posted
The following letter was sent to John Kerry's supporters yesterday. Let's not hear any more about how John Kerry and George Bush are the same on the Iraq issue. There IS nuance to this issue, no matter how much people use the term to dismiss the differences.
quote:Dear Nathan,
This election is about choices. The most important choices a president makes are about protecting America at home and around the world. A president's first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals.
Three years ago, the events of September 11 reminded every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight and to win the war on terrorism.
In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America's ideals. We must reach them.
To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.
To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America's strength -- strong alliances, to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America's power -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values -- each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.
National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made and the choices I would make to fight and win the war on terror.
That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.
This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops -- and nearly 90 percent of the casualties -- are American. Despite the president's claims, this is not a grand coalition.
Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When I speak to them when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do and what is still to be done.
In June, the president declared, "The Iraqi people have their country back." Just last week, he told us: "This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march."
But the administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story.
According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people.
So do the facts on the ground.
Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis.
42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July -- 66 in August and already 54 halfway through September.
And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August -- more than in any other month since the invasion.
We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times -- a 400% increase.
Falluja, Ramadi, Samarra, even parts of Baghdad -- are now "no go zones" -- breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.
Violence against Iraqis from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation is on the rise.
Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.
Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day.
Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school.
Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.
Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.
But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence instead of siding with us against the insurgents.
That is the truth -- the truth that the commander in chief owes to our troops and the American people.
It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.
The president has said that he "miscalculated" in Iraq and that it was a "catastrophic success." In fact, the president has made a series of catastrophic decisions from the beginning in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction.
The first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people.
He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.
By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.
His two main rationales -- weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection -- have been proved false by the president's own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.
The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq.
He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. He didn't tell us that he wouldn't take the time to assemble a broad and strong coalition of allies. He didn't tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn't tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured.
And America will pay an even heavier price for the president's lack of candor.
At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security.
Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace -- as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted.
In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: "The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."
How many world leaders have that same trust in America's president, today?
This president's failure to tell the truth to us before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war.
The president now admits to "miscalculations" in Iraq.
That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment -- and judgment is what we look for in a president.
This is all the more stunning because we're not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings... major outside studies... and even some in the administration itself... predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq.
This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences.
The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong.
They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong.
They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong.
They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong.
They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.
In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself.
In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.
General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was retired. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired. After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the UN -- and he rejected it. He even prohibited any nation from participating in reconstruction efforts that wasn't part of the original coalition -- pushing reluctant countries even farther away. As we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision was. Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism?
By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low.
Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were... and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12, headlines in newspapers abroad declared "we are all Americans now." But through his policy in Iraq, the president squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world.
We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the vice president claimed, "reconstituted nuclear weapons."
The president's policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America.
Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this president's watch -- the emerging nuclear danger from Iran -- the tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia -- and the increasing instability in Afghanistan.
Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11 in order invade Iraq.
We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda.
The president's policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States.
We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world.
The president's policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.
Let me put it plainly: The president's policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it.
Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority.
The power entrusted to the president gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.
A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: "If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." He said that military action wasn't "unavoidable."
Instead, the president rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.
Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.
Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's not a reason, it's an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them?
I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein -- who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.
The president's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer. It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the commander in chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the president himself. If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be.
In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands. But we cannot throw up our hands. We cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America's security for years to come.
All across this country people ask me what we should do now. Every step of the way, from the time I first spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out specific recommendations about how we should and should not proceed. But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.
Five months ago, in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the president was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day, this president makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq -- harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago. It is time to recognize what is -- and what is not -- happening in Iraq today. And we must act with urgency.
Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said we're "in deep trouble in Iraq ... it doesn't add up ... to a pretty picture [and] ... we're going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy." Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments.
We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq.
First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.
Last spring, after too many months of resistance and delay, the president finally went back to the U.N. which passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do -- but it was late.
That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops, trainers for Iraq's security forces, a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission, more financial assistance, and real debt relief.
Three months later, not a single country has answered that call. And the president acts as if it doesn't matter.
And of the $13 billion previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.
The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.
This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this president may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed.
Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.
Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces.
But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration's own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can't stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?
The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.
Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.
Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.
One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price.
Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.
Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year.
Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement.
Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission, the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done.
The president should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won't be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone.
If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year -- we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years.
This is what has to be done. This is what I would do as president today. But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.
The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that's essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it's up to them to run their own country. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.
