what I should think.

(Sarcasm alert)

[Jro]

What would Kerry have done when they turned down the offer? War?

[smaweet]

Must we also talk about Kerry's TV interview where he was telling the reporter he is one of the FIRST senators to push for military action in Iraq. Kinda funny how that changed later on when the primaries came around.

Despite what all the hippies thought, Kerry has always been pro-war. He just wanted to finish up in Afghanistan first.

[Meathead]

What would Kerry have done when they turned down the offer? War?
yeah its just that simple

[Meathead]

that technique only works on stupid people jro you should drop it

[Jro]

Well what would he have done? If you don't know just say so.

[JLB]

Kerry lost right?? I thought so thank all the intelligent voters who saw through this dumbass.HOW COULD ANYONE TRUST THE CRAP THIS GUY WAS DISHING.

[Jro]

No one trusted Kerry. They just trusted Bush less. Like Meathead. The problem with that logic is you are left defended someone you don't even like.

[TRIPLE P]

Kerry lost right?? I thought so thank all the intelligent voters who saw through this dumbass.HOW COULD ANYONE TRUST THE CRAP THIS GUY WAS DISHING.

You're talking about trust, and using it as a reason why voting for Bush was a good thing....

[TRIPLE P]

No one trusted Kerry. They just trusted Bush less. Like Meathead. The problem with that logic is you are left defended someone you don't even like.


Nobody SHOULD trust anybody ever again.... the Presidency will never be a trustworthy office....

Nobody can handle that sort of responsibility anymore.... its a position of the corrupt and underqualifyed

[Meathead]

oh yeah i know. im a swami and can predict every move he would have made. oh and if i cant then id have no valid points. does that sum it up?

a. this idea that to criticize the horrendous decisions this King has made you must have a comprehensive plan of your own is preposterous. the sins of the dummy stand obvious on their own

b. its also nobodys responsibility to come up with solutions to the current dilemma to be disgusted with his performance as (hahaha) leader. if a ceo ******** up a company you dont ask the shareholders for a plan before you fire his ass. of course with a partisan congress hed have to sever infants heads with a butter knife to get fired, but that still doesnt give you reason to tell me to put up or shut up

c. and if thats not enough, i for one did have a plan and im sad to say it would have avoided most of the major pitfalls the have caused this to horribly blow up in our faces if we had followed it. im sad because if i knew those things three years ago why the hell didnt our (hahaha) leader?

leave this partisan gotcha talking points crap to the jackasses. we need smart people focusing on the real issues not the Roveanetics® cloud of empty spin

[Meathead]

yes you are correct i didnt like kerry. but junior was already the wpe in my book and i woulda voted for a rutabega before that silver spoon train wreck

as much as i didnt like kerry i was quite stunned that when he began outlining his view on how the war on terror and iraq in particular should have been approached cuz it was remarkably similar to what i had been saying. i found that unnerving at first but frankly it makes sense. it made sense then, it makes sense now, and as time goes on the very things i was concerned about are happening

the problem is we didnt listen to him. he got drowned out by the masterful deflection abilities inherant in Roveanetics® (flip flop, swift, heinz) that made the real issues completely invisible. combine this with the chest beating euphoria of kicking some ragheads ass who three days before the election tells us we must vote for kerry, well, the truth really didnt stand a chance

not that i was right about everything because i wasnt. and i dont like trumpeting this too often because a) i look even more like an arrogant jerk and b) it pisses me off that i can ******* up my own life and yet nail this one right between the eyes

but i did nail the big things. and many of them are exactly what kerry outlined. that doesnt make him MY candidate, but it certainly made him a BETTER candidate

of course that would also qualify to a block of cement

[Meathead]

many people have their political affiliation so wrapped up in their identity that they will hate the president no matter what if they are not from their party. they will even condemn or applaud the same exact behavior depending on which party is in office. two excellent recent examples are ronnie and bubba - both terrific presidents (in pretty different ways, btw) who brought peace and prosperity yet they were hated by partisans simply because they werent a pachyderm or a burro. oh if you ask them theyll deny till the cows come home thats why, but thats why

no, to us that have been around a while (and paid attention), there is plenty-o-reason to consider this the real wpe. in fact its a slam dunk

dont be confused by the extensive liberal bias you can also see in much of the hatred, that hasnt changed. but what has changed is very smart and reasonable people who are long time conservatives that are disgusted by the performance of this miserable team of loser leaders

i could come up with a long list just off the top of my head of people who are all smart and either self-defined conservatives (the old “good” kind of conservative, not the neo-fascist kind that has slinked back into prominence lately) or moderates with conservative leanings who are appalled at what has happened to that partys philosophies

the reason i remind us all of this is because partisan blindness is crippling us, and its getting worse. it is retarding our ability to make good decisions as a collective consciousness (two words: reelection). instead of focusing on issues and performance, we waste most of our cycles trying to “win”. it has become less important to make the right judgment than to simply dominate the other side

in fact, we are so steeped in empty partisanship that weve developed the inability to NOT see partisanship instead of legitimate gripes. many of the things weve seen develop lately that have hurt us greatly were predicted (not at all difficult, btw, if one only considers the lessons of history we should know by now) and yet completely ignored amid cries of partisanship when it wasnt at all part of that particular criticism

and now were starting to see the fruits of that dysfunction - a war that will continue to take a lot of blood to win; historic democratic elections electing terrorist organizations; the consideration of torture as a legitimate means; casual attitude toward the intentional bypassing of laws by the executive branch (say that again); unprecedentedly vicious campaign lies; complete disregard for advise and consent responsibilities crucial to the balance of power concept so critical to our society

unfortunately its probably going to get worse before it gets better. given the low approval (and even more important the unprecedentedly dismal “truthfulness” rating) this administration has, were probably looking at a pretty sweeping changes in voting patterns the next half decade. i personally expect a swing back to liberalism, maybe even to the opposite extreme that it is now (not at all a good thing, btw). those in power know this so theyll be working on putting every far right thing they can in place until theyre gone. then well be spending all our time tearing that down to put liberal elements in the next cycle. granted, its always been that way, but everything is magnified greatly now, leading to severe waste, dysfunction, and social trauma

the best way by far for us to minimize that type of thrashing is to drop our partisan blinders and look at the issues from an objective standpoint so that they can be debated and good judgments made. the issues we face are terribly difficult enough, we certainly dont need this revolting devil taking up permanent residence on our shoulders mucking everything up

look at it this way - were either going to learn the easy way or the hard way. well either get our asses kicked in the middle east and create terrorist democracies that are hard to deal with, or we will listen to and consider the issues before we go storming into other countries with guns blazing, to use a cheap example

frankly, im not holding my breath. the partisan divide is so vast and we are so invested in winning that specific war at all costs that were going to thrash about like this for at least another five years. still, if we as individuals can try to not buy into the baseless blindness we might be able to help clarify things to ourselves and others that will start to guide us out of this mess

whos with us?

sigh

just as i thought

well its not enough but its a start

[ticatfan3]

Well what would he have done? If you don't know just say so.It is hard to say what he would have done, but he was willing to give it a chance for it to work or find out if they were bluffing and the main point in what he said was to see if they were bluffing. But it is funny how he was ripped by the bushies and now ,they think it might be a good idea.

[smaweet]

I think Kerry would have done better if he didn't use the orange spray-on tan stuff. That's just a disgrace putting that stuff on.

At least Bush smoked pot.