Kerry's "dizzying contradictions" on Iraq

[patteeu]

An amazing and concise overview of JFKerry's shifting postions on the most important issue in the upcoming election.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27549-2004Sep16.html

Nowhere Left to Flop

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 17, 2004; Page A27

If the election were held today, John Kerry would lose by between 88 and 120 electoral votes. The reason is simple: The central vulnerability of this president -- the central issue of this campaign -- is the Iraq war. And Kerry has nothing left to say.

Why? Because, until now, he has said everything conceivable regarding Iraq. Having taken every possible position on the war, there is nothing he can say now that is even remotely credible.

If he had simply admitted that he had made a mistake in supporting the war, he might have become an antiwar candidate. But having taken a dozen positions, he has nowhere to go.

He now calls Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." But, of course, he voted to authorize the war. And shortly after the fall of Baghdad he emphatically repeated his approval of the war: "It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him."

When Don Imus asked him this week, "Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq, any?" Kerry responded: "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see. I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The president distorted that." But just last month he said that even if he had known then what he knows now, he would have voted for the war resolution.

Is Iraq part of the war on terrorism or a cynical distraction from it? "And everything did in Iraq, he's going to try to persuade people it has to do with terror, even though everybody here knows that it has nothing whatsoever to do with al Qaeda and everything to do with an agenda that they had preset, determined."

That was April 2004. Of course, shortly after Sept. 11, Kerry was saying the opposite. "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally," he said in December 2001. [b]"This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. . . . Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue [with], for instance, Saddam Hussein."

So then Hussein was part of the war on terrorism -- a "for instance" in fighting "terrorism globally." Kerry temporarily returned to that position last week when he marked the 1,000th American death in Iraq by saying the troops have "given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, in the war on terror."

How did Kerry get to this point of total meltdown? He started out his political career voting his conscience on national security issues. During the 1980s he was a consistent, dovish liberal Democrat: pro-nuclear freeze, anti-Star Wars, against the Reagan defense buildup, against the war in Nicaragua. And then he joined the overwhelming majority of his party in voting against the Persian Gulf War.

That turned out to be a mistake. And Kerry suffered for it. The very next year he had to watch as Al Gore, who got the Gulf War right, was chosen for the 1992 Democratic ticket, a spot for which Kerry had been on the short list.

Kerry learned his political lesson. Or thought he did. So when the Iraq war came around, he did not want to be caught on the wrong side of another success. He voted yes.

But then things went wrong both for the war and for him. What did he do? With Howard Dean rocketing toward the Democratic nomination, Kerry played to his deeply antiwar party by voting against the $87 billion to fund the occupation.

Two months later, with Saddam Hussein caught and the war looking better, Kerry maneuvered again, slamming Dean with: "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

Kerry is now back to the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," a line lifted from Dean himself. So we are not better off with Hussein deposed after all.

These dizzying contradictions -- so glaring, so public, so frequent -- have gone beyond undermining anything Kerry can now say on Iraq. They have been transmuted into a character issue. When Kerry went off windsurfing during the Republican convention, Jay Leno noted that even Kerry's hobbies depend on wind direction. Kerry on the war has become an object not only of derision but of irreconcilable suspicion. What kind of man, aspiring to the presidency, does not know his own mind about the most serious issue of our time?

I find the analysis regarding Kerry's first Gulf War vote and the lesson he took from that into his second Gulf War vote particularly interesting.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Speaking of "dizzying contradictions..."

"Had we gone into Baghdad -- we could have done it, you guys could have done it, you could have been there in 48 hours -- and then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

George H.W. Bush, 1999

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/a19990303bush.htm

Too bad junior was too busy listening to those delusions of grandeur he mistook for Jesus.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

. Bush I was a diplomat, a U.N. rep, someone who understood that the value of strong friendships around the world extended beyond the use of armies and weapons. Remember, just as the Vietnam War didn't really end until Ford took office, the Cold War really finally ended while Bush I was the President because the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989. And Bush I had the dignity to not go and stand on the rubble for an image that would be used in political ads. (Yeah, yeah, we know about Bush I and TV ads and what he would stoop to, but, really, and c'mon, stay on topic here.) Why did the Berlin Wall fall without a shot? Because, in part, of Bush I's solid relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev. Because of, well, ****, diplomacy. If the drooling idiots on the right want to compare terrorism and communism, they could at least acknowledge that Eastern European communist nations fell either from internal turmoil or protest, with diplomatic pressure from the outside, not from the big, bad U.S. launching unilateral wars.

[Elevation 5280']

Excellent article patteeu! :yep: :~ohyah!:

[patteeu]

Speaking of "dizzying contradictions..."

"Had we gone into Baghdad -- we could have done it, you guys could have done it, you could have been there in 48 hours -- and then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

George H.W. Bush, 1999

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/a19990303bush.htm

Too bad junior was too busy listening to those delusions of grandeur he mistook for Jesus.


I missed the contradiction part of that post.

What do you think about Kerry's contradictions? Is he going to end this war if he is elected or is he going to do what needs to be done to win it?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I missed the contradiction part of that post.

Then go back and compare Poppy's statements w/ Junior's Iraq policy.

Is he going to end this war if he is elected or is he going to do what needs to be done to win it?

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that the war is unwinnable and is another Viet Nam. (But don't take my word for it--listen to the military experts.)

No matter what he decides to do, there is no way Kerry could botch things as badly as the disaster monkey. You would have to first handicap him by about 50 IQ points.

But if you want to understand Kerry's plan then why not just go to johnkerry.com and get it straight from the horse's mouth?

[patteeu]

I missed the contradiction part of that post.

Then go back and compare Poppy's statements w/ Junior's Iraq policy.

OK, I see. You are talking about a "contradiction" between two different people. What I was looking for was some kind of self-contradiction. You know, the kind JFKerry makes on a regular basis.

