If Kerry gets elected....

[The Duke]

If Kerry gets elected, Iran will blow Israel off the map, Iraq will descend into chaos as Kerry pulls out troops, and the United States will suffer at least two mega-terror attacks.

[The Duke]

If Kerry gets elected, Iran will blow Israel off the map, Iraq will descend into chaos as Kerry pulls out troops, and the United States will suffer at least two mega-terror attacks.

Yeah, and North Korea will invade California, Moktada al-Sadr will declare himself ruler of the Islamic world, France will blow the Statue of Liberty up... and Mount St. Helens will erupt.

"And there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder; and there was a great earthquake, such as there had not been since man came to be upon the earth, so great an earthquake was it, and so mighty. The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. [...] And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And huge hailstones, about one hundred pounds each, came down from heaven upon men; and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, because its plague was extremely severe."

Rev 16:17-21

Does Kerry have a serious plan for dealing with Iran, yes or no?
Is Iran developing nuclear weapons, yes or no?
Does Iran have a hard on for Israel, yes or no?
Exactly.

Did Kerry say he'll be out in six months, yes or no?
Can we fix Iraq in six months, yes or no?
Exactly.

Did Kerry support weakening the Department of Homeland Security, yes or no?
Did Kerry oppose civil defense measures going back to the Cold War, yes or no?
Did Kerry claim he would get rid of or at least water down the USA PATRIOT Act, yes or no?
Exactly.

Every point I made can be backed up by the reality we face.  All you have is sarcasm that you can't back up.  Stop being so European.

[The Duke]

If Kerry gets elected, Iran will blow Israel off the map, Iraq will descend into chaos as Kerry pulls out troops, and the United States will suffer at least two mega-terror attacks.

Yeah, and North Korea will invade California, Moktada al-Sadr will declare himself ruler of the Islamic world, France will blow the Statue of Liberty up... and Mount St. Helens will erupt.

"And there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder; and there was a great earthquake, such as there had not been since man came to be upon the earth, so great an earthquake was it, and so mighty. The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. [...] And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And huge hailstones, about one hundred pounds each, came down from heaven upon men; and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, because its plague was extremely severe."

Rev 16:17-21

Does Kerry have a serious plan for dealing with Iran, yes or no? YES
Is Iran developing nuclear weapons, yes or no? YES
Does Iran have a hard on for Israel, yes or no? YES
Exactly. NO

Did Kerry say he'll be out in six months, yes or no? NO, HE SAID SOME OF THE TROOPS COULD BE HOME WITHIN SIX MONTHS, DEFINITELY NOT ALL OF THEM
Can we fix Iraq in six months, yes or no? PROBABLY NOT, BUSH HAS MADE A MESS
Exactly. NO

Did Kerry support weakening the Department of Homeland Security, yes or no? DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN
Did Kerry oppose civil defense measures going back to the Cold War, yes or no? DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN
Did Kerry claim he would get rid of or at least water down the USA PATRIOT Act, yes or no? HE SAID HE'LL REMOVE THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PARTS OF IT
Exactly. NO

Every point I made can be backed up by the reality we face. NO All you have is sarcasm that you can't back up. NO Stop being so European. I AM EUROPEAN

Really, what is the Kerry plan?  From what he said in the debates when he said he'd give Iran nuclear fuel to test their "good will", I'd say his plan isn't all that serious.

As for the Homeland Security Department issue, Kerry supported a plan that would unionize all employees of the Department, thereby meaning that they could be on strike at any time including time of national emergency.  This would render the department essentially non-functioning.  The Army isn't unionized, and there's a reason.  Why would Kerry sell out to special interests on this question?  Because he doesn't take homeland security seriously to begin with.

As for the Civil Defense question, Kerry authored a Massachussetts law as Lt. Governor declaring that Boston would refuse to participate in civil defense measures that could protect its citizens from Soviet attack.  He claimed that even having a civil defense system was an unnecessarily threatening posture, and would anger the USSR.

Kerry has said that he wants to begin withdrawals within six months.  Never mind the lunacy of setting time tables in these situations in the first place (a fact that should make us reject the Kerry plan on its face), and never mind the obvious fact that you cannot simultaneously increase the training of Iraqi forces (Which Kerry claims he'll do) while withdrawing the very US forces that will be training them, there is a deeper problem with his plan than even these obvious contradictions.  He has already demonstrated through this claim a tremendous lack of dedication to the defense of the US, the defense of US allies, the defense of US interests, and the human rights of Iraqis who deserve a free state.  He has said he favors stability over democracy.  Can you say realpolitik?  Sounds to me like he pins his hopes on making Allawi an Iraqi Mubarak and pulling out US troops.

