PREMATURE CEASE-FIRE is the new ARTIFICIAL TIMETABLE.

[BuyingThyme]

Before Iraq, the Powell Doctrine, withdrawal timetable and all, was an accepted standard. But once Chimpy needed an excuse to stay in Iraq forever, all he had to do was throw the word artificial out there, and the stupid people became forever content with the concept of endless war.

Now it's all about the premature cease-fire. The stupid people now believe that there can be no peace if the bombing stops.

Stupid people suck.

[breakaleg]

1. Basically what they are saying is they don't want a ceasefire

because they don't want to give up their bargaining power too soon.

If they stop bombing Lebanon, it's viewed as a win for Hezbollah.

[regnaD kciN]

2. The next thing you know...

...the PNACers will be claiming that calls for a ceasefire constitute demands that Israel "cut and run." :eyes:

[BuyingThyme]

4. You're right. That will happen.

They'll tie it in to Iraq.

[Truthiness Inspector]

3. John Kerry isn't stupid and he agrees

Do you want a REAL end to the violence, or a band-aid?

[BuyingThyme]

5. It took him two years to get off the ARTIFICIAL TIMETABLE.

Hopefully he will get off this before killing so many people.

[Truthiness Inspector]

6. You didn't see his statement did you?

He sees things clearly, even if you don't.

[BuyingThyme]

7. Well, you make a great argument.

[Truthiness Inspector]

9. Here it is

I can't tell if you are being genuine or sarcastic, but here is the thread I started earlier about this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1792229&mesg_id=1792229

[BuyingThyme]

10. Yep, he said some very stupid things.

Throughout history, cease-fire has saved countless lives. But now that John Kerry has been handed a talking point, cease-fire can only fail.

But don't worry; he'll change his mind tomorrow.

[Truthiness Inspector]

11. He can think for himself

Sure a cease-fire would save lives...none of them Jewish. John Kerry knows that.

[BuyingThyme]

12. Where did he say that?

What other thinking have you done for John Kerry?

[Truthiness Inspector]

14. Did you read the link?

Senator Kerry was clear in his statement.

[BuyingThyme]

15. Then why did you make something up and try to attribute it to him?

[Truthiness Inspector]

16. Wait a minute

I am not trying to put words in his mouth, this is what he said (again):

KERRY: No, look, Israel was attacked. Israel had its soldiers kidnapped. What would we do if our soldiers were kidnapped? I think we would respond.

And Israel responded against an entity that is a terrorist organization, fully committed to its destruction without ever wavering from that statement. Now, when you've got thousands and thousands of rockets that are aimed at you, some of them coming into your country, you're ultimately forced to respond.

Now, had there occasionally been incidents, like the other day where it is regrettable for Israel, for everybody who is supportive of it? Of course. Obviously, that can hurt.

But what we need is the kind of sustained effort to focus on the real problem here, which are people who want to destroy the state of Israel and will not allow for its existence, and that has to change.

[BuyingThyme]

19. You forgot the part where cease-fire saves lives, but none of them Jewish.

Oh, wait, those are the words you wrote for John Kerry.

[Truthiness Inspector]

21. Those were my words

I did not mean to attribute those to Senator Kerry. I didn't realize that was the point of contention, so I apologize for that confusion.

If you read what he said, he is crystal clear on Hezbollah's agenda, and what it means for Israel if Hezbollah is not stopped.

[karynnj]

17. Kerry said to try for a ceasefire

The key element that is different is DIPLOMACY. Kerry said a few months ago that "War is a failure of diplomacy". Here, the Bush administration avoided diplomacy for years and this is the result. The OP has editted out many things Kerry said, leaving only statements that on their own don't capture the main point - DIPLOMACY is needed here.

Did you think the 48 hour ceasefire that Israel had - during which there still was bombing was good? They need a real ceasefire with some force that can stop both Israel and Hezzbollah.

[BuyingThyme]

18. Every other president in your lifetime would have called for a cease-fire.

I know this, because every one did in similar situations.