Is he going to end this war if he is elected or is he going to do what needs to be done to win it?

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that the war is unwinnable and is another Viet Nam. (But don't take my word for it--listen to the military experts.)

No matter what he decides to do, there is no way Kerry could botch things as badly as the disaster monkey. You would have to first handicap him by about 50 IQ points.

But if you want to understand Kerry's plan then why not just go to johnkerry.com and get it straight from the horse's mouth?

I'd be fine with hearing it from a donkey's mouth instead. Which way is Kerry going to go? Is he going to pull us out or is he going to try to win it or is he going to just squander our resources in a war that he thinks is unwinnable? Tell me if you can.

[Elevation 5280']

You do realize that you are wasting your time patteeu?

labf is completely brainwashed and cannot think for himself.

I toyed with him for a while here, but from previous experience with him, I know you can't reason with this guy.....he is fanatical in his hatred for the President and anything Republican.......place him on ignore as I have....it's the best way to deal with this sort of blind allegiance and ignorance.

[patteeu]

You do realize that you are wasting your time patteeu?

labf is completely brainwashed and cannot think for himself.

I toyed with him for a while here, but from previous experience with him, I know you can't reason with this guy.....he is fanatical in his hatred for the President and anything Republican.......place him on ignore as I have....it's the best way to deal with this sort of blind allegiance and ignorance.


Yes, I understand what LABF is about. I find him entertaining though so I'm willing to poke him to make him speak every once in a while. Usually I ignore him (manually) but I like to see his posts because he comes up with creative nicknames from time to time. I consider him the court jester of this forum.

[Elevation 5280']

Yes, I understand what LABF is about. I find him entertaining though so I'm willing to poke him to make him speak every once in a while. Usually I ignore him (manually) but I like to see his posts because he comes up with creative nicknames from time to time. I consider him the court jester of this forum.

hmmm, I wonder if he realizes what a clown he appears to be?

hmmm...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You do realize that you are wasting your time patteeu?

labf is completely brainwashed and cannot think for himself.


Translation:

"I can't really argue the issues or dispute the facts LABF presents, so I'll just call him a few choice names and declare another imaginary victory.

Works for Rush the Junkie and Sean Insannity."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What I was looking for was some kind of self-contradiction. You know, the kind JFKerry makes on a regular basis.

Looks like somebody watches too much Fox News and reads too much powerlineblog.

The alleged "self-contradictions" the right-wing noise machine routinely attributes to Kerry are nothing more than statements which are taken out of context, spun, and distorted.

Since the bozos who watch Faux News are barely-literate dweebs with the attention span of a gnat, slime merchants like Rove know all that is necessary to persuade such sheep is constant repetition of lies, distortions, and half-truths.


I'd be fine with hearing it from a donkey's mouth instead. Which way is Kerry going to go? Is he going to pull us out or is he going to try to win it or is he going to just squander our resources in a war that he thinks is unwinnable? Tell me if you can.

Kerry has said that he would do what the disaster monkey should have done in the first place, i.e., bring the international community and the UN back to the negotiating table, use diplomacy, (a foreign concept where the current misadministration is concerned) etc.

[patteeu]

Looks like somebody watches too much Fox News and reads too much powerlineblog.

The alleged "self-contradictions" the right-wing noise machine routinely attributes to Kerry are nothing more than statements which are taken out of context, spun, and distorted.

Since the bozos who watch Faux News are barely-literate dweebs with the attention span of a gnat, slime merchants like Rove know all that is necessary to persuade such sheep is constant repetition of lies, distortions, and half-truths.

If that were the case, you'd have converted me by now.

Kerry has said that he would do what the disaster monkey should have done in the first place, i.e., bring the international community and the UN back to the negotiating table, use diplomacy, (a foreign concept where the current misadministration is concerned) etc.

Three questions:

1) Who will he negotiate with?

2) What will be the goal of the negotiations?

3) In the event of failed negotiations, will he bring the troops home, or will he do what needs to be done to win a military victory, or will he keep squandering our resources in Iraq despite believing that victory is impossible?

[rosco]

You do realize that you are wasting your time patteeu?

labf is completely brainwashed and cannot think for himself.

I toyed with him for a while here, but from previous experience with him, I know you can't reason with this guy.....he is fanatical in his hatred for the President and anything Republican.......place him on ignore as I have....it's the best way to deal with this sort of blind allegiance and ignorance.
That's funny, I think the same thing about republicans hence the reason I call them sheep, because they follow their leader aimlessly & without question.

[watermock]

The appeasement strategy. Brilliant. Do you think negotiation was going to go anywhere with the web of corruption between Saddam, the French, Germany, Russia and Annan of the UN?

That's historically worked well with Imperial Japan, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, N. Vietnam, China, Iran's nuclear program, the Sudan, Afganistan, the PLO, N. Korea and now, Canada. Time to turn on "Canadian Bacon" by Michael Moore, an early draft for F9/11.

[Rock Chalk]

Translation:

"I can't really argue the issues or dispute the facts LABF presents, so I'll just call him a few choice names and declare another imaginary victory.

Works for Rush the Junkie and Sean Insannity."

LABF, I hve yet to see you present any facts. All you have presented is a left slanted spin on events. Not necessarily facts, just spin.

Its OK for you to call everyone a ditto monkey or the President of the USA the unelected chimpanzee, yet you whine and complain when someone ignores what you say?

If you ever thought, you would realize your points that you are ATTEMPTING to make would go over a lot smoother without all the childish nicknames. But, instead, you choose to attack those that disagree with your assessment of the current situation.

You, Rohirrim, and Bronco_Beerslug all resort to the same thing.

Which is not to say that the resident right wingers do not do the same, but then again the other day when I came in this forum, the top 15 threads were created by you three brainwashed liberals. Further, when anyone who disagreed with your opinion posted in those threads, they were immediately attacked as being "ditto monkey's" and "idiots".