I am well aware that you're European, I just said you should drop the European mindset that we've somehow evolved beyond war and conflict and that soft power can solve our problems.  There is no empirical evidence to support the European worldview, which you seem to hold.

[The Duke]

Nym,

Its not that they're publci employees, its that they're security officials.  If the Army can't unionize, why should FEMA workers?

I don't blame employees for strikes.  I also don't blame management.  I blame union leaders who would try and pull some stunt at an inopportune time.  We saw that danger when the air traffic controllers went on strike, they nearly shut down the skies before Reagan fired them all.

[The Duke]

If Kerry gets elected, Iran will blow Israel off the map, Iraq will descend into chaos as Kerry pulls out troops, and the United States will suffer at least two mega-terror attacks.

John you are a smart guy (and my fellow UAC member)  You can't seriously believe your own claim. Iran is developing nukes, but they aren't so mad that they would use them. Why hell they would do it? Israel and USA would strike back ten times harder and radioactive pollution would kill a LOT of Arabs in Israel, West Bank, Gaza and neighbour countries.

The Problem is North Korea with the bomb and Al-Qaida dealing with Koreans.

You also know that Kerry will not withdraw from Iraq.

I know that Kerry will withdraw from Iraq.  Put these two Kerry quotes together:

"Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." -2004

"How do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -1971

This is who John Kerry is.


Iran doesn't have to deliver the bomb themselves.  Hizbollah can do it for them.  If Iran has no intention of using the bomb, and the bomb only brings more threats and attention to them, why even build one?  The answer of course is to gie it to Hizbollah and have them wipe out Israel.

[The Duke]

This demonstrates the difference between a smart person and a rational person.  A smart person has the ability to process information and come to a solid conclusion, a rational person however, is one who chooses to use that ability.

It is clear to me that most liberals are smart, but few are rational.

2+2=4, but some liberals don't want it to equal 4, so they claim that it really equals 5 or 3 or 629.  Clinton and his claim that oral sex didn't fit the legal definition of sex is a perfect example.  He was smart enough to come up with a round about way of reaching a conclusion, and justified it effectively, and managed to convince people of this, and yet it was one of the single most irrational beliefs any human being has ever come up with.  Was CLinton stupid?  No, he was irrational.  He was smart enough to fnd a way that 2+2= something other than 4.

Same with Iran.  Let's say Iran gave Hizbollah the bomb.  A liberal would say this could never happen, because it would be traced to Iran.  Would it?  Of course not.

It could be a rogue Pakistani like AQ Kahn.  It could be cash strapped North Koreans.  Kerry talks a lot about Russian loose nukes.  Would his first inclination be to believe that his beloved Iranian mullahs are responsible or would his first inclination be to believe that his pre-existing thesis that Russian loose nukes are the real threat had proved true?

So Iran getting away with this is not only conceivable, but almost certain.  How would America prove the bomb came from Iran?  How would we show that this isn't another case of faulty intel like Iraq's WMD?  We couldn't.  And that would mean we fail Kerry's own global test.

2+2=?

[The Duke]

Nym,

My point was not whether Clinton should be impeached, it is to show that smart and rational are two different things.  Clinton came up with the answer he wanted to arrive at and was smart enough to find a way to get it.  That is smart, not rational.  Rational is what 99% of Americans did, which is to say "That Clinton guy is full of crap, of course he had sex with Monica."

Whether he should be impeached or not is a seperate argument, and has automatic "right" answer.  My feeling is that the Constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors", not "high crimes and misdemeanors that might affect job performance".  However, there is a rational other side on the impeachment question, whereas there is no rational claim, no matter how clever, that exists regarding the question of whether he did or did not have sex with that woman

I think Huck Finn's claim on Iran is similar.  He is trying to rationalize his candidate's position, and he's smart enough to find a way to ease his own mind.  However, the objective reality is that Kerry's position on Iran is hazardous, and in the debates he offered the Iranians nuclear fuel with no (verifiable) strings attached.  This is psychotically irresponsible.  Not only is Huck's defense of Kerry irrational, even though he himself is undeniably smart, but Kerry's position itself is also irrational.  Kerry tries to explain why Iran isn't so dangerous and confrontation isn't required to stop them, just as Huck tries to explain why Kerry actually can defend America and Israel.

Kerry wants Iran to be a non-threat.  So he finds a way to explain it as such.
Huck wants Kerry to be defensible on the issue of Iran.  So he finds a way to explain it as such.
Clinton wants to be innocent of banging an intern.  So he finds a way to ecplain it as such.
All are smart people, yet none are being rational.