But the Chimp sent Sleezzy over there to call for more war, giving us this premature cease-fire talk. And John Kerry, as usual, took the bait. He looks as bad as does the worst president in the history of the United States.

[karynnj]

23. There was not been a comparable situation

In the past, there have been nations against nations. You can get a cease fire there.

Here, you have a terrorist organization that the state it is in says it can't control fighting a nation - between whom should the cease fire be? The Lebanese government is not attacking Israel, Hezbollah is. A cease fire between Israel and Lebanon stops Israel. Will it stop Hezzbollah or change it's long term goal? That is the complexity.

Rice is doing very little real diplomacy, Bolton is doing none - Kerry is for them doing the diplomacy needed.

[BuyingThyme]

24. You couldn't be more wrong on the facts.

This situation has played out over and over and over and over and over. And the first move for every U.S. president has been to call for a cease-fire.

[karynnj]

25. I actually think the situation is more serious for the reasons given

This is not a fight between nations or violent civil unrest within a country. I also DO think it is imperative to get a cease fire as soon as possible. But it has to be in conjunction with immediately working on stopping it from reoccuring. Has Hezbollah said ONE thing about changing its gosl?

Every American President would have been involved in keeping the peace - as Kerry said he would have. That was the first thing he said. (It's also a not a unique position - Clark said it wouldn't have happened if he were President - for the same reason.)

I think you are taking the one sentence out of context. Kerry said we need to try for a ceasefire that would be sustainable (I take this to mean that it would hold). (Israel had a 48 hour ceasefire - that it announced and it was used by both to do pretty much what Kerry spoke of. That is the type of cease fire that long term may be useless and cynical - making people destrust the word "ceasefire".)

[BuyingThyme]

27. The first step is always to call for a cease-fire. Then you work at it.

John Kerry has taken the Chimp bait. Calling for less than a cease-fire has done nothing but green-light more killing. This is a complete lack of leadership. Kerry and other would-be leaders are still too scared to speak out against our regime. And it's still costing people their lives.

[karynnj]

28. I disagree

First of all, Kerry's complete response is for a real cease fire. The use of "sustainable" doesn't negate that - especially as he explains it in his next paragraph. That he wants the root causes worked on makes sense.

Second of all, even if he and every Democratic leader uniformly said there should be a ceasefire (though how you get Hezbollah to really agree to a cease fire is beyond me), it would not change one thing. What could have changed things is for Bush to have done some diplomacy in the last 5 years.

I seriously don't think Kerry is "scared". He speaks out all the time and even did in 2002, when other Democrats criticized him for it.

[BuyingThyme]

30. I think you miss the absurdity of the situation.

Until we were blessed with a fascist Chimp, the immediate response was always to call for a cease-fire. Period. That's who we were.

Now we are a war-mongering monster and people like yourself are not able to see how crazy this is. This is simple stuff.

[karynnj]

31. I actually have followed this for years

I don't recall a call for cease fire in 1967 or 1972.

You are also not following what was said - when 2 nations are involved and the US or others call for a cease fire, if it is agreed to - both sides stop. Here Israel called a cease fire - then almost immediately made exceptions - and when it ended Hezbollah struck back harder.

Here was Kerry's answer:

COLMES: Should there be an immediate cease-fire?
KERRY: I think it is important to try to have a cease-fire. It has to be, as people have used the word, sustainable. It can't be a cease-fire where you're just advantaging people to arm and to come back and kill you.

So you have to have something that makes sense. I believe that means putting troops into the region in order to act as a buffer and working on the fundamental issue of Hezbollah, which means ultimately strengthening the Lebanese government itself and strengthening their ability to be able to separate from Hezbollah.

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

This is very close to what we've done in the past in the Terrorist group/Israel situations. The point is that no one in the Bush administation wants anything to do with diplomacy. He also doesn't want to look at the roots and the culture etc - because that is 180 degrees away from his philosophy. That type of think is what Kerry has always spoke of.