This is why no one even bother's with you anymore. Its not that we cant argue with credible evidence to the contrary of what you argue with, its just that its pointless when all you do is name call and badger those of an opposing view.

patteu presented you with a question and you never responded. you started the name calling first, you began teh childish antics you have become known for. Not patteu. Not elevation 5280. You.

Bush II did go in with international support. In fact, he had more countries behind him than his father did. Does it matter that France or Russia or Germany were not with us?

Spain withdraws from Iraq, deadly terrorist attack on them. France was against it, terrorists have targeted them and will soon attack. Russia was against it, they have had to deal with terrorism on a consistent basis even before that. Germany has really good security but several terrorist ties have been caught there and plotting and planning of a lot of activities has occured there.

So what would you do LABF? Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people ruthlessly, he was a threat to everyone in his country. People were unable to rise up lest their entire family be destroyed.

So, as a compassionate liberal, do you sit idly by and continue to let a madman kill people for sport? I was under the impression that liberals cared about people, cared about their welfare and cared about freedom, not just for Americans, but for all people.

Obviously, I was mistaken. All they care about (or seemingly) is that Bush is out of office.

[Rigs11]

If that were the case, you'd have converted me by now.



Three questions:

1) Who will he negotiate with?

2) What will be the goal of the negotiations?

3) In the event of failed negotiations, will he bring the troops home, or will he do what needs to be done to win a military victory, or will he keep squandering our resources in Iraq despite believing that victory is impossible?

You Dumbya sheep are hilarious. Iraq is a total disaster and headed towards a civil war, 1000 + americans killed, 7000 wounded, 120 billion spent and what do we have to show for it? Oh yeah that's right, according to the dimwit in charge we are safer. What a facking joke. Dumbya has recruited more terrorists than Bin laden ever could have with his idiot ways. At least Kerry has some sort of a plan. If you ask the cowboy in the white house about Iraq all you hear is the same crap every time "we will not falter", "we will beat those thugs", "the Iraqis are happy" blah blah blah. No plan just a bunch of phrases that you chumps eat up. We've seen what our commander in sleaze has done the last four years. It's time for some leadership.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You Dumbya sheep are hilarious. Iraq is a total disaster and headed towards a civil war, 1000 + americans killed, 7000 wounded, 120 billion spent and what do we have to show for it? Oh yeah that's right, according to the dimwit in charge we are safer. What a facking joke. Dumbya has recruited more terrorists than Bin laden ever could have with his idiot ways. At least Kerry has some sort of a plan. If you ask the cowboy in the white house about Iraq all you hear is the same crap every time "we will not falter", "we will beat those thugs", "the Iraqis are happy" blah blah blah. No plan just a bunch of phrases that you chumps eat up. We've seen what our commander in sleaze has done the last four years. It's time for some leadership.

:thumbsup:

More facts for Alec, Patty, and the rest of the Bush Davidians to ignore.

[watermock]

Look who the cat drug in.

Leadership? The clown Kerry can't decide whether to put laces in or laces out so he does both on either shoe. He's that guy who came to work with one brown shoe, one black.

FYI, the terrorists are bombing the thousands of freed people signing up for the new National Guard. You have the audacity to think the war "created" terrorists? They are just swarming to the flame from Iran, Syria and the crazy fanatical Mullahs that see a chance for a thocracy. These people have been under the heel of Saddam for decades.

These crazy fundamentalist are blowing up anything they can, and have been in Israel, they just wiped out 320 Russian children. They are killing themselves at this point. We will just wait for better intelligence and send some precision guided meat grinders up their little safehouses.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF, I hve yet to see you present any facts...

That's because you and your fellow Bush Davidians are trained to ignore facts--just like your role model dubya (who keeps repeating that everything is coming up roses in Iraq in spite of the facts.)

You're living in a fantasy world of lies and spin perpetuated by the Smirk & Sneer misadministration and its propaganda ministry (Fox/CNN/MSGOP/ABC/NBC.)

[watermock]

I love the deflection from the thread from Kerry to Bush. How predictable and amusing.

What is the title of the thread again you two hacks? The best Rigs can come up is a call for "leadership" but can't even name a solid position that the WaffleKing has come up with.

[patteeu]

You Dumbya sheep are hilarious. Iraq is a total disaster and headed towards a civil war, 1000 + americans killed, 7000 wounded, 120 billion spent and what do we have to show for it? Oh yeah that's right, according to the dimwit in charge we are safer. What a facking joke. Dumbya has recruited more terrorists than Bin laden ever could have with his idiot ways. At least Kerry has some sort of a plan. If you ask the cowboy in the white house about Iraq all you hear is the same crap every time "we will not falter", "we will beat those thugs", "the Iraqis are happy" blah blah blah. No plan just a bunch of phrases that you chumps eat up. We've seen what our commander in sleaze has done the last four years. It's time for some leadership.


OK, smartypants, since LABF hasn't answered my question, and since you say JFKerry has an Iraq plan, why don't you answer it:

Will JFKerry (1) bring the troops home, or (2) if he believes victory is possible, will he do what needs to be done to win a military victory, or (3) will he keep squandering our resources in Iraq despite believing that victory is impossible?

Honestly, I can't tell whether he thinks the war is winnable or not. I can't tell whether he'd increase troop strength/resources or pull out. You say he has a plan, what is it?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

OK, smartypants, since LABF hasn't answered my question...

I answered your question.

It's not my fault that you weren't happy with my answer.

Once again, why not go to johnkerry.com for first-hand info re: Kerry's positions on Iraq?

I know, I know...you're not allowed to read anything that hasn't first been approved by Karl Rove.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Honestly, I can't tell whether he thinks the war is winnable or not.

Iraq is arguably the worst foreign policy quagmire ever created by any US administration. As it stands now, pull out and the region is destabilized and plunges into chaos and civil war. Stay and the region is destabilized and plunges into chaos and civil war.

