How kerry won

By Dennis Prager
© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.


This column, which could be titled, "Whatever your position on Iraq, John Kerry is your man," is dedicated to Sean, a listener who called my radio show the day after the presidential debate. He enabled me to understand why most people believe John Kerry won the debate.


Sean explained that he was an opponent of the war in Iraq and only now could he finally vote for John Kerry. I asked him what Kerry said that confirmed that the Democratic candidate was his man.


Sean: "I believe he has a plan." (Kerry said he has a plan some 12 times.)


Prager: "A plan to do what?"


Sean: "A plan to withdraw our troops."


And then I understood: No matter what position you hold about American foreign policy and the war in Iraq, John Kerry holds your position.


Sen. Kerry accomplished this so subtly that recognition of it had eluded me.


Voters who want America to leave Iraq and voters who want to stay there and win – both heard Kerry say exactly what they wanted to hear.


Voters who want America to act alone in the world when the world disagrees with us and voters who want America to proceed only when we have the international backing and an alliance with others – both heard Kerry say exactly what they wanted to hear.


Voters who believe the war was a colossal mistake and voters who believe that our soldiers in Iraq are fighting for a noble cause – both heard John Kerry say exactly what they wanted to hear.


Voters who want to believe that John Kerry has almost magic-like plans – to get more allies, to leave the war, to win the war, to end the North Korean and Iranian nuclear threats – heard John Kerry say exactly what they wanted to hear.


Even voters who share Michael Moore's conspiratorial theories about the war and the Bush presidency heard what they wanted (in Kerry's reference to Halliburton).


Regarding the war and foreign policy, there is no segment of America that John Kerry did not appeal to.


Here are direct quotes from John Kerry in the debate.


On staying in Iraq:


"I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning."


"Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq."


On leaving Iraq:


"And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there ..."


"I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam."


What was it that John Kerry "learned in Vietnam?" To leave a war he regarded as a mistake.


On America acting alone:


"I'll never give a veto to any country over our security."


On America acting only with world support or within an alliance:


"But if and when you do it (act alone), Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test ..."


And what if acting alone does not pass "the global test"? Then presumably we won't act alone. Kerry made references to the need to be in Iraq in alliance with other nations eight times.


On the war being a mistake:


"This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment."


"The president made a mistake in invading Iraq."


"The war is a mistake."


On the war being important enough to have to win:


"I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that."


After hearing Kerry call the war a mistake, the moderator Jim Lehrer asked the logical question: "Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?


John Kerry's answer: "No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that I'm offering."


Now what does that response, arguably the most important thing the senator said in the debate, mean? Does it mean that American soldiers won't die for what John Kerry continually labels a mistake because he will prosecute the war more effectively? Or does it mean that Americans won't die for this mistaken war because he will leave Iraq and then there will be no mistake to die for?


The answer, again, is that it can mean either.


I believe that this debate can lead to only one conclusion: Either John Kerry is a man of few principles who will say almost anything on the most vital issues of life and death in order to get elected; or he is personally so confused on this issue that he will repeatedly make self-contradictory statements.


There is no other explanation for this unassailable fact: John Kerry won the debate because he sounded better; and he sounded better in large measure because he got away with saying whatever any voter wanted to hear.


That is one reason President Bush looked so annoyed at times. It is very hard for the principled to listen to the unprincipled.

Pretty good read HuH!
Steve From Texas - How is you day going, as good as mine?

quote:

---

Sean: "I believe he has a plan." (Kerry said he has a plan some 12 times.)


Prager: "A plan to do what?"


Sean: "A plan to withdraw our troops."

---

LMAO....a plan to draft ya mean.

Man you guys are just as bad as the guys you bitch about, doesn't that bother you, you support everything your candidate says and debunk everything of the others and yet you laugh and go right on feeling all righteous and all knowing. Kerry said the the reason for going was the mistake, not the war, that Saddam needed to be handled just not under false pretenses or lacking evidence. Which has been "proven" (so say the wonderful sources of information we have) to be the case, we went in on the premise of impending immediate danger not just cause Saddam isn't very nice, and now we are there and we find no evidence of this impending danger, as a matter of "fact" since there, other dangers that have been claimed to have been worse than Iraq even before Iraq, have gotten worse still, Korea, Iran etc. If its wmd's they are worried about, well they already told us they have em or are working on them respectively.

I don't know for sure what either candidate is really trying to say will be the direction of all this war talk, but as it stands now, we have to invade some 60 countries or such to follow through with this war on terrorism. Where does that fit in?

You guys can try to nit pick either candidate all you want on symmantics and past possitions, god knows there are enough inconsistencies on both parts. Though hearing you talk it is only Kerry who has ever changed his mind or possistion.

Especially going off of what they repeated in the debate, jesus do you have any idea how many times bush said Kerry was inconsistent, and that fighting a war in Iraq is hard work, it was is if he didn't have anything else worth saying, and you guys say what to that? Oh its the most brilliant debate you have ever heard on Bush's part and he had such good points. I just see bush as saying trust me, and since for various reasons so many people seem to for no good reason, they listen.

