Okay I am just asking this because I am preparing for debate/help

[noahmijo]

In the near future I and two other Young Democrats will be debating 3 other members of the Young Republicans in a crowd of I'd say 100 or so from the Public Admin department who will be asking us questions.

No worries we will crush them however this is one little loose end that I have yet to really have a good response for.

The notion when Kerry said ‘Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe we are not safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be President or the credibility to be elected President,’

Now I know this is such bullshit and bogus to bring this up but those slimey repukes will not miss a trick to bring this up I am sure.

So far my answer to this would be that in the context of this statement Kerry was in a bitter battle with his main rival Dean, and said this in the sense that we are in Iraq now we have to do something we need a real strategy and simply saying that "America is not safer" is NOT a strategy that a true president would follow.

Not to mention the notion of America being safer, well if we went and stripped away all guns from Americans in a sense we'd be "safer" but how much safer? what ramifications would it have if we did this?

Also of course this opens the floor up for me to ask "well how exactly is America safer now that Saddam is out of power?"

What do you guys think any ideas?

(And yes we are going to cover every last lie they have spouted and hard hitting facts on everything from Iraq, to the economy, you name it we will have it covered, right now I am focusing on what bullshit lies they are going to try to sling at us.

[JimmyJazz]

1. There is nothing to debate. In New York, John Kerry NEVER

said that the world wasn't better off without Saddam. He said we traded a brtual dictator for chaos. (Obviously, that's paraphrasing). Read the transcript of the New York speech again. You can argue that those statements do not contradict one another in any way. It's just the Republicans doing "the twist"that are making it seem that way.

[jpgray]

2. There are a few ways that argument can be attacked

One, you can deny Kerry said anything of the kind in New York, and you can get by on that, I think.

Another way would be to argue that Iraq is not a static situation. Months ago during the primaries, it still seemed to Kerry as though some real good could come of the Iraq situation. But now the CIA, retired generals and independent analysts all agree--somehow Bush has made the world MORE dangerous in the process of removing Saddam Hussein. And that they could manage to make the world more dangerous by removing a brutal dictator just reveals to the whole world how utterly incompetent their administration of this war has been. Kerry has always argued, from the very day of the IWR vote, for exhausting peaceful means such as inspections, and bringing in the UN from the beginning. Bush did not want to do that, and we and the Iraqis are feeling the effects of his failure right now.

:)

[noahmijo]

4. I actually suspected that he never said exactly this but

I need to see proof got a link to that whole transcript by any chance?

[jpgray]

5. In my view he did say it

"The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

I think it's a weak tack to take to simply try to explain this statement--to me and doubtless others, it will sound like you are having to 'clarify' this simple sentence for Kerry because he said the wrong thing himself. I don't think he said the wrong thing.

[noahmijo]

6. I don't think you're getting the point of this...

Okay they will that Kerry said this ‘Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe we are not safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be President or the credibility to be elected President,’

So right after he said that he said this?

"The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

How does that make the argument look? it looks like a flip flop. What I need to see is the entire transcript which I am looking for all over google and cannot find. I need to see that he was taken out of context.

[jpgray]

9. No. Iraq isn't static

It's not the same country it was in January or February. The last two months in Iraq have been the bloodiest of the occupation, as it becomes increasingly clear Bush's reconstruction and security efforts have been failures. Now it's important for our leaders to recognize this rather than run away from it. We need to recognize that Bush has somehow managed to make the world a more dangerous place by removing Saddam Hussein, and this is the ultimate indictment of his administration, because it is an indication of incompetence on a massive scale.

You're arguing that Kerry's views on Iraq must remain absolutely constant over a period of nine months no matter what happens on the ground? I think that's ridiculous. Desperately trying to parse his statements is a weak-kneed response and a losing tactic. Take what he said, and if it makes sense in the course of events in Iraq, provide that context. More and more Americans agree that Iraq was a terrible mistake, not because they love Saddam Hussein, but because the president has managed to make the world more dangerous by removing him.

[noahmijo]

14. Gotcha you're right that's good Thank You

[jpgray]

16. Note it's been nearly a year since the statement

And since that time Americans have changed their views about whether the war was a mistake, the CIA has issued a very bleak assessment, and many military experts are seeing the entire occupation as being flawed. Kerry is neither alone nor wrong in seeing the situation for what it is. Bush, however, is so obsessed with base political dissembling that he refuses to even recognize the reality of what's happening in Iraq. And I'm sure you'll get some good advice from others in this thread. Good luck. :hi:

It's a fundamental belief of mine that when you are arguing in support of a candidate, it's best to avoid having to parse their statements excessively. If it can be defended successfully without the parsing, I would go for that route.