On May 1 of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now infamous banner that read "Mission Accomplished." He declared to the American people: "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come. The president misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective -- a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government, harder to achieve.
In Iraq, this administration's record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment of historic proportions.
At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the president has made the wrong choice. I have a plan to make America stronger.
The president often says that in a post 9/11 world, we can't hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting. I believe we have to act wisely and responsibly.
George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do.
George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so.
I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror -- and make us safer.
Today, because of George Bush's policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans.
If you share my conviction that we can not go on as we are that we can make America stronger and safer than it is then November 2 is your chance to speak and to be heard. It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course.
I'm convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals. Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, and America's sake, we must get this right. We must do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
posted
I got that too. He sounds sensible to me... But, perhaps he should have condensed it and simplified the language a bit.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Complicated issues - complicated answers. Oversimplification is precisely the reason Bush is in trouble. I must say, if there is one really good thing about Kerry, it's the fact that it'd be nice to have a president who grasps the complexity of the situation, even if it does lead to accusations of waffling.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.
Kerry doesn't understand the whole long term goal of the war on terror. His short sightedness is evident here.
There is no democracy in the Arab Middle East. What Bush's intention in going into Iraq was go Give the Iraqi's democracy.
Why?
Because when fundamentalists run the whole area, you aren't going to have any future generations raised that AREN'T terrorists.
As Kerry so obviously forgot, there was a War in Afghanistan as well. A very, very successful war.
In fact, both wars have set a bar so high in terms of military dominance that it is amazing.
Not only that, but as weak as our Economy is (which is HIGHLY debatable). It kicks @ss if one is smart enough to realize that it is an economy of a country involved in THREE WARS. Two abroad and One at home. Compare that to the economies of any other country involved in THREE WARS at the same time.
I CRINGE to see what would happen if Kerry takes over. It is a very uncertain proposition to say the least.
Also, as for casualties both OURS and THEIRS (civillians) there has never been a WAR in history with as few casualties for a war of this length in the history of the world.
President Clinton's foray's into the Serbia/Croatia ended with more civillian casualties than presently had in Iraq.
quote:He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.
If he lied, then President Clinton lied to the American people by launching 75 cruise missles at a Pill Factory in Sudan, which is an unprovoked attack and an Act of War?
Did Clinton LIE in his act of war?
He should have taken Osama bin Laden when he was OFFERED to him.
And let's be honest here.
Kerry served in Vietnam for 4 months. He is to be commended for that service, even though he admits to committing war crimes.
Would we elect the Abu Ghraib prison guards to be president of the United States? EVER?
Why would a self professed Vietnam War Criminal be fit to lead our country as Commander in Chief, and yet we decry the humiliation at Abu Ghraib at the hands of our Prison Guards?
Also he fought for our military for 4 months, then he came home and fought AGAINST our military for HOW LONG?
Everyone has a right to voice their opinion. He did. He should bear the consequences of that voice.
He attacks the President's Vietnam Era service, while the President hails his and recognizes it as greater than his own.
Then he DENIES the requests to have his complete military record revealed.
What is he hiding?
And NO don't expect CBS to even have that thought occur to them to sue to have it released under the freedom of information act.
Liberal Media indeed.
quote: His two main rationales -- weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection -- have been proved false by the president's own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.
Actually the Operation is called "Iraqi Freedom" not "X-WMD's" or "Sept. 11th Reprisal".
The first issue always announced as the reason to go into Iraq was the Liberation of the Iraqi People from the Sadaam Hussein regime.
That has always been the #1 reason. The other reasons were all secondary, but vitally important as well.
quote:The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong.
He doesn't know ANYTHING about Iraq than what he sees on the Evening News. Ignorance in a President is NOT what I look for.
Speak to the troops on the Ground. Speak to the Children going to their new schools.
The Majority of the Population want us there until their country is in a shape to inherit.
You are not there Mr. Kerry. My Family Members ARE.
And they say YOU are a liar.
Anyone who thinks otherwise, is a fool. And Kerry is their king.
quote: They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.
Again, there is a growing police force in Iraq and a growing Military force.
Kerry, you are ignorant and wrong.
quote: They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong.
And WHERE did the administration say that? Hint Mr. Kerry, they did not.
quote: We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the vice president claimed, "reconstituted nuclear weapons."
And where is the Time Machine to go back in time Mr. Kerry to act on what we NOW know?