This Noah Feldman article that was online but seemed to miss the print NYT help me see Bush's mindset and why he genuinely wnats to be uninvolved. (Kerry who called war the failure of diplomacy is night and day different from Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/21/magazine/30wwln_lede.html?ex=1154664000&en=ad13990297bba5e3&ei=5070

[karynnj]

13. That is not fair

Kerry's 2004 Iraq position laid out at NYU would have had troops starting to leave in 2005. He didn't use the only words you wanted to hear - "immediate withdrawal". In 2004, he could give a plan with the expectation of leading it, here are things said:

-rapidly train Iraqis (Bush rejected the offers of Eqypt , Jordan, France and Germany to train many Iraqis simultaneously - Kerry asked Rice about it in early 200.>)

- no permanent bases (said in debates)

- involve Iraqis in reconstruction giving them a stake in things working

- an immediate summit to leverage the desire of the neighbors for stability. Kerry would have done this first thing.

Note that his October 2005 plan had many similar elements reduced because the options were worse and he was pushing Bush.

The media in 2004 told you this was the same as Bush - it wasn't - look at the list did Bush really do anything Kerry spoke of. The media and the Republicans argued there was no difference to try to retain people in the middle. Kerry even went on Letterman and explained his plan very simply in 30 seconds.

[BuyingThyme]

20. Well, you created some nice assumptions, but what's not fair?

Kerry was so scared about taking about a withdrawal timetable that he refused to use the words (withdrawal timetable). He went with "estimated timetable for success which will permit the withdrawal of our troops." Not a timetable for withdrawal, mind you, but a timetable for success. He ran as far from a withdrawal timetable as he could get.

[karynnj]

22. He did not run as far as possible

which would of course be not to mention it at all and not to support it. (Look at all but the 13 who voted for it) As, to 2004. if you looked at any polling in 2004, even amoung those who thought we should not have gone in - the majority were against the idea that we should just leave. In 2004, mentioning that some troops might leave as early as 2005 was gutsy.

Kerry's NYU plan came as close as possible - he also did think it would still be possible if he won to bring a measure of stability through an immediate summit. That, to me was the main think he said. The Republicans said Bush was for the same thing - yet the SFRC Senators, including some Republicans, were speaking of the absence of diplomacy as recently as last month. If it would have worked, things would be much better. If it didn't, Kerry would likely have done what he said in Oct 2005 and April 2006.

Kerry's goal was to win - if parsing the words differently than you would do made it more likely, then he did the right thing.

I did not lay out "nice assumptions", the NYU speech, that the Kerry campaign labelled as their definitive Iraq speech, exists - I think I fairly extracted reccomendations. The media did repeat Republican statements that Kerry's plan was Bush's - Bush did not have a speech to explain his. They were not the same. The only conjecture I made was that the Republicans did this to minimize the differences. (I think they tried to hide Bush's real plan and to make Kerry's seem less acceptable to Kerry's base by saying they were the same.)

[BuyingThyme]

26. What you see as a parsing of words, I see as a deadly lack of leadership.

John Kerry's first instinct is to run with Bush and away from doing what is right. At this time, anything less than a call for cease-fire is a total failure in leadership. And the only reason Kerry is calling for less, is because he's once again following the Chimp.

Win?

[karynnj]

29. You have to be pretty extreme to see Kerry as "running with Bush"

On Iraq, he, feingold, Harkin, and Boxer are leading the position the furthest away from Bush.

On Israel, he is strongly against Bolton and strongly in favor of using diplomacy to work on the root causes that cause these wars. There may not be 41 Senators who are willing to stop Bolton. Schumer cites Bolton's support of Israel. Feingold's initial (and I think only) comment on the Israel/Lebanon war was out faster and more unambiguously pro-Israel.

If Kerry were following Bush, would he be asking Bolton why he refuses to speak to Syria and why he did next to nothing on disarming Hezzbollah. The problem is NOT that Kerry is following Bush - it's that he is not doing exactly what you think is right. Read the full response - on this thread - to Colmes question. I repeat, your problem is that he used a word that Bush used - even though everything he said in that cease fire quote sounds like Kerry.

[mmonk]

8. You've mastered double speak.

Soon, you will control any amount of mindless followers you seek. Running for office?