Tuesday, August 10, 2004
i found this, from reuters, interesting:
GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters--Patricia Wilson) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.
Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."
and the challenge?
BUSH CHALLENGE
Bush last week challenged Kerry, who Republicans accuse of flip-flopping on Iraq by voting for the war resolution and against the $87 billion request to fund operations, to say straight out if he would have voted the same way if only to eliminate the danger that Saddam Hussein could have developed weapons of mass destruction.
"Now, there are some questions that a commander-in-chief needs to answer with a clear yes or no," Bush said. "My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq."
what i find interesting about this is that, despite patricia wilson's 'contextualizing' remarks, as far as i can tell from bush's words quoted here, he didn't ask if kerry would have voted that the president have authority to order an invasion (though perhaps bush implied in other remarks that he was speaking directly of the congressional vote mentioned by kerry--anyone know?). to my knowledge (although i'm not positive about this), bush was given such authority for military action by congress after 9/11. in the case in point, as told by the direct quotes in reuters, bush asked specifically whether kerry would have supported the actual, real invasion which took place (not a potential invasion which comes hand-in-hand with 'authority'). i guess it's expecting a lot to hope for john kerry to speak clearly about ANYTHING AT ALL, but still.
i also enjoyed his apposition in this statement:
"My goal, my diplomacy, my statesmanship is to get our troops reduced in number and I believe if you do the statesmanship properly, I believe if you do the kind of alliance building that is available to us, that it's appropriate to have a goal of reducing the troops over that period of time," he said.
his use of grammar tells me that he equates 'goal', 'diplomacy', and 'statesmanship', as though a 'goal' is not the end toward which the means of 'diplomacy', the techniques of which are presumably fostered out of some sort character- and intellect-based 'statesmanship', work. his 'goal' is in fact (to take him at his word, which, admittedly, is risky business) to 'get our troops reduced in number'; but i would assume that his 'diplomacy' comprises negotiation, coordination and the like with other nation-states; and his statesmanship? well, who can say.
i know i'm being picky with his incredibly sloppy use of his own native language, but it only seems fair when every one of bush's solecisms (and several made-up mistakes to boot, such as the feces/fetus 'story') are plastered across my internet. after all, kerry's the intellectual candidate, right?
GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters--Patricia Wilson) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.
Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."
and the challenge?
BUSH CHALLENGE
Bush last week challenged Kerry, who Republicans accuse of flip-flopping on Iraq by voting for the war resolution and against the $87 billion request to fund operations, to say straight out if he would have voted the same way if only to eliminate the danger that Saddam Hussein could have developed weapons of mass destruction.
"Now, there are some questions that a commander-in-chief needs to answer with a clear yes or no," Bush said. "My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq."
what i find interesting about this is that, despite patricia wilson's 'contextualizing' remarks, as far as i can tell from bush's words quoted here, he didn't ask if kerry would have voted that the president have authority to order an invasion (though perhaps bush implied in other remarks that he was speaking directly of the congressional vote mentioned by kerry--anyone know?). to my knowledge (although i'm not positive about this), bush was given such authority for military action by congress after 9/11. in the case in point, as told by the direct quotes in reuters, bush asked specifically whether kerry would have supported the actual, real invasion which took place (not a potential invasion which comes hand-in-hand with 'authority'). i guess it's expecting a lot to hope for john kerry to speak clearly about ANYTHING AT ALL, but still.
i also enjoyed his apposition in this statement:
"My goal, my diplomacy, my statesmanship is to get our troops reduced in number and I believe if you do the statesmanship properly, I believe if you do the kind of alliance building that is available to us, that it's appropriate to have a goal of reducing the troops over that period of time," he said.
his use of grammar tells me that he equates 'goal', 'diplomacy', and 'statesmanship', as though a 'goal' is not the end toward which the means of 'diplomacy', the techniques of which are presumably fostered out of some sort character- and intellect-based 'statesmanship', work. his 'goal' is in fact (to take him at his word, which, admittedly, is risky business) to 'get our troops reduced in number'; but i would assume that his 'diplomacy' comprises negotiation, coordination and the like with other nation-states; and his statesmanship? well, who can say.
i know i'm being picky with his incredibly sloppy use of his own native language, but it only seems fair when every one of bush's solecisms (and several made-up mistakes to boot, such as the feces/fetus 'story') are plastered across my internet. after all, kerry's the intellectual candidate, right?