IMO, to quote a funny beer commercial, this is all a "travishammockery!", and most of your basises for argument are no deeper or knowledgeable than of those you argue and claim as wrong.

If you were really ever worried about a draft, you might have first thought to think more about war in the first place, especially a war on an idea, a world spread and cockroach like idea no less.

Kerry's position on Iraq makes sense. It was a mistake to go in the way Bush did, BUT, now that we are in, now that Iraq is broken, the USA has to fix it.

ya but don't expect them to see it that way, it devalues such fun terminology as flip flopping that they probably invented. That and Kerry isn't allowed to make sense, because then he is just telling people what they want to hear, where as sweet innocence pure truths just dribble right out of ol' bush, mr had a drinking problem did my coke got the underage drinking daughters while in office no less (good parenting epitimized by there own freaking standards right?) No possible personal (dad, by his own words) or oil based desires for invading Iraq out of the blue, na, no worries there, no just telling people what they want to hear, ohnest injun.

Pat, even if you thought the economy was in great shape, you are bound to feel otherwise when the debt ends up in your lap.

IF Kerry had been in office in 911, he would have ran with his tail between his legs to the UN, and got a global ok to defend america....

Now thats what a wimp would do.
WE dont need to get an ok from the UN...since they themselves are up to their eyes in fruad.
They stole from the 'Oil for food program' and therefore are pretty biased.

ADDING also, we dont need permission as a free nation to defend ourselves.

His wimpo policy of a global test is preposterous.
OH FRANCE, CAN WE GO AFTER THOSE WHO ATTACKED US?
NO, YOU CANT BECAUSE WE SUPPLIED THEIR AMMO.

ESPECIALLY since there is an agenda from the UN. A crooked group who has vested interests would say NO, you may not, and here we would sit...terorists all over beheading, killing, and having just a massive orgy of death fests.

NOT in my opinion was Kerry good. And again, he thinks we need more troops...not just those trained, and decidedly desiring to defend our country...but everyone who is aged 18 to 25...or 35 depending.

Bush's war made sense. We went in, took down evacuated buildings, assembled the civilians and armed against terrorists.

The nation is free from a dictator, and we are free from the threat of Iraqi security officials who were in part of the World Trade Center bomb in 1993...

etc etc

quote:

---

Pat, even if you thought the economy was in great shape, you are bound to feel otherwise when the debt ends up in your lap.

---

All truth be known, we have a lower rate of unemployed when Clinton was in offcie, and have managed to keep our heads above the water when Clinton was leaving office with a horrible track of the declining economy...

But anyway, the economy works this way.

Lower the taxes, lower the interest rates, and let the ppl continue to spend their money. YOU cannot have an economy without those 2 factors.
Increase taxes, and the interest rates inflate, you have no money to spend and the economy goes broke.

With the natural tendency to spend, the taxation will equal to US having to burden it all.

Ok..
Joe buys 2 cars instead of 1...
.the taxation is equal to buying one and having a higher tax bracket that ill affords him to buy the 1 which he buys out of necessity,.However, he has the ability now to spend his own cash to purchase two. HE has something to show for the taxes he spent....
where as he wouldnt if he was just generally taxed out of his wallet....struggling to buy even one car.

Taxation is the reason we had a revolutionary war.

Less taxes, more spending. Better economy.
The deficit can be paid thru the spending taxes.

BTW, Kerry wants to add .50 to the already high priced gas.

Gas prices go up anyway too, you gonna blame bush anytime soon for anything, jesus christ, your fuckin golden boy is no saint, our government gives reason to believe that it may be far more crooked than the UN, Bush probably just saw them as a threat to his I'll have all the oil from children policy, I'm gonna have to start talking like you, because with all your research you have never said one bad thing about Bush since my coming to this site.

I believe Kerry would have gone to Afganistan. I believe he would have gone to Iraq only if he had rounded up enough allies to win.

Ya, I haven't even bothered to acknowledge the rediculousness of Pat's particular Kerry bashing, she is proving herself to be quite the closed minded individual, which is good for starting debates but no so much for having them. Its amazing the hypocrisy some can embrace so strongly. And usually they don't even realize it, sad really, these are the ones most likely to go out and vote too.

Pat (and steve) I don't know if you realize that you represent your candidate when you talk like that, and that doesn't make him or his supporters any more attractive or credible, so keep it up would you, Kerry could use the help

BUCK FUSH!!!

GO ANYONE BUT BUSH GUY!!!

Is this thread a debate or a cock fight? Whoa that bamtam cock sure gets the feathers ruffled?

quote:

---

haven't even bothered to acknowledge the rediculousness of Pat's particular Kerry bashing

---

I would have to agree with your thoughts to an extent. The Man (Bush) deceived the public by misrepresenting the involvement & the danger of Iraq to consolidate His presidency. He directed to anger & fear to Iraq to give a common cause to the war which opened a whole can of worms. Who ever is the next president will pass long ago as we seek to deal with the wormwood that is infested by it.