One thing is certain, IMO: If the war can be won, then Kerry's plan has the best chance of success. Why? Becuase Kerry wants to internationalize the effort and bring the UN back to the process. Our military (and our budget) are strained to the breaking point. Kerry wants to enlist allies who will help shoulder the load, i.e., contribute both dollars and troops. AWOL Boy has not been able to do this because he has chosen a unilateral, go-it-alone policy. Further, cynical as it may be, in order for our allies to become willing to share the burdens of war, they have to be allowed to share in the spoils of war--something which has been precluded by the unmitigated greed of BushCo and its Carlyle/Halliburton cronies.

[patteeu]

Honestly, I can't tell whether he thinks the war is winnable or not.

Iraq is arguably the worst foreign policy quagmire ever created by any US administration. As it stands now, pull out and the region is destabilized and plunges into chaos and civil war. Stay and the region is destabilized and plunges into chaos and civil war.

One thing is certain, IMO: If the war can be won, then Kerry's plan has the best chance of success. Why? Becuase Kerry wants to internationalize the effort and bring the UN back to the process. Our military (and our budget) are strained to the breaking point. Kerry wants to enlist allies who will help shoulder the load, i.e., contribute both dollars and troops. AWOL Boy has not been able to do this because he has chosen a unilateral, go-it-alone policy. Further, cynical as it may be, in order for our allies to become willing to share the burdens of war, they have to be allowed to share in the spoils of war--something which has been precluded by the unmitigated greed of BushCo and its Carlyle/Halliburton cronies.

As difficult as you are making this, I'm going to assume that this eliminates the "pull our troops out of Iraq" answer to my question. Now, I just need to know whether or not Kerry believes the war is winnable? Is he going to win it or is he just wasting blood and treasure? How do all the "quagmire" chickenlittles around here feel about the notion that Kerry isn't going to pull the troops out?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Now, I just need to know whether or not Kerry believes the war is winnable?

I'm curious how you define "winnable" as applied to the Iraq situation? As much as you neocons seem to dislike "nuance," it seems like there is no easy answer to this question--no matter who you support.

How do all the "quagmire" chickenlittles around here feel about the notion that Kerry isn't going to pull the troops out?

First of all, it's incredible that the chickenhawks around here continue to deny that Iraq is a quagmire. I guess such denial is just another example of the manner in which you people lockstep behind dubya--right or wrong. Second, how do you know that Kerry "isn't going to pull the troops out?" If pulling the troops out turns out to be the only option, then my money is on Kerry to do it sooner than a grandiose nutcase like Bush (who thinks he has a direct line to God.)

[patteeu]

Now, I just need to know whether or not Kerry believes the war is winnable?

I'm curious how you define "winnable" as applied to the Iraq situation? As much as you neocons seem to dislike "nuance," it seems like there is no easy answer to this question--no matter who you support.

How do all the "quagmire" chickenlittles around here feel about the notion that Kerry isn't going to pull the troops out?

First of all, it's incredible that the chickenhawks around here continue to deny that Iraq is a quagmire. I guess such denial is just another example of the manner in which you people lockstep behind dubya--right or wrong. Second, how do you know that Kerry "isn't going to pull the troops out?" If pulling the troops out turns out to be the only option, then my money is on Kerry to do it sooner than a grandiose nutcase like Bush (who thinks he has a direct line to God.)


Well I wasn't really clear about your answer in post #24. I interpretted it to mean that you believed Kerry wouldn't pull troops out of Iraq if he were elected. Based on your comment quoted here, I can see that my interpretation was wrong. We are back to square one with my question I guess. What I'm taking from this exchange is that you don't know what Kerry would do. I'm also gathering that you don't have much of an opinion on what should be done except maybe that you are in favor of whatever Kerry ends up deciding to do. That might be enough to get your vote, but I'll stick with the status quo rather than what's behind door number 2.

If any of the rest of you Kerry supporters can explain what Kerry will be doing in Iraq if elected, I'm interested to hear about it.

[Rohirrim]

I think that Iraq is such a mess now that you could resurrect Bismarck, and he wouldn't know what to do about it. I guess the real justice would be for Bush to get re-elected so the nation can see what the Repubs can do to solve all of the messes little Georgie and the neocons have imposed on the country, rather than put the Dems in the position of cleaning it up. In fact, I'm assuming right now that the neocon cabal are going to be re-elected. For one thing, Kerry has run a retarded campaign, and for another, Bush has fanned the 9/11 fear very effectively - and people tend to be reactionary when under the spell of fear. Nothing is as reactionary as neo-conservatism.

But after four more years, the "fruits" of Bush's policies will show themselves in all their glory. After that, I'm guessing it's about twenty years before another Repub has a chance at the White House.

[watermock]

Again, what does this have to do about Kerry? There are plenty "bash the infidel Bush" threads.

The fact of the matter is the "Cabal" is Al Sadr and company. Have you ever seen that demonic man in action? Him and QL Qaeda Chief of Iraq Zaquawri the beheader?

They are fighting like caged animals that want power of theocracy thru Iran. Obviously the biggest problem is the suicide car bombs outside Iraqi's signing up for the National Guard. You think the media is going to put good news out there, how 90% of the country is secured except for the suicide bomber?

Listen, Israel has suicide bombers, Russia has suicide bombers. I am watching 60 minutes to see if DogFace would rear his ugly head and make a statement. All I got was a hysterical rant about the Falusia cemetary.

I'm a little dissapointed noone ever responds to my Debka.com articles. They simply tell the truth about these scum.

Back on topic, I hear that Kerry is really going hardball.

In addition to Comedy Central's "The Late Show with Kilborn" allready, he's lined up for Letterman, Dr. Phil, and Regis and Kathy Lee.

I haven't heard if he will be interviewed by Fox and Friends. Ha!

