WP editorial "Mr. Kerry and Iraq" makes my point. I have been saying

[hansolsen]

for weeks in this forum that John Kerry has not made clear where he stands on Iraq and that is killing us at the polls and will be a disaster going into the debates.

Here is the link and the first graf:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17019-2004Sep12.html

"THE AGONIZING difficulties in Iraq give rise to two legitimate questions: Was the war a mistake, and what is to be done now? The second is the more vital, but both are important subjects for the campaign. President Bush has unambiguous answers. He believes the war was right and necessary, and he maintains that his plan of training Iraqi forces while facilitating elections will help Iraq move toward stability and democracy. Both positions are subject to challenge, and we will be returning to them in future editorials. But it isn't clear where Sen. John F. Kerry stands on either point. "


Now, I know Kerry faithful can reconstruct some clear version of what Kerry has been saying, but no two versions ever come out looking the same. It is time Kerry came came down off the fence and took a real stand on what he will do in Iraq now. That is the only way to take the initiative away from Bush on this issue.

Here are some clear policy changes Kerry could advocate:

1. Hold a referendum in Iraq to determine if the majority of Iraqi people want us there. If not, bring the troops home.

2. If they want us there, the Iraqi people must be willing to stand up an Iraqi army that will stand shoulder to shoulder with Americans and kill fellow Iraqis who oppose the new order. There is not a shred of evidence they are willing to do that. If not we should come home.

3. As a combat veteran I will never send soldiers into battle where they cannot tell friend from foe. I will stop patroling Iraqi streets immediately. I will withdraw American troops to forward bases and send them out only to stop genocide. If they are sent into battle they will come out guns blazing. I will never order American soldiers into combat with rules of engagement where they cannot fire unless fired upon first.

4. I will go to Iraq and meet with the leaders of the Iraqi insurgency. My policy in the middle east will be based on more talk and less bombs.

Here is how Kerry should announce this policy:

QUOTE
Fellow citizens, hear me: I served in Vietnam and experienced the combat of war. I saw people killed and I killed enemy soldiers. I learned some things from that experience that will profoundly effect the orders I will issue as Commander and Chief. I will keep our soldiers safe from the folly of war. I will not send them on combat missions with no clear objective. I will not send them into battle where they cannot tell friend from foe. I will not ask them to fight for people who will not fight for themselves. I will never send American soldiers on a combat mission with rules of engagement where they cannot fire unless fired upon. I will never ask young soldiers to risk their lives because old men in high places cannot admit their mistakes.

I will go to Baghdad myself and I will meet with the leaders of the Iraqi insurgency. I will end this war * on * Iraq. I will not fire another shot in * that * war. I will hold an immediate national referendum in Iraq to determine if the Iraqi people want us to stay. If the people of Iraq want us out of there, I will bring the troops home. If a clear majority of Iraqis want us to stay, I will demand they stand along side American troops and prove it. If they refuse or shirk that duty, I will still bring our troops home. If they want us to stay and will stand with us, I will keep American forces there as true peace keepers.

I believe that God helps those who help themselves, and so do I. That principle will guide my policy in Iraq. Please give me your vote and your confidence. Please trust that what I learned in the rice fields of South Vietnam is relevant to what must be done now. I ask for your trust.

[demnan]

1. From your lips . . .

to Kerry's

[ClevelandSportsCurse]

2. All Kerry had to say

was that he along with the rest of the Senate, House, and the American people were tricked into believing the President and that Bush misled, if not LIED, to Congress and the people. He could have easily pulled this off by showing genuine outrage over being snookered - just like the majority of the American people. He could then talk about how he will get to the bottom of how and why Bush was so deceiving.

However, it is now likely too late to say this because it will only add to the "flip-flop" stigma that Rove has effectively attached to Kerry. Bush lobbed a fat gopher ball down the middle of the plate when he openly asked Kerry if he still felt the war was right knowing what he knows now. Unfortunately, would should have been an out of the park homerun ended up as big swing and a miss when Kerry said "yes."

[jbfam4]

6. Welcome to DU

Your points are excellent........what took you so long to get here?

[ClevelandSportsCurse]

8. Thanks....I was not able to sign up...

because I had a Yahoo e-mail address. Now that I am going back to school, my university ID got reactivated, thus I was able to use that sign up.

[farmbo]

7. Welcome to DU..Go Tribe! (and Browns!) But Saddam goes on trial in Oct.

The only problem with answering "no" to the hypothetical --and it's a huge problem-- is that Rove had a $50 million ad campaign in the can ready to go pounding Kerry with the old Howard Dean blast: "If he(Kerry)had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power...".

Remember, Saddam goes on trial in October. That timing came straight from Rove's office. Our airwaves will be flooded with images of Saddam's mass graves, human shredders and Uday's rape rooms. This is Rove's October Surprise.

Kerry has inoculated himself from that attack with his statement. And what support, if any, did he lose(I know, I know...Nader Greens)?No thinking voter who is against the war would switch to Bush because of that statement.

Rove would much rather run against Saddam than Kerry. The October trials will inflame unprecedented hatred of Saddam among US voters, and Kerry was right to answer the hypothetical with a begrudging "yes".

Rove had set the trap fully thinking that Kerry would answer "no".

[ClevelandSportsCurse]

9. Good point

However, I think Kerry would have been able to get around Rove's trap by plainly and boldly stating that the Iraqi people are not better off without Saddam - of course they don't miss him - because the Bush administration is behaving just like, if not worse, than Saddam (i.e. prison abuse and torture). That would thrust Bush's war management performance in the critical spotlight as well as the prison abuse being sanctioned by Rumsfeld.

[xray s]

3. This war is stupid

We could have dealt with Saddam without miring 130,000 troops in a religious civil war/guerilla resistence war.

But now we are there. I really can't see any good outcome.

Bush has fucked this up royally. But you have to hand it to him, he is a master at deflecting blame. Now everybodys on Kerry's ass because HE doesn't have the magic solution!

I don't give a whit what Kerry is going to do. The most important thing right now is to get rid of the idiot that got us in this mess in the first place!

[KoKo]

4. How bad can it be when the WaPo has to write speeches for Kerry..

What the hell is going on. Either Kerry wants to win or he doesn't, I just don't understand it anymore.

Thousands of volunteers are going to be walking the streets urging people to vote for him, thousands more will man phone banks and stuff envelopes, thousands more gave hard earned money as donations to his campaign, and the WaPo and writers in progressive magazines and blogs have to tell him what he needs to do? At this late point in the campaign? Sheesh....

[Tamyrlin79]

5. Indeed. Kerry is no Howard Dean...