Kerry to attack Bush troop withdrawal plan

[rawstory]

As found on The Raw Story, http://rawstory.com

By Carol Giacomo

CINCINNATI (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry on Wednesday planned to attack President Bush's proposal to withdraw 70,000 American troops from Europe and Asia as a threat to national security that could blunt the war on terror, campaign aides said.

The Democratic presidential nominee also will say the military realignment plan sent the wrong message to countries like North Korea, where the United States has been working to deter Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programs, the aides said on condition of anonymity.

Kerry will make the remarks in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Ohio -- a political battleground in the Nov. 2 presidential election. Bush addressed the same group on Monday, when he announced plans to move the 70,000 troops in a shift of focus from Cold War enemies Russia and China.

Bush said the pullback would create a more flexible military, improve the lives of military and better position the United States to fight emerging threats. The plan, to be implemented over 10 years, would not affect the 125,000 U.S. troops now deployed in Iraq.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6007744&src=rss/topNews§ion=news

[wicket]

1. Good!!!!

This withdrawal plan is a huge mistake.

[JI7]

2. wasn't it a political move mostly ?

[wicket]

3. Oh yes, Rove's fingerprints are all over this

And it stinks to high heaven.

[asjr]

4. Definitely a political ploy. He wants to make people

think he is bringing the troops home. It is a game, moving men around the board.

[tlcandie]

5. I'm wondering if they don't just have some little chess board set up

where they actually play out their little charades all the while grinning and laughing evilly while more people die while they gain more power and wealth.

[gratuitous]

15. Not chess

Risk. You know, the game of world domination? The one where your armies are represented by little blocks (old version) or little plastic pieces (current version). Armies in Risk don't need supply lines, never need relief, and can stay in one place indefinitely. If you lose a few pieces, there's always more in the box.

[tlcandie]

20. Oy! Got me on that one! Forgot all about RISK!

:hi:

[wicket]

7. It's such a cheap stunt

They really think we're stupid not to realize what it is.

[mike_c]

6. why?

Notwithstanding that my first inclination is to characterize anything the shrub plans as a huge mistake-- and admittedly, I've been too busy this week to follow the discussions on this topic, but it does seem to me that reducing the U.S. force presence abroad is more good than bad. The primary rationale for large permanent deployments, especially in post WWII Europe, was to give the Soviet Union pause during the Cold War. That's no longer needed. The whole "war on terror" bit is a farce-- the "war" itself is more a marketing ploy than a real conflict, and in any event armour, artillery, and infantry are unlikely to be useful for ferreting out terrorist cells in foreign countries.

Personally, I'd welcome a decrease in U.S. permanent force deployment overseas. It's expensive, it's wasteful, and it serves little useful purpose today. What's not to like? I'm assuming that the troop will not be summarily redeployed in the ME-- that would be WORSE than leaving them deployed in Europe, IMO, because the latter is at least ostensibly a cooperative defense venture-- even if no longer strictly necessary-- while the latter is naked imperialism.

[THUNDER HANDS]

8. well, what's not to like

is that there's a crazy dictator in North Korea who might use our pullback of troops as a signal that he can puff out his chest and try to intimidate his neighbors without fear of an as-large U.S. presence on his doorstep.

[tlcandie]

9. Not to argue because I have no opinion on this, but according to

this regime they don't need any stinkin' boots on the ground there! If they need to deal with NK they will just nuke the hell out of them period!

I'm sure that's their reasoning.

[THUNDER HANDS]

10. nah

we wouldn't nuke North Korea. It's too close to China and South Korea. Even Bush isn't that stupid.

[rocktivity]

13. We can only hope that Bush isn't that stupid

He might decide that China and South Korea will simply have to suffer some collateral damage, like the mosque in Najaf.

:headbang:
rocknation

[wicket]

19. Never underestimate the stupidity of George W. Bush

:D Or should that be "misunderestimate"? :evilgrin:

[mike_c]

17. the situation on the Korean penninsula has been static...

...for 50 years, and I have to seriously question whether the level and type of force deployment we have there makes sense today. Again, 50 years ago NK was an active front-- at least ideologically-- in the expansionist plans of both Soviet and Chinese communism. That is no longer the case-- now the threat is better characterized as that of an unpredictable despotic leader with nasty weapons at his disposal. That's a whole different manner of threat. Additionally, South Korea is in a much better position to oversee its own defense, and while NK and SK occassionally rattle the sabers for the sake of form, both nations have more reasons to resolve their differences cooperatively than through warfare, and both have spent more time in recent decades talking nice than being belligerent.

This isn't to suggest that NK is benign, or otherwise not a loose cannon on the global deck, but rather that a large permanent garrison force is perhaps not the best way to deal with the real threats that NK poses.

[wicket]

12. As others have mentioned, Kim Jong IL could become emboldened

Don't get me wrong, I would much prefer to reduce our overall presense around the globe, but this is being done just to score some political points for Bush. This will send the wrong message to the lunatic Kim Jong IL.

[bearfan454]

11. He also said he would bring back the civilians working there.

That means more unemployment.

[dArKeR]

14. Kerry: Troops Plan Could Hinder Security

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=2&u=/ap/20040818/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_6

[dArKeR]

16. Kerry: "Bush is incompetent, unable think through a detailed plan. Proof,

Iraq, 9/11 hesitation, Halliburton fiasco, Not completing National Guard, Harkin, changing science reports data, unable to negociate a plan with our allies...

Bush is a man who can NOT stand on his own feet. He is totally directed by his handlers. Bush can barely read from a teleprompter."


As I said 5 months ago, Kerry should announce he doesn't read from a teleprompter. Make this an issue to force the Media Whores to talk about it. Let the American people compare a man who reads what others have written to Kerry who can think for himself. And if Rove tried to let Bush make a speech without a teleprompter, well, we all know what that result would be.

[moondust]

18. Those are "forward bases"

that Bush* wants to withdraw from. The U.S. mainland is clearly not a better position from which to operate.

And you don't have to permanently move units around geographically to make them lighter and more rapidly deployable.

Militarily questionable.

[wicket]

21. kick

:kick: