Kerry on Iraq: Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time

[cal04]

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Monday called the invasion of Iraq ``the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time'' and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in his first White House term. Under pressure from some Democrats to change the subject from national security -- regarded by many as President Bush's strongest issue -- Kerry tried to focus exclusively on the economy and other domestic topics at a neighborhood meeting but supporters raised Iraq.

The Massachusetts senator, who has said he would have voted to give Bush the authority to use force if necessary against Iraq even if he had known at the time that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, has struggled to draw clear contrasts with the president.
``I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq,'' Kerry said.

He denied that he was ``Monday morning quarterbacking.''

``I said this from the beginning of the debate to the walk up to the war. I said, Mr. President don't rush to war, take the time to build a legitimate coalition and have a plan to win the peace.''Kerry said Bush had failed on all three counts. He called the president's talk about a coalition fighting alongside about 125,000 U.S. troops ``the phoniest thing I've ever heard.''``You've about 500 troops here, 500 troops there and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war,'' he said. ``It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.''

GETTING OUT OF IRAQ

Kerry, like Bush, promised that the United States would stay the course in Iraq until the country is secure, saying: ``We have to do what we need to do to get out and do it right.''He pledged to internationalize the forces in Iraq and do a better job of fighting ``a more effective, smarter'' war on terror that he said would actually make Americans safer.Although he declined to set a precise timetable for pulling out U.S. troops, Kerry said it would be possible if certain conditions were met, such as bringing allies to the table to help with security and reconstruction.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-campaign-kerry.html

[Renew Deal]

1. Bush's war is going to become Kerry's war.

We snicker at how Bush has fucked up everything. But it sounds like Kerry will take on the same failed policies in regards to Iraq. I guess what I am saying is that there is no win there.

[Nimrod]

5. Its easier to destroy than create

We're going to have to cut Kerry a little slack. He's walking into a hurricane region with a push-broom. He's also going to be opposed at every turn by the remaining proponents of the New World Order who have engineered this situation specifically to be unresolvable.

I don't blame him for not making promises he may not be allowed to keep. Yeah, he could promise to bring the troops home on November 3rd, then have every obstacle possible thrown in his way by our evil government who would then crow that he's a failure.

[demoman123]

16. If you vote for Kerry, it has to be for other reasons besides Iraq.

He and Bush are twins on this issue. But Kerry is very different from Bush on Social Security, for example. He has promised not to privatize or cut benefits or raise the age threshold. That is a reason to vote for him even though he is an asshole on the war.

[Renew Deal]

17. I'm all for Kerry.

[A_Possum]

26. Iraq is my prime reason for Kerry

Bush cluelessly walked us into it, we desperately need someone who has a clue to walk us back out.

The idea of "just leaving" is simply a fantasy. However, Kerry is a man who has some chance of recovering from this catastrophe instead of just sitting there claiming it's all just going great cause Jesus told me so.

[motife]

27. Agree. Kerry's position seems all over the place on Iraq,

based on this article and his "knowing what we know now, would still vote for it".

Where's Howard Dean when you need him?

[paulk]

28. where's Howard Dean?

-He's busy campaigning for Kerry, that's where.

[IndianaGreen]

31. March 20, 2005 is the next major antiwar march

It is the second anniversary of the criminal invasion of Iraq, and the march will proceed no matter who is in the White House if US troops are still in Iraq.

[question everything]

2. Good start. He needs to focus on this war, not on Vietnam

Vietnam is important as a reference point to show Kerry as a man of courage, leadership and character. Also, of knowing first hand the horrors and ugliness that accompany any war, no matter how noble are its causes. But the emphasis should be on this war. The emphasis should be on how he would handle this war differently, even while voting for it. This topic was discussed on these pages at length during the primaries and one would hope that he would be ready with immediate replies.

[mike_c]

3. "stay the course...."

Bleh. :puke:

Get out NOW, and put the bastards responsible on trial. Maybe dubya and Saddam can share a cell....

Not one single rationale for the invasion and occupation of Iraq has withstood the light of truth when it was finally exposed.

[unionjack]

8. Promoting "Get out now".....

....is a sure fire route to 4 more Bush years.

Do you think people won't remember the scenes of Vietnamese been punched out of the last retreating choppers from Saigon ?

Get real.

[mike_c]

13. evidently our political leaders don't remember the lessons...

