Kerry: time to speak out more on Iraq

[welshTerrier2]

Kerry voted for the Iraq War Resolution ... he should not have ... and he refuses to say he would have voted against it knowing what he knows now ... politically, that's probably the right thing to do ... although it may alienate the left, we are still with him ...

Kerry says bush alienated our allies and that he (Kerry) would be far more effective in building alliances ... he's right ...

The problem is that the press continues to portray his position on Iraq as a "non-position" ... or perhaps a mushy position ... i'm concerned that this could, over time, erode some of his support ... and there's no need for him to not speak out more forcefully ...

I think Kerry should take a stronger position on Iraq but not get into painting the democrats as the "anti-war party" ... this is not based on anything but pure political pragmatism ... my personal views are that we should get the hell out of there within 3 months ... Iraq is collapsing and its people will pay the highest price for generations to come ...

So, Kerry should continue with his current strategy: that he would do a better job than bush and that we need to "complete the mission" ... but he also