[watermock]

BTW, Mock is in a pisspoor mood and will be biting anything in sight that moves for the next week.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

We are back to square one with my question I guess. What I'm taking from this exchange is that you don't know what Kerry would do. I'm also gathering that you don't have much of an opinion on what should be done except maybe that you are in favor of whatever Kerry ends up deciding to do. That might be enough to get your vote, but I'll stick with the status quo rather than what's behind door number 2.

Sorry, but the "status quo" is what got us into this mess in the first place. Bush and the neocons have burned far too many bridges and destroyed too much of our credibility throughout the world.

"Character counts," as the conservatives used to say. So far, bush has remained true to character, i.e., he has never taken responsibility for a single failure in his entire life. He's never had to. Bush has never admited to making any sort of error or mistake in his life. Now that he's created a crisis in the middle east, he doesn't show any signs of realizing the error of his ways and admitting he was wrong (or even acknowledging the mess we're in.)

Kerry can give us a fresh start. He is our only hope when it comes to restoring our credibility with the international community. Unlike bush, Kerry has the intellect, integrity, experience, maturity, and--most important of all--the humility to do what's right for America.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If any of the rest of you Kerry supporters can explain what Kerry will be doing in Iraq if elected, I'm interested to hear about it.


Stay tuned!

Kerry too was ratcheting up his attacks on Bush and Iraq, in a speech to be delivered at New York University. The Democrat "will lay out his plan for cleaning up the mess George Bush has made in Iraq," said campaign spokesman Phil Singer.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040920/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq&cid=512&ncid=716

[watermock]

NY University. That's totaly amusing.

[watermock]

Your not back to "square one" unless you can establish it, you never have.

[patteeu]

Kerry can give us a fresh start. He is our only hope...

A fresh start in what direction? The guy's been all over the map on this issue. No one has a clue about what he would really do when he gets in office. I suspect he doesn't even know because he won't know what the polls 6 months from now are telling him to do for another 6 months.

Stay tuned!

Kerry too was ratcheting up his attacks on Bush and Iraq, in a speech to be delivered at New York University. The Democrat "will lay out his plan for cleaning up the mess George Bush has made in Iraq," said campaign spokesman Phil Singer.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040920/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq&cid=512&ncid=716

So is this the really, really, for-sure, trust-me-this-time, seriously-I-mean-it speech? Or will this position be eclipsed by the one he takes two weeks from now (which will be eclipsed by the one he takes in mid-October, etc. etc....)?

[Rohirrim]

A fresh start in what direction? The guy's been all over the map on this issue. No one has a clue about what he would really do when he gets in office. I suspect he doesn't even know because he won't know what the polls 6 months from now are telling him to do for another 6 months.



So is this the really, really, for-sure, trust-me-this-time, seriously-I-mean-it speech? Or will this position be eclipsed by the one he takes two weeks from now (which will be eclipsed by the one he takes in mid-October, etc. etc....)?

I can understand your rabid partisanship, but get your head out of the sand and try for a moment to grasp the truth. How the hell do you expect Kerry to come up with some kind of sound bite to cure our ills in Iraq? Like I said, you could resurrect Bismarck (one of the world's all time greatest strategists) and he couldn't fix this mess.

Bush and Rummy took over the military and created their own war, based on their own philosophies, based on their own strategies, based on their own force reduction policies - and canned the Generals who didn't agree with them in order to carry out their aims. In other words, they have "played army" with people's lives and F-ed it up royally.

Here's what I find funny - the idea that if Kerry can't come up with a "sound bite" solution to Dubya's monumental F-ups, then he doesn't deserve to be President - but meanwhile, we should keep Dubya in there. This concept fails the test of Logic 101.

At the very least, if Kerry does somehow manage to get elected, we know that Rummy, Wolfie, Perle, Rice, etc. are gone. If Kerry does nothing else, that alone would be a vast improvement.

Any serious student of history can study what's happening in Iraq right now and will be "...all over the map..." when it comes to trying to predict what will happen next. In fact, I read numerous columnists doing this every day. That's because Dubya and Rummy, through their grossly negligent lack of planning, have allowed so many options to bubble to the surface - none of which bode well for us.

[patteeu]

I can understand your rabid partisanship, but get your head out of the sand and try for a moment to grasp the truth. How the hell do you expect Kerry to come up with some kind of sound bite to cure our ills in Iraq? Like I said, you could resurrect Bismarck (one of the world's all time greatest strategists) and he couldn't fix this mess.

Bush and Rummy took over the military and created their own war, based on their own philosophies, based on their own strategies, based on their own force reduction policies - and canned the Generals who didn't agree with them in order to carry out their aims. In other words, they have "played army" with people's lives and F-ed it up royally.

Here's what I find funny - the idea that if Kerry can't come up with a "sound bite" solution to Dubya's monumental F-ups, then he doesn't deserve to be President - but meanwhile, we should keep Dubya in there. This concept fails the test of Logic 101.

At the very least, if Kerry does somehow manage to get elected, we know that Rummy, Wolfie, Perle, Rice, etc. are gone. If Kerry does nothing else, that alone would be a vast improvement.

Any serious student of history can study what's happening in Iraq right now and will be "...all over the map..." when it comes to trying to predict what will happen next. In fact, I read numerous columnists doing this every day. That's because Dubya and Rummy, through their grossly negligent lack of planning, have allowed so many options to bubble to the surface - none of which bode well for us.

He doesn't need to articulate an entire war plan in a sound bite. I'd be a little less critical if I could just decipher his position well enough to know whether he has decided the war is unwinnable or not. He doesn't need to be elected to make that determination. He has plenty of access to the current state of affairs to form a judgement on this matter.