Perhaps that's Mr. Gore's next new invention to come after the internet.
quote:Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11 in order invade Iraq.
So are we to assume that Mr. Kerry advocates the Invasion of SouthWestern Pakistan? Please be clear about this point to us. All indications are that Osama is hiding in the Wahabbist districts of Southern Pakistan?
Tell us Mr. Kerry, after you are elected, when do we invade?
I could go ON and ON.
But the Topic is "Kerry's Position on Iraq".
There is no POSITION HERE? All this is is Kerry talking about the past!
It's a Michael Moore bash bush film without the fat guy.
What are his plans?
We STILL don't know.
Maybe HE doesn't know what the hell he's going to do.
I don't think he does.
Or that if he does, he's afraid to tell, because he'll lose the election.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't feel like you have to reply to him, guys. Chad's currently so bilious that he even makes the cogent arguments of people who agree with him sound more ridiculous by association.
When he figures this out, though, he might at the very least be able to aspire to Lambertness. I await that day eagerly.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I think he's doing more for Liberalism and Senator Kerry than anyone else on this board.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Part of me is so very grateful the troll is arguing a position other than mine.
The other, probably better part of me, feels bad for the thoughtful people who share his (the troll's) position, but are probably banging their heads over the content.
quote:Because when fundamentalists run the whole area, you aren't going to have any future generations raised that AREN'T terrorists.
The Baath regime was secular. Iraq was the LEAST fundamentalist of the major nations in the area.
quote:Not only that, but as weak as our Economy is (which is HIGHLY debatable). It kicks @ss if one is smart enough to realize that it is an economy of a country involved in THREE WARS. Two abroad and One at home. Compare that to the economies of any other country involved in THREE WARS at the same time.
In the 1940's this was the case in the U.S., and it caused our economy to boom.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very intelligent and it doesn't have.... This... tone that Bush's things tend to take. Don't ask me what it is, because I can't describe it, it just drives me up a tree.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was very surprised by this letter. I've recieved nothing but crap from Cahill and Kerry since I signed up for their newsletter. All of a sudden I get a bold, clear, fact based policy statement that includes not only an indictment of President Bush, but also an explanation of his votes on the issue and a plan for the future. Of course the sentences that begin "I would have" will always seem disingenuous coming from anybody, since hindsight is 20/20, but in a campaign such as this one, they are a necessary evil.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Kerry is attempting to change his campaign strategy to be more substance and more aggressive after his declines last month.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found it interesting that Kerry is giving Bush specific advice. What happens if Bush takes this advice? Some of it seems like what Bush would do anyway (the UN summit meeting bit, e.g.). Will Bush now deliberately avoid doing what Kerry said he should?
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
I have been watching as his campaign, the best chance this country has to get rid of George W. Bush and reform the Health care system, regain at least some of our foreign policy position we once enjoyed, and bring the defecits down, wastes all its airtime and political capital arguing about what happened 30 years ago. When you know for SURE that the news networks are talking about Vietnam via the swiftvets ads, you HAVE to know that the sound bite they are going to pick from your speech, though it be full of policy decisions and erudite thoughtful plans for the nation's future, will be the thirty second rebuttal of the ads. You then LOSE any chance for your real message to be heard.
BTW, the bush camp released a response to this calling it yet another Kerry flip flop. You would think they would get tired of that phrase, especially when it's not true.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt Bush will get anywhere even if he does take Kerry's advice. He has already spent all the political capital he has. The interesting thing is that Kerry is also advocating offering those nations a carrot, namely a share of the rebuilding contracts, if they assist in the security effort. This would have the advantage of taking the American face off of the occupation, thus reducing the resentment of the Iraqis, and also giving the rest of the world an indication that we value them. However, and this is a big one, it would also really piss off Halliburton, who had the exclusive contract to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure. I somehow doubt Bush will go down that road.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like McCain! I actually like McCain for some reason. Still... How on earth did the republicans pick George over John McCain!
Alas....