...of Vietnam, otherwise they would not have repeated so many of the same mistakes. The outcome in Iraq is inevitable just as it was in Vietnam-- Iraq will either collapse into disorder or another dictator will take over. The U.S. has no business being involved in either outcome.

[unionjack]

19. And....

.....do you believe it will be considered a failure by the architects of the war if another dictator DOES take over ? I would have thought that's entirely what this enterprise is all about.

Disorder already exists, a new (benign) dictator would be progress in comparison and a working democracy so far down the line that nobody will have to answer for failing to deliver it.

In the end the Iraqis will get blamed for fucking up the opportunity afforded them by Uncle Sam anyway.

This war is nailed down by Bush's crew on every level, with plausible get outs everywhere - which is why Kerry is locked into barely questioning it IMO.

The Vietnam lesson has been learned alright, at all costs get your man - if they'd have dragged Ho Chi Minh out of a rathole they could have claimed to have won that one too.

[motife]

29. Kerry : "substantially reduce number of U.S. troops in first six months"

From LA Times 08/09/04 :
There are now about 140,000 U.S. troops stationed , or 88% of a total international force of about 160,000.

In the last several days, Kerry has begun arguing that he could substantially reduce the number of U.S. troops within the first six months of a Kerry administration. In an interview with National Public Radio on Friday, Kerry said: "I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that's my plan."

"I understand why John Kerry is making proposals of this kind, but there is a lack of realism in them," Menzies Campbell, a British lawmaker who is a spokesman on defense issues for the Liberal Democratic Party, said in a typical comment.

The French and German governments have made clear that sending troops is out of the question. British officials have made no such categorical statement, but they have expressed concern that their troops are overstretched.

Although Japan has supplied a 550-member noncombat force as a symbol of its international commitment, analysts there see little chance the nation would agree to send more.

Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, Andrei Denisov, ruled out a commitment of troops. "We are not going to send anybody there, and that's all there is to say," Denisov said.

"From the major European countries, there's simply not a lot of available troops out there, for both practical and political reasons," said Christopher Makins, president of the Atlantic Council of the United States, which supports U.S. engagement abroad.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kerryiraq9aug09,1,7671568.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. NY Times puts words in Kerry's mouth he didn't use and you take the bait.

:puke:

[Dangerman]

20. Amen to that

Bush and Saddam in the same cell, maybe they might kill each other :P

Birds of a father flock together I say.

[snippy]

4. He needs to add: "And only the first war."

Bush talks repeatedly about his messianic obsession that it is the mission of the United States and the United States military to spread freedom to every single person on earth. If Bush wins he will invade more countries.

[CarolynEC]

6. Excellent sound bite/talking point

I hope he makes it part of the campaign dialogue, and that supporters pick up on it, too.

As for the "then why did he vote for war?" retort we're bound to hear...

Kerry voted to give America's president the big stick needed to protect our nation's interestes in the world. But Bush just grabbed the stick and ran off to attack, where a true leader could have gotten results without putting American lives on the line.

[Gloria]

15. "Big Stick"--I was just thinking that it would be easy to explain the

vote "even if he knew Saddam didn't have WMD's". Hell, you have to preserve the authority of ANY President to be able to act quickly. Kerry, should say that that would be true for any President.
The key thing then to focus on would be the ABUSE of this authority by Bush!

What the hell is so hard about this?????

[JohnOneillsMemory]

22. Yup. "Arming police doesn't mandate shooting suspects

while they are being searched for WMD they don't have.

Simple explanation to play Good Globo-Cop
to the White House's Bad Globo-Cop.

Kerry must simplify his criticism to be cogent and repeatable at the water-cooler chat zone.

[LynnTheDem]

7. "coalition"

United States: 138,000 + Special Forces, total apx 160,000 US forces

United Kingdom: 9,000

Italy: 3,000 **Italy ready to withdraw "immediately"

Poland: 2,400 **Poland to withdraw ASAP

Ukraine: 1,576 **Will withdraw when Poland does

Netherlands: 1,400

Romania: 700

South Korea: 660

Denmark: 500

Japan: 500

And here's the rest of that bush powerhouse;

Bulgaria: 480

El Salvador: 380

Australia: 300

Hungary: 300

Mongolia: 173

Azerbaijan: 151

Georgia: 150

Portugal: 120

Latvia: 116

Slovakia: 105

Czech Republic: 90

Lithuania: 90

Albania: 71

New Zealand: 60

Estonia: 45

Kingdom of Tonga: 44

Macedonia: 35

Kazakhstan: 27

Moldova: 12

WOOOOHOOOO what a "coalition"! And let's not forget that ONLY UK and OZ sent troops for the actual invasion.

And let's REALLY not forget that NOT ONE of the so-called "coalition" nations had a population that was pro-invasion. NOT ONE.

And that's just the facts...facts the rightwingnuttery just can't understand, being stupid as they are.

[sundancekid]

10. thanks ... info I needed ... is there also a link to these troop details?

[merh]

11. Could you provide me a link for this info

I have some re:puke: associates that I would like to send it to!

Thanks

[jefferson_dem]

14. Casualties Link

Very sad. And very MAD!

http://icasualties.org/oif/

[Dangerman]

23. According to the following link...

It's 993

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html

[LynnTheDem]

21. Link

This is slightly outta date but here...

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBIWTIPUXD.html

Plus the info re Italy & Poland;

Italy Ready to Pull out of Iraq
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=38471

Poland Looks Forward to Iraq Withdrawal; wants to leave soon as possible

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=38359

hth!

[merh]

25. Thank you! eom

[jefferson_dem]

12. Fuck Yeah! Hit 'em with the Truth JK!

Swallow that lame-ass simpleton "flip flop" pill that the sumbitches on the Right will sling your way and preach the truth about the nasty place chimpy has taken us to.

:nuke:

[jackofhearts]

18. 7 more US soldiers die in Iraq...

I wish Kerry would use this news as a way to start insisting we PULL OUT. Why are we still there? No weapons...Hussien is gone...they have their "government" in place...WTF! This makes it clear the nazis have no intention of giving up their precious oil fields. Meanwhile our soldiers...no our CHILDREN...are blown up by bombs every fucking day while all the good christian nazis praise the killers in command.

We should pull out NOW. There should be a million fucking people at the door of the white house demanding an end to the murder and maiming of our children for no good reason. What the hell has happened to this nation? It is truly depressing.

[Doosh]

24. great idea, bring the boys home

[IndianaGreen]

30. We already lost this war!

Let's see who is the political leader with the balls to tell the American people the truth about Iraq!

It is a little late for Kerry to sound like Dennis Kucinich. At least Dennis was credible on Iraq, unlike Kerry, and Dennis had a plan to get all the troops out in six months. Kerry could endorse such a plan on the basis that the war is already lost and that Iraq is bankrupting our country. People will understand that!

It is sad to see that Kerry's own words about Iraq prevent him from using Iraq as an issue. His comment about voting for IWR had he known what he knows now ranks alongside George Romney's "brainwash" statement about Vietnam as a major political blunder.

The best thing that Kerry can do now, other than an Eisenhower style "I Shall Go to Korea" (which may be too late to be used in Iraq), is to talk about the issues that affect the voters personally: JOBS!

I don't know of a single person that has not suffered economically for the past 4 years. Let's exploit that!

[Raiden]

32. Go Johnny!

Sounds like James Carville's givin' him some sound advice.

[punpirate]

33. Probably a mistake...

... to say four years or less. The longer we're there en masse, the sourer the situation will get.

Right now, the "coalition" is as it is because of petty bribery. The US is hogging the reconstruction work--even the British are miffed at what they've gotten out of this mess.

If Kerry wants to get us out as quickly as possible, then he should be planning to throw out the procurement people in the Pentagon who've been managing reconstruction, sever ties with the greediest of the go-between private companies in the Washington area, and open up reconstruction to countries willing to come in under UN auspices.

And, probably as importantly, take the whole reconstruction business out of the hands of the Pentagon, and return it to State, where it belongs.

That should be one of the first orders of business, anyway--undoing the changes wrought by the neo-cons.

But, if large numbers of our troops stay, insurgency will continue, Iraqi elections or no elections. And if Allawi manages to survive and is in power, this very creepy gentleman will use all of his political connections on the right to fight Kerry and keep our troops in Iraq for the protection of his government.

If Kerry doesn't immediately implement a plan to get US troops out a helluva lot faster than four years, he's going to have to answer his own question about senseless wars.

[DaveSZ]

34. Finally

``It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.''


Now I can bloody vote for him and not hold my nose.

He can't make the mistake of not distinguishing his position from the other guy's.

[DaveSZ]

35. Sounds like James Carville's givin' him some sound advice.

Amen.

That darn Ragin' Cajin.