For a long time, he was in Bush's hip pocket on this war. Then, when faced with a candidate who was riding high on an antiwar position, he voted against funding for the troops but continued to say that his original vote to authorize was the right decision. Now he's adopted that candidate's slogan ("It's the wrong war at the wrong time") and he's said that he would never have made the decision to go to war under the circumstances. First it was a fight that must be won and now it's a quagmire reminicent of the Vietnam war.

He has such a tortured track record on this issue that anything he says now will be as suspect as the stage props used by CBSNews.

[Rohirrim]

He has such a tortured track record on this issue that anything he says now will be as suspect as the stage props used by CBSNews.

And what would you call Dubya's "... track record on this issue?" Perceptive? Intelligent? Cogent? Far-seeing?

Here's McCain's take:

"Allowing those sanctuaries has contributed significantly to the difficulties that we're facing, which are very, very significant. We made serious mistakes right after the initial successes by not having enough troops there on the ground, by allowing the looting, by not securing the borders. There was a number of things that we did. Most of it can be traced back to not having sufficient numbers of troops there."

The Facts: Shenenski told Bush that it would take 300,000 troops to successfully invade Iraq. Rummy said that number was "ridiculous." Bush fired Shenenski and replaced him with generals who would play ball with Rummy's numbers.

How many U.S. servicemen have died because of this failure in planning?

And now, we're more worried about Kerry's position on how to fix these major F-ups, than we are in the F-ups themselves?

I guess that's one of the "glories" of partisanship.

Like I said before:
At the very least, if Kerry does somehow manage to get elected, we know that Rummy, Wolfie, Perle, Rice, etc. are gone. If Kerry does nothing else, that alone would be a vast improvement.

[Rascal]

Typical an argument about Kerry shifts to Bush. Why don't you guys try to defend your savior who can't come up with a definite idea instead of attacking Bush when he wasn't even the point of the thread.

yes we know you don't like how Bush is hadnling the war, but what about Kerry. I'm not going to vote for somebody just so I won't have somebody else. hell if I was thinking that I would vote for Kerry so Hillary wouldn't run in 2008.

[Rohirrim]

Typical an argument about Kerry shifts to Bush. Why don't you guys try to defend your savior who can't come up with a definite idea instead of attacking Bush when he wasn't even the point of the thread.

yes we know you don't like how Bush is hadnling the war, but what about Kerry. I'm not going to vote for somebody just so I won't have somebody else. hell if I was thinking that I would vote for Kerry so Hillary wouldn't run in 2008.

More partisan BS. If you've read any of my posts (and comprehended them) you know I don't consider Kerry my "savior."

Here's my point on Iraq, in simple language. Let's say that you have played a chess game, and played it badly. You've got your forces misplaced all over the board. You are in danger of getting checkmated within about five moves. Then, you ask an observer of the game his opinion on how to win the game. So he starts saying, "Well, let me see... we can move the Bishop here, no, the Rook is over there. Okay, the Queen... no. His Queen is over there. Hmmmm."

So you say, "You're an idiot. You're all over the place! Why can't you come up with a winning strategy? What a loser."

So now you launch a thread attacking the guy who can't win the game for you. Why don't you launch a thread called, "How the hell did we get in this position?"

[patteeu]

And what would you call Dubya's "... track record on this issue?" Perceptive? Intelligent? Cogent? Far-seeing?

I'd call it consistent for the most part. My biggest criticism would be the decision to opt for a political, Iraqi-centric solution to the Fallujah problem when we had marines in place ready to finish the job. I can understand the decision, and if it had worked it would have been genius, but it didn't work so it was a big mistake IMO. It's fair to call that Bush move a flip flop, but it pales by comparison to the monumental flip flops that Kerry has performed on this issue.

Here's McCain's take:

"Allowing those sanctuaries has contributed significantly to the difficulties that we're facing, which are very, very significant. We made serious mistakes right after the initial successes by not having enough troops there on the ground, by allowing the looting, by not securing the borders. There was a number of things that we did. Most of it can be traced back to not having sufficient numbers of troops there."

You don't have an option to vote for McCain. Besides, I'm looking for a prospective plan not a retrospective critique. Still waiting to hear what we would be voting for if we pull the Kerry lever.

[patteeu]

More partisan BS. If you've read any of my posts (and comprehended them) you know I don't consider Kerry my "savior."

Here's my point on Iraq, in simple language. Let's say that you have played a chess game, and played it badly. You've got your forces misplaced all over the board. You are in danger of getting checkmated within about five moves. Then, you ask an observer of the game his opinion on how to win the game. So he starts saying, "Well, let me see... we can move the Bishop here, no, the Rook is over there. Okay, the Queen... no. His Queen is over there. Hmmmm."

So you say, "You're an idiot. You're all over the place! Why can't you come up with a winning strategy? What a loser."

So now you launch a thread attacking the guy who can't win the game for you. Why don't you launch a thread called, "How the hell did we get in this position?"

Look Rohirrim, it's fair enough for you to take the Anybody-But-Bush position. If you think things are a screwed up as you say, then I don't blame you. But in that case, this thread isn't aimed at you. This thread is aimed at people who claim to be Kerry supporters. People who would like you to think that there is a reason to vote FOR Kerry. I'd like one of those people to answer my question about what Kerry's plan is for what I consider the most important issue in this election.

[Rohirrim]

I'd call it consistent for the most part. My biggest criticism would be the decision to opt for a political, Iraqi-centric solution to the Fallujah problem when we had marines in place ready to finish the job. I can understand the decision, and if it had worked it would have been genius, but it didn't work so it was a big mistake IMO. It's fair to call that Bush move a flip flop, but it pales by comparison to the monumental flip flops that Kerry has performed on this issue.

Consistently wrong. The Fallujah decision is a carbon copy of many Vietnam scenarios. It's what happens when civilians start making military decisions based on political concerns.

How many Americans have been killed by Kerry's (so-called) flip flops?

IMO, the benefit Kerry will have over Bush is that he doesn't have the ideological baggage tied up in Iraq that Bush has. He lived through Vietnam, and knows intimately the mistakes of Vietnam - and won't repeat them. He doesn't have any desire to "play army." I know you guys want to paint Kerry as some kind of huge bogeyman, but he's just a human being, like all of us. Like any President, regardless of party, he will try to make the best of a bad situation for his country. To me, the idea that Rummy et al. will be gone is a huge factor in my vote for Kerry.


You don't have an option to vote for McCain. Besides, I'm looking for a prospective plan not a retrospective critique. Still waiting to hear what we would be voting for if we pull the Kerry lever.

I'm sure his Iraq plan will come out in the debates. I'm assuming that this is a political tactic: What people want to hear the most, save for the best moment. Given the way his campaign has gone so far, I don't know if it's the right tactic. Kind of like having a 3rd and 9 on the 23 yard line with 37 seconds left. Do you kick the FG, or try to gain more yards and burn the clock?

[Elevation 5280']

Look Rohirrim, it's fair enough for you to take the Anybody-But-Bush position. If you think things are a screwed up as you say, then I don't blame you. But in that case, this thread isn't aimed at you. This thread is aimed at people who claim to be Kerry supporters. People who would like you to think that there is a reason to vote FOR Kerry. I'd like one of those people to answer my question about what Kerry's plan is for what I consider the most important issue in this election.

LOL GOOD LUCK!

Like I said, you're wasting your time. These guys are mindless Bush haters. They don't even know why they are backing Kerry. How can they? Kerry doesn't even know where he stands on most issues on a given day!

And now a little ditty sung to the tune of "Big Bad John"....

Every mornin' on the Hill you could see him arrive
Standing six-foot-four, weighing one-twenty-five
Kinda' scrawny at the shoulders and lacking a spine
And when he spoke at all, it was mainly to whine
(Big John) Big Bad John
Nobody seems to know what's in John's soul
His 'beliefs' are based on the latest poll
'Though he'll say what it takes to get your votes
It's the leftist agenda that he really promotes
(Big John) Big Bad John
Some one said he came from Boston town
Where he joined the Navy and gained renown
'Earning' three purple hearts and one bronze star
The home folks said, "This boy will go far"
(Big John) Big Bad John
Then came a day back in '71
When he renounced all the medals that he had won
Then turned against his country and his Navy friends
And sold them out for his own selfish ends
(Big John) Big Bad John
He appeared before Congress and on left-wing talk shows
Giving aid and comfort to America's foes
It was clear to see whose side he was on
Some say he helped cause the fall of Saigon
(Big John) Big Bad John
He claims to be for the working poor
Yet he owns 5 mansions from shore to shore
He never had to work a day in his life
'cause he learned it helps to have a wealthy wife
(Big John) Big Bad John
Now he wants to be our next President
and Commander-in-chief of those he resents:
The American soldiers who fight and die
To give him the freedom to tell us his lies
(Big John) Big Bad John
Thousands have sacrificed their young lives
To help ensure that our nation survives
A vote for Kerry is a slap in the face
To all the brave soldiers that he's disgraced
(Big John) Big Bad John

[Rascal]

More partisan BS. If you've read any of my posts (and comprehended them) you know I don't consider Kerry my "savior."

Here's my point on Iraq, in simple language. Let's say that you have played a chess game, and played it badly. You've got your forces misplaced all over the board. You are in danger of getting checkmated within about five moves. Then, you ask an observer of the game his opinion on how to win the game. So he starts saying, "Well, let me see... we can move the Bishop here, no, the Rook is over there. Okay, the Queen... no. His Queen is over there. Hmmmm."

So you say, "You're an idiot. You're all over the place! Why can't you come up with a winning strategy? What a loser."

So now you launch a thread attacking the guy who can't win the game for you. Why don't you launch a thread called, "How the hell did we get in this position?"

WTF are you talking about? And yes I have read your posts and you never ever say anything against Kerry. Hell I'm a bush supporter and even I accept the fact he has screwed up on several things. Since you never say anything against him, only how he has ran his campaign, I have no choice but to conclude that you consider him to be your savior.

The thread was discussing Kerry, but as usual you guys spin and backpeddle enough for it to become a bush bashing contests. Why don't you stand up for your candidate and defend him and answer the freaking questions about his flip flops.

[Rohirrim]

Aside from all the partisan banging, here's my honest opinion of what I think Kerry is up to. He's a smart enough guy, it seems to me. So, he takes one look at Iraq and realizes the same thing as any other fairly smart person would, if they just coldy looked at the facts of the situation. You have two choices:

Choice One: Pull out! Fast! Let the chips fall where they may.

Choice Two: Cobble a force together of at least 100,000 soldiers and get them over there as quickly as possible. After sending that force, make immediate plans to get together another 100,000, because you're going to need them too.

Bad news - If you tell the American people during a campaign that you are going to make either of these choices, you're going to lose.

Talk on the Hill is that Bush has already decided to do the largest call up of Reserves and Guards since WWII. He's just saving it for after the election. He won't be saying anything about it either.

[Rascal]

Bad news - If you tell the American people during a campaign that you are going to make either of these choices, you're going to lose.


So basically he doesn't have the balls to tell us his true opinion and expects people to vote for him anyway. Yet another reason why I won't vote for this guy. Bush has his flaws but at least I know his opinion on things and won't change his current state of mind just to help his polls.

[Rohirrim]

So basically he doesn't have the balls to tell us his true opinion and expects people to vote for him anyway. Yet another reason why I won't vote for this guy. Bush has his flaws but at least I know his opinion on things and won't change his current state of mind just to help his polls.

Yeah, I remember during the 1860 election how Lincoln kept telling everybody how he was going to emancipate the slaves. Or 1940, how FDR kept telling us he was going to make sure we got involved in WWII.