Still, I would definitely not place myself in the "anybody but Bush" camp, though I liked Dean better than Kerry. Still, when you can only pick one of two to actually be elected (sorry Nader, but that's just not the way our system works, buddy!) then one candidate being a bad choice IS an important reason to vote for the other, no matter how much people don't want to admit it. Now, if the other is not ideal, but is better, then the vote is still important. Fortunately, we aren't in that severe a situation right now, as Kerry is not a "slightly better than awful candidate running against an awful one," he is a good candidate who has run a mediocre campaign. This letter, I hope, spells the beginning of his actual fight. I look forward to the debates in a week.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, but what's the point of winning (from the party's perspective) if the candidate doesn't stand for what it wants? Better to lose and let the other party ruin the country for four years.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you referring to the democrats' supposed support for pulling troops out of Iraq now? I seriously doubt that Kerry could be said to "not support what the party wants" in that regard. All of the primary candidates, even Kucinich the most notoriously "anti-war" were against leaving a power vaccuum in Iraq. The position has been that since the Iraqi insurgency is fighting against American occupation, the occupation should be internationalized. I'm sure if you go around asking Democrats "Do you want our troops out of Iraq" of course you would get tons of people saying "yes of course." But if you qualify the question with "do you want our troops out of Iraq even if that means leaving a power vacuum or hostile regime in power" I'm sure the answer would reluctantly be changed. The rest of Kerry's positions are fairly traditional Democratic values like pro-union, health care reform, tax reform, etc.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would sure love it if this didn't turn into just another general bash Bush/bash Kerry back and forth.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to say it, but I don't remember. It's been long enough that I couldn't recall McCain's platform, except that he seemed at the time to be well to the left of the party. I'm currently reading up at a site called "On The Issues" and unless there is something I haven't gotten to yet, I retract the comment--I was wrong.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh cool! I'm a troll, now! Okay Chad, fine. I haven't really go the time to go through your post line by line, but perhaps the line that offended my sense of reality the most was the one about how the primary reason for the war was humanitarian solely because the operation was named "Iraqi Freedom." Surely you jest. In every speech Bush gave pre-war, the conditions of the people in Iraq were little more than footnotes to the supposed weapons of mass destruction Saddam possessed, and even now he justifies the war based on his then-belief in those weapons. Many people, including myself, believed that Saddam possessed WMDs at that time. However, that does not excuse the fact that Bush failed to use the threat of force Congress had allowed him to pressure Saddam into letting the weapons inspectors to do their job. They had unprecedented access at the time we pulled them out so we could invade. Had they been allowed to complete their work, perhaps we would have realized there were no weapons to be found. Either way, though, your assertion that we really went in for humanitarian reasons is patently absurd.
Furthermore, even if that were the case, it would still be a disaster, as rather than liberating the people of Iraq, we have created in their land a state of anarchy. In those cities where we haven't the strength to impose martial law, insurgents rule the streets and our military dares not enter. What Kerry says so eloquently in the above letter is that these problems were not unforseen consequences, but predictable and, in fact, predicted.
I also remember a poll not too long ago that Time did showing Iraqi support for the Americans. At the start of the war it was about 70% if I remember correctly. In March of this year, it had fallen to about 30% confidence. Those that actively opposed American involvement had shot up as well.
The reason nobody wants to respond to your attacks is that, however well intentioned they are, they show a complete disconnect with reality. Furthermore, they reflect quite admirably all the spin that the right wing pundits have been spouting.
When no weapons were forthcoming, the administration stopped talking about weapons and starting talking about the humanitarian situation. So have you.
When John Kerry bounced in the polls after a convention focusing on his military service, a group mysteriously surfaced to denounce that very service, against all documentation and evidence. So have you.
I understand that your post doesn't fall under the traditional definition of trolling, but it contained so many varied and eclectic statements that were so far from being supported even by most of those who support President Bush, that I think most of us are at a loss as to how to respond other than to write you off as a troll. If you have any basis for your attacks, or can address Kerry's letter without silly ad hominem, then I'm all ears.
Trollfully yours, "The original poster"
(or were you referring to Kerry himself as the original poster?)
posted
Adam, from what I've seen the only ways in which Dubya expanded government have to do with the Patriot act and other anti-terrorism laws. We can argue about the details and effectiveness of those laws, but I can't imagine anyone short of a libertarian saying we don't need some kind of regulation in that area.
In regards to fiscal responsibility, Republicans generally believe it should be achieved by spending less, not by taxing more. The trouble is that it is very hard to get Congress to shut down programs of any kind, because everybody's got a lobby pleading with their congresspeople to keep those programs. So the Republicans have tried to "starve out" programs by cutting taxes; unfortunately the Democrats (and some Republicans with pet projects) have stuck to their guns, with the result being increasing deficits. If Congress would get the picture and tailor its spending to available revenue, cutting taxes might work.
