How Kerry Can Get Out of His Iraq Quagmire

[Larkspur]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0919-04.htm

<SNIP>
rhetoric alone won't save Kerry, especially since it is measured against all his previous words. He needs a plan.

Here's what he can say, without contradicting himself.


America will start counting the Iraqi dead and injured.

That will end the racism of discounting the value of Arab lives.

Troops will know that America is in Iraq to free Iraqis, not to kill and maim them, as is happening in renewed military onslaughts on Falluja and Mosul.

The military says it is hitting only "insurgents," "militants," "enemy fighters" and "terrorists," but news accounts keep cataloguing civilian deaths, including those of children, prompting the head of the Falluja hospital to say: "The American army has no morals."

Citing the immorality of the suicide bombers and others won't excuse American sins in Iraqi eyes.

America will do all in its power to hold, not postpone, the planned elections for a National Assembly in January.

It will do so by providing full protection to the United Nations staff assigned to the task.

America will gradually pull out of Iraq.

The timetable will be set in consultation with the elected representatives, not the puppet regime in Baghdad, which has zero credibility with the people.

America will consider a United Nations trusteeship for Iraq, should the elected representatives want it.

America will honour all the rules of the Geneva Convention in dealing with detainees.

America will follow the rule of law and due process in dealing with terrorism suspects in the United States. It cannot preach democracy abroad while violating its basic precepts at home.

All of the above principles are in keeping with Kerry's pledge that "we do not have long-term designs to maintain bases and troops in Iraq."

And these principles are in the spirit of the moral courage Kerry displayed in opposing the Vietnam War after serving there heroically.
<SNIP>

[Demit]

1. "KERRY'S Iraq quagmire"? This quagmire is 100% owned & operated by

Bush. What's HIS plan? I realize this is a progressive site you've linked to, but it burns me up that even our side is framing the issue as one Kerry must confront, not our Fearless Leader.

Kerry has it right. He has said something to the effect of "tell me what my options will be on January 20, 2005, and I'll tell you what I'll be able to do then".

[Larkspur]

2. If Kerry wins in November, the Iraq quagmire is 100% his once

he takes the oath of office, whether you like it or not.

Kerry is guilty of lending Bush support with his 2002 IWR vote. He chose to ignore people, like Scott Ritter, and others who knew that Bush's and the Neo-cons' plans was for war against Iraq and that Iraq had no WMD's. Also remember, Andrew Card. Card had said that the reason they didn't promote the Iraq War in 2002 much before Labor Day was that "you don't introduce a new product prior to Labor Day." War is a product to the neo-cons and Bush.

Kerry's excuses for his 2002 IWR vote don't jive with most progressives, including me. Most progressives, like me, will vote for Kerry, but not support him other than that.

[Demit]

3. no offense, but you sound like my (sainted) mother

Whenever something happened that had any number of reasons for happening, she never failed to point out what I should have done, or that at the least I should have known better.

The invasion of Iraq was not Kerry's decision to make. It was all Bush. Bush owns the failure that is Iraq. Kerry's explanation that he voted only for authorization sits fine with me. (Though I don't claim to speak for us, I'm a progressive too.)

[MissMarple]

4. Yes, I thought George wanted authorization as leverage

with the UN, he apparently assured Congress he wouldn't go to war until every last option was exhausted, and we were in imminent danger. So, he gets the authorization, and proceeds into war in the worst way, undermanned, under planned, and under supplied. Am I totally wrong on this?

[Ranec]

5. Iraq should be pinned to Bush, but

after we throw shrub to the curb then the hard work begins.

Kerry can at least face the facts that the situation is dire. Bush won't take off his rose colored glasses. We are not turning a corner. (Call me a pessimist.)

I'm in favor of avoiding overly specific proposals until the real situation is known. Maybe there will be elections in January. Or maybe Kirkuk, Musil, Suleymania, and Bagdad will be in flames.

[Larkspur]

6. Everyone whose vision wasn't clounded by Prez ambitions and/or Israeli PAC

money, knew that Bush wanted war against Saddam. PNAC letter was sent to the Clinton Admin in 1998 and those that wrote it were and are in power in Bush's Admin.

Kerry chose not to listen to or ignore those, like Scott Ritter, who told Kerry that IWR was not necessary.