You're right, though. You do know that Bush is not going to change his opinion - no matter what happens. rofl

[Rascal]

your comparing Kerry and his lack of balls to Lincoln deciding to free the slaves or FDR having no choice but take us into war after we were attacked by a foreign country (not just terroists)?

Good grief that his pathetic.

That is the worst analogy I have ever heard.

[Rohirrim]

Who's apologizing for anybody? Not me. FDR knew we would have to get involved in WWII before Pearl Harbor. He was already helping the Brits fight Hitler under the table. The majority of Americans at that time were strongly isolationist. If he had "told the truth", he wouldn't have been elected. Lincoln, I'm sure, realized that his policies and beliefs would eventually lead to the Emancipation Proclamation. Had he run on that "truth" he would have lost the election.

Right now, Bush and Kerry both believe that Iraq must be won, and both are saying they will do what it takes to win. What neither of them will tell us is that they will be forced to send more troops. A lot more. And soon. Don't be surprised to see the draft re-instated as early as next summer, no matter who wins. There are only 450,000 people in the Army right now. That's just not going to cut it. Neither of these candidates is going to mention these "truths."

Kerry's policy statement is this: He will immediately convene an anti-terrorism summit of European and Arab nations. He will double the number of Special Forces. He will beef up the national intelligence network and integrate it with other international anti-terrorism networks to find out who the terrorists are, where they are, and what their plans are. He will re-invigorate the search for OBL with Special Forces and reclaim the losses in Afghanistan.

Regarding Iraq, both candidates face the same "truth." More troops. Like I said, don't expect either of them to say that out loud.

[Rascal]

Who said anything about an apology? I never said anything about it. You need to read more carefully.

The only thing I can figure out is if you think analogy=apology.

And no, I don't think Kerry would stay in Iraq, but then from what he's said who in the hell knows what he would do.

[patteeu]

Aside from all the partisan banging, here's my honest opinion of what I think Kerry is up to. He's a smart enough guy, it seems to me. So, he takes one look at Iraq and realizes the same thing as any other fairly smart person would, if they just coldy looked at the facts of the situation. You have two choices:

Choice One: Pull out! Fast! Let the chips fall where they may.

Choice Two: Cobble a force together of at least 100,000 soldiers and get them over there as quickly as possible. After sending that force, make immediate plans to get together another 100,000, because you're going to need them too.

Bad news - If you tell the American people during a campaign that you are going to make either of these choices, you're going to lose.

Talk on the Hill is that Bush has already decided to do the largest call up of Reserves and Guards since WWII. He's just saving it for after the election. He won't be saying anything about it either.

I believe you are on to something in the cases of both men. I suspect that both guys would come out in favor of intensifing our effort to quash the insurgency after the election. I wouldn't be surprised to see more aggressive moves against insurgency hotspots like Fallujah in the name of pacifying the area for the upcoming elections.

I have more confidence in Bush fighting to win this war in his second term than I do in Kerry in a first. Half of Kerry's core constituency are in favor of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. He would be under a lot of pressure to avoid completely alienating that wing of his base. But Kerry can't even nail down his own position. At least he hasn't up to this point.

[Rohirrim]

I believe you are on to something in the cases of both men. I suspect that both guys would come out in favor of intensifing our effort to quash the insurgency after the election. I wouldn't be surprised to see more aggressive moves against insurgency hotspots like Fallujah in the name of pacifying the area for the upcoming elections.

I have more confidence in Bush fighting to win this war in his second term than I do in Kerry in a first. Half of Kerry's core constituency are in favor of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. He would be under a lot of pressure to avoid completely alienating that wing of his base. But Kerry can't even nail down his own position. At least he hasn't up to this point.

This is one of those areas where I give the leg up to Kerry. Bush has already shown all of us what he will do, and how he will do it: Purely unilaterally. I know Bush likes to keep hawking his "coalition", but let's face it, the U.S. is supplying 80% of the troops and 100% of the money. Plus, his F-up of getting us in this mess in the first place for fraudulent reasons (IMO) shouldn't go unrewarded. Throw his ass out. Bush's strategy has been a monumental failure - why would the next four years be different?

I like Kerry's idea of calling a summit (similar to a G8) to devise an international plan to combat terrorism. I know that Bush has no chance whatsover of getting any kind of int'l support. In the first place, he doesn't believe in it, and in the second place the rest of the world hates his guts. The other thing that people fail to take into account is that Bush is not going to cut lose any contracts from Halliburton or Exxon Mobile in order to lure in more support from stronger allies. He's made it clear that as far as infrastructure goes, they are carrying the ball. Period. Of course, they've used a very small part of the infrastructure money so far - a crucial element in the insurgency. The Senate is now trying to figure out where the money went.

If Kerry was going to cater to the anti-war constituency, he'd do it now. It would only help him in the election. I believe he understands the geo-political realities of Iraq. There's not much more you can do now than succeed at whatever the costs. I also agree with him that Bush has pretty much F-ed it up every step of the way. I keep wondering how fully half the American people keep making fun of Kerry's vote to authorize Bush's Iraq policy, but then don't hold it against Bush for the failure of implementation - as if the vote of the Senator created more of a problem than the actions of the Executive who implemented the policy?

Anyway, like I said before, IMO the key to success in Iraq is to get Rummy's fingers out of it. Bush will never go that route.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is one of those areas where I give the leg up to Kerry. Bush has already shown all of us what he will do, and how he will do it: Purely unilaterally. I know Bush likes to keep hawking his "coalition", but let's face it, the U.S. is supplying 80% of the troops and 100% of the money. Plus, his F-up of getting us in this mess in the first place for fraudulent reasons (IMO) shouldn't go unrewarded. Throw his ass out. Bush's strategy has been a monumental failure - why would the next four years be different?

:thumbsup:

Very well put, and I quite agree.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/4bandyears.jpg
http://www.bartcop.com/pressdog.jpg