Lastly, while Bush hasn't reinstated the draft or anything, I'm not sure why you'd think he's not favoring the military.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to retract my statement that anyone who thinks Kerry is NOT a fool, is a fool. Sorry.
To paraphrase someone elses verbige. I know that some think he's the greatest thing since Jesus Christ. Please don't feel bad to have me screw up and say Kerry supporters are fools.
Just like no one here has ever made that assumption or assertation about Bush supporters.
posted
Macc, what is the worst thing one can do for the military. I would posit that cutting spending is probably not it. The absolute worst thing a government can do to its soldiers is send them off to die for a reason that was either not truthful or not verified. Similarly, you can bet that John Kerry would not be anti-military (spn on his 87 billion dollar gaffe notwithstanding.) His top priority in Iraq is getting international reinforcement for them so that some of them can come home! I would think that would count for something in the public sphere.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: So the Republicans have tried to "starve out" programs by cutting taxes; unfortunately the Democrats (and some Republicans with pet projects) have stuck to their guns, with the result being increasing deficits. If Congress would get the picture and tailor its spending to available revenue, cutting taxes might work.
There are Republicans who are uncomfortable with both the extent of the tax cuts and the rate of spending.
They can't be heard over their President right now, though. He's mostly talking increases in budgets for education, defense and a heck of a lot of other areas - at least until he gets re-elected.
I recall that the draft budget from the White House for 2005 leaked out and there were substantial cuts in programs that the Bush administration is currently supporting. Conveniently, the very bad news will come after this coming election.
posted
The worst thing you can do for any program is to try to starve it closed.
You cut money from project A, those siphoning thier own funds have no insentive to cut their graft and greed. They just cut the services provided. This causes the unserved public to demand that the funds be reallocated.
What it does do is give the politicians a chance to look like hero's without doing anything difficult. "We cut their budget to get rid of the overhead." It did not get rid of the overhead, just fed it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Dan, what's the best way to get rid of a program? (Assume that the money hogs aren't willing to let it be directly voted out.) I'm not a politician or a bureaucrat, nor do I know anyone who might tell me how to get around the hurdles you mentioned.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Four words: Department of Homeland Security.
Exactly what I said--measures intended to fight terrorism (with admitted questions about their utility).
quote:"If Congress would get the picture"? That statement itself is a bit irresponsible. Can you imagine the blowup that would have occured if the $87 billion for the Iraq war didn't pass in Congress? Or the Every Child Left Behind Act?
If Congress believed those programs shouldn't have existed, they had every right to say "We're not gonna fund these, so you'd better not send them through." And then do exactly what they said they would.
quote:We'd probably still have a deficit without the tax decreases, which is why I consider the tax decreases to be so ridiculous. This isn't even a case of a Republican administration trying to cut taxes and a Democratic Congress refusing to cut programs, since the Republicans control both chambers of Congress.
Um...what would have happened to that surplus everyone keeps saying Dubya squandered? It'd still have been eaten up? Are you saying you're in favor of having still more of your money taxed away by inefficient, greedy bureaucrats, just so long as it's not for a war?
And, as I said, there are certain Republicans with pet projects who won't give them up. Along with these fat cats, there are enough Democrats to block program cuts.
quote:Bottom line is that in order to have fiscal responsibility, there needed to be money to pay for the tax cuts BEFORE the tax cuts were proposed. Not only was there not money, but there were planned spending increases.
*cough* surplus *cough*
quote:Sending troops to Iraq with no clear plan for what to do once we overthrew the standing Iraqi government was guaranteed to result in the needless deaths of American troops.
Granted. I misunderstood you.
quote: Going to Iraq alone in the first place put an undue burden on our military, which is now dangerously overtaxed. This is definitely not favoring our military.
Granted again. Though it is a shame the UN can't be bothered to follow through on its resolutions and leaves us to do the work alone.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The U.N. follows through on it's resolutions in the way it deems best.
In this case, the U.N.'s judgement was better than ours: we've discovered Iraq had no WMDs, and thus that the U.N. successfully disarmed Iraq without the need for an invasion.
Thus, to blame the U.N. for the costs of a war that we CHOSE to take on ourselves, against the advice of the U.N., makes little sense.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, we've been over this. The UN passed resolution after resolution condemning Iraq--then decided the best course of action was to sit on its collective behind. So the US (unwisely, I now realize) chose to act on its behalf, and the UN and most of the assorted member nations told us to stay out of it. Finally, when we realized we were in over our heads, Bush started asking for help and the UN responded, "Nuh-uh, you made the mess, you clean it up"--notwithstanding the cost in human lives. (To clarify--they were willing to help, but only if we let them run the place. Perhaps we should have let them, but it didn't seem smart at the time.)