[Jim__]

10. Here's a link to Kerry's NYU speech

The Speech

My personal opinion is that at the time leading up to the first Democratic primary, it looked like we could win in Iraq. Now, it's clear. We can't win. And this leads to a destabilized Middle East and a far less secure US.

[jpgray]

11. Right--the national polls indicate the same trend

It doesn't make sense to be stuck with a hopeful view you expressed nine months ago if things are rapidly changing and becoming more desperate on the ground. If events make that hopeful view obsolete, there's nothing wrong with changing your evaluation to reflect the changing situation.

[Demit]

12. That "Those who doubted" statement is from Dec 2003...

In December 2003 according to Newsday : "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

The "we've traded a dictator for chaos" is from the NY speech this week.

I think it's important to show how fluid world events are...that in the 10 months since K made that statement look at how the situation in Iraq has deteriorated. It is logical to have a revised appraisal of a situation when the situation changes. It is not logical to cling to a position in the face of new facts. That's called "magical thinking"...

[jpgray]

13. Exactly. It's been almost a year!

And that Bush still parrots the same rosy vision he did on the day he stepped on an aircraft carrier to say 'mission accomplished' shows how out of touch he is on the issue. Americans recognize the situation is deteroriating, Kerry recognizes it, the CIA recognizes it, military experts recognize it--there is one man out, and he is denying reality for base political reasons.

[JimmyJazz]

8. Thanks for the entire sentence. I shouldn't have been so lazy.

If what you are saying is that the statement speaks for itself, then I totally agree.

[nofurylike]

3. i'd say

"look what the media did to Dean for saying that."

Kerry was right that no one who uttered such words at that mooment would ever be allowed to win. maybe Dean knew that, maybe it was poor judgment to think the sheeple would be able to endure hearing that at that particular moment.

btw, i speak as one who supported Dean and believe him a true hero.



peace

[necso]

7. I don't know.

Maybe Kerry like most Americans was really hoping that this whole Iraq thing would turn out for the best.

Maybe he was trying to put the best face on things.

Maybe it was political, in the sense that the country wasn't ready for understanding the problem or that taking an anti-war stance made one unelectable then or something else.

Maybe he was trying to defend his vote to those who could not understand that one can vote for authorization and not intend to go to war.

Maybe he had yet to get enough information then to know the war is (was) a disaster.

Maybe he was saying that removing Saddam was good and just neglecting talking about the aftermath. It is possible that had we had (used) a better plan, things would have worked out reasonably well.

I don't know, but you asked for ideas and I am giving you some. I hope that you take them in the spirit that they are intended.

What I do know is that this Iraq thing is a disaster. But perhaps it could have been avoided with a better plan. It certainly could have been avoided by not invading.

[ConsAreLiars]

15. "Getting rid of a cockroach is a good thing, but ...

doing it by demolishing the house is extremely stupid."

[noahmijo]

17. ohhhh that's goooood thank you

:)

[Bandit]

18. There is some truth to Kerry's statement

Saddam was sitting on top of a big pool of oil. That means money. It was a worry that he would use that money to harm America because he has suggested as much. To the point of his removal it is not apparent that he actually used any of his immense wealth against America but the possibility existed. That is the same rational for removing Chevas or the Iranian Dictator or any foreign leader that has tremendous resources and a strong dislike of America. What is the problem now is that more leaders that may fit that bill are starting to dislike America very much where they did not before Bush* came along. We are setting it up where it becomes urgent we overthrow most of the world's leaders. Empire Amerika is born.

[Dark]

19. I would say

that AT THAT TIME, Kerry was correct. Iraq and the world WAS better off at that time with Saddam gone. The Abu Ghraib situation had not broken out. Sadr wasn't massacring Americans. Americans weren't massacring civilians. We had just caught Saddam.

AT THAT TIME IRAQ WAS BETTER OFF. IT IS TRUE. But, after seeing what a hell Bush allowed it to degenerate into, he did what most thinking people do, he changed his mind.

If they say he flip-flopped, then you just reply that over half of America did too, and that Bush's 'decisiveness' has caused over one thousand AMERICAN families to receive letters rending their hearts with the news of their child's death.

Not to mention the TEN thousand Iraqi families. . .