i just wanted to post this comment from mike on wunderkinder.org, in response to this post by the crazy ass dellis:

Read Kerry's speech on national security today. I just read it twice, and I still have no idea where Senator Kerry stands. He ruthlessly attacks President Bush for not building a "true coalition" in Iraq, and he repeatedly mentions that we must "return to the international community" and "share authority" with other nations. But a few paragraphs into the speech there is this curious sentence: "And while we should seek allies, we must never give anyone else a veto over our national security."

So what does Kerry really mean here? Should we have given in to France in '03 or not? If there is a similar situation in the Kerry presidency, would he seek the approval of the "international community" or would he "never give anyone else a veto our our national security?" These are two conflicting ideas. We know where President Bush stands, but Kerry wants to have it both ways.

Moreover this speech completely obfuscates Kerry's positions on the Iraqi war. Kerry states that "We were misled about weapons of mass destruction. We are misled now when the costs of Iraq are not even counted in the President's budget." But then Kerry goes on to say that he will not pull out of Iraq. Does Kerry support President Bush's decision to invade Iraq or not? If he does, he should say so. If he doesn't, he should state why, and then he should outline what steps he would have taken to contain Saddam when all the mechanisms of containment were broken (no fly zone, sanctions, troops in Saudi Arabia, etc.)

The Kerry campaign is driving me bananas because his speeches are fundamentally illogical. In my experience unclear arguments are the products of either cluttered minds or poll-driven one-liners that don't fit together. Either way I think Senator Kerry owes it to the American people to clarify his foreign policy views.

and now mike's response:

Ellis, once again you are pushing the party line, forcing the opposition to think as simplistically as your own leaders. You and your party label every subtle policy and complex argument as two-faced or indecisive, because as history has shown over and over again, the simplest propaganda is the most powerful (and dangerous -- think Stalin, Hitler, Mao). You'd like to hear the president speaking in broken and repetitive simple sentences rather than confusing you with even a hint of complexity. You are afraid of complex and non-absolutist thought (i.e. everthing opposed to extremist, fundamentalist, absolutist, non-conservative, radical thinking). It's shameful. It reveals and underestimation of yourself, of the American people, and of the possibility of having a thoughful democracy.

There is nothing duplicitosus about Kerry's belief that the USA should collaborate with other nations as much as possible while also believing that we can act in our own interest when necessary. You project your own extreme opinions onto Kerry. Maybe he doesn't think that destroying foreign relations and pursuing a dubious effort in Iraq were in our national interest, in light of the fact that Bush misled him about the danger posed by Iraq.

Second, there is nothing wrong with opposing the war yet believing that the USA must finish its job in Iraq. In fact, it's a very noble position (in contrast to the Spanish position). When you label Kerry's position as "indecisive" you don't say anything about him: you only reveal your own bias and distaste for complexity. Ellis, as much as you may want the world to fit into neat pigeonholes, with everything colored black and white (e.g. absolute unilateralism or absolute multilateralism), the world will not conform to your simplistic desires -- nor will it conform to this Administration's kindergarten approach to geopolitics. Democracy and dialogue will prevail over radical governance and propaganda.

Kerry and America were misled by White House zealots who told us to trust them (in simple statements) while they dragged us into a war that has since been shown to be outside of our national interest and perhaps detrimental.

What should Bush have done about Saddam? He could have contained him until Saddams violations were so terrible that the world community could have done nothing other than act. I mean, I don't want to get into the war argument here, but give me a break: it wasn't like we had only 2 choices, attack Saddam immediately or suffer a massive WMD attack on US soil. If you believe that, well, maybe you aren't capable or interested in reasonable argument. Probably the latter, given your love of The Party.

Rraaar.

so well put.