We aren't smelling like roses on this thing, but the UN should bear its share of the blame.
posted
Now hold on, Macc. I wish that the United Nations would just up and say "sure we'll come in and help you out of this mess you got yourselves into" out of the goodness of their hearts, but I don't think that's realistic considering we've basically told them to go Cheney themselves on more than one occasion. About the time we declared victory, Bush announced that the only incentive for helping out, by which I mean the lucrative rebuilding contracts, would go to nations that had been in the "coalition" from the beginning. To put it another way, the U.S. and a whole bunch of tiny nations that couldn't take the contracts if they wanted them. That's what Kerry refers to above when he suggests that the huge UN meeting this week would be a good opportunity to offer that incentive to the world community. We can't expect the U.N. to help us if we still refuse to let them help us.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed, Demosthenes. It is clear that things are not working out (and maybe I should have known this from the beginning, but unlike Dubya I am not expected to know all about the strength of our military), and we should give anything non-ludicrous for assistance. (By nonludicrous, I mean that we shouldn't hand over Oklahoma or something.)
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually every speech I have read of Dubya (as some people call him) before the War has him listing the FREEDOM of the Iraqi people.
Perhaps if you could provide me with the complete texts of speeches dealing with ALL the reasons we went to war PRE-Invasion, I would be more apt to change my view.
Just because you say that WMD's was the #1 reason, I don't remember it ever being presented as such by Dubya, but do specifically remember the freedom of the Iraqi people being principal? Why? Because for me the WMD's wasn't reason enough for ME to justify going to war at that time.
But the name of the whole ongoing operation "Iraqi Freedom" lends creedence to the notion that we went in there primarily to establish a Middle Eastern democracy.
quote: Furthermore, even if that were the case, it would still be a disaster, as rather than liberating the people of Iraq, we have created in their land a state of anarchy. In those cities where we haven't the strength to impose martial law, insurgents rule the streets and our military dares not enter. What Kerry says so eloquently in the above letter is that these problems were not unforseen consequences, but predictable and, in fact, predicted.
Have WE created a state of Anarcy or have the Insurgents? If you remove the Insurgents there is no Anarchy.
There WAS a fragile stability in those areas you mentioned. It was the Insurgency that caused the instability to worsen.
I place blame where it lies, with those chopping off the heads, bombing the police stations and churches. Those willing to do ANYTHING to force Wahabbist Shariah on the populace.
THEY have created the state of Anarchy and instability.
Was it forseen. It was a probable a scenario as any number of THOUSANDS of other possible scenarios. From a Shia vs. Suni Uprising, to Iran invading to the Kurds withdrawing from Iraq to being invaded from the North.
There are as many possible scenarios for the outcome of Iraq as there are possible ways for terrorists to attack this country.
Can we predict all of them? If we learn from 9/11, then no we can't unless you want to put the whole population in Jail. And that is precisely what we are NOT trying to do.
Was it short sighted? I am sure on some fronts it was. I guarantee you that replacing Bush with someone else would have not have made for a perfect war either.
Kerry claims he would have done everything different. How do we know that it wouldn't have actually turned out worse or better? We don't. It's all speculation. Hind sight is 20/20.
You can't use information we know now to judge the past where that information was not known.
But people attempt to do that every day.
quote: I also remember a poll not too long ago that Time did showing Iraqi support for the Americans. At the start of the war it was about 70% if I remember correctly. In March of this year, it had fallen to about 30% confidence. Those that actively opposed American involvement had shot up as well.
So your poll shows Kerry Lied because he says Americans were NOT greeted as liberators. You just posted a poll that said at the beginning of the war 70% of Iraqis supported the Americans.
That means he is misleading people with his statement.
Kerry himself says (but it changes daily) that he would have still gone to war, but differently. That still leaves Abu Ghraib, which in turn fuels the insurgency.
quote: The reason nobody wants to respond to your attacks is that, however well intentioned they are, they show a complete disconnect with reality. Furthermore, they reflect quite admirably all the spin that the right wing pundits have been spouting.
Your whole original post is an "Ode du Kerry" and because I see him for something else is not acceptable.
I apologized for my "Fool" remark.
But I will say this.
Kerry did admit to committing War Crimes. It's a matter of Public Record. It's documented on FILM.
He participated in actions that were against the Geneva Conventions regarding Warfare.
I don't think anyone can dispute that fact.
I think what happened at Abu Ghraib was wrong. I think what Kerry did was wrong. I am not going to vote any of the Abu Ghraib prison guards EVER for Commander in Chief.
I will not vote an untried Vietnam War Criminal to be commander in chief either.
If you are denying that Kerry participated in acts against the Geneva Convention or that he admitted such under oath (and on Dick Caveat) then that is another issue.
The Swift Boat vets is another issue I didn't reference, but they have as much right to voice their version of what happened as Liberals have the right to invent stories about Dubya's Service.
But at least they didn't invent phony documents to try and prove their point. They based it off of their experiences and memories, which they have a right to do.
I do take issue with Kerry attempting to CENSOR them by asking the FCC to remove their ads and actual DNC members attempting to have "Unfit for Command" removed from Booksellers shelves.
What did you expect people who think Kerry is a Horrible choice for Commander in Chief to respond to your post?
Why did you post it? Were you trolling? No more so than I.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is the difference between John Kerry and George W. Bush on Iraq as it stands now. George W. Bush today asked te UN for help with Iraq, but so far has shown no willingness to sacrifice Halliburton's exclusivity to get it. Meanwhile, the situation on the ground in Iraq gets worse. Kerry has proposed that perhaps diplomacy consists of not just take, but also give. The end of Halliburton's exclusivity would be the beginning of the much maligned "more sensitive" war on terror, and I doubt we'll see it from Bush.
Oklahoma? Hmmm...
*thinks about making a snide comment on how Oklahoma reminds me of another President who showed utter disregard for friendly nations by kicking them off of their treaty-protected land and forcing them to trek across the country with tremendous loss of human life onto a worthless patch of arid scrubland.... but decides against it*
posted
You can't give them Oklahoma. That's the piece of craptastic land we sent the Indians to years ago. (forgiveness if I offended any Okies)
Trust me, they've been screwed over enough. I say give them....Florida. Saves the cost of having to rebuild it.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I intend (albeit reluctantly) to vote for Kerry, Demosthenes. I'm not happy about it, as he doesn't share most of my views, but on those other things I suspect a competent leader for the other side may actually be better than an incompetent leader for mine.
quote: Oklahoma? Hmmm...
*thinks about making a snide comment on how Oklahoma reminds me of another President who showed utter disregard for friendly nations by kicking off of their treaty-protected land and forcing them to trek across the country with tremendous human life onto a worthless patch of arid scrubland.... but decides against it*
Why do you think I brought it up, Demosthenes? I'd agree with any such comment (started to say "without reservation" before I realized that could be taken as a pun). I was thinking of an analogy I made a couple of years ago, comparing the reaction of the Palestineans to Israel with how Americans might react if the UN were to declare Tennessee a Cherokee State. Though I did finally change my mind as the suicide bombing casualties piled higher.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is true that one cannot plan for every possible outcome. for example, had aliens swooped in from Mars and opened up a second front in downtown Cleveland, I would not blame George Bush and his administration for not having forseen it. However, if one is going to invade a country and topple a government, it is the most basic of sociological principles that you can not simply topple said government without something else to immediately replace it. Otherwise you end up with insurgency. period. And frankly, I DO consider Bush and co. responsible for the situation on the ground because it was their action that led to the insurgency! They are the government of Iraq right now, and they are doing a pretty crappy job of things like providing basic services and being fair to the people. If our government did the things in America that they are doing in Iraq, we would probably have insurgency here, too. And yes, I'm referring to things like Abu Ghraib and the fact that electricity is less reliable now than it was under Hussein. And I would be interested to see, given Hussein's history, how many years it would take him to kill as many civilians as we have during this whole mess. The humanitarian card is not one Bush can truthfully play here. How would it have been different under Kerry? Under Kerry, we would never have invaded because we would have waited for the confirmation on the WMDs.
And before you say anything else, if Bush cares so deeply about humanitarian issues, where are our ground forces in Sudan??
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The UN passed resolution after resolution condemning Iraq--then decided the best course of action was to sit on its collective behind.
And again, the UN did not sit on its collective behind. It put the pressure on Iraq and SUCCEEDED in getting it to disarm all its WMDs without any war. Thus, the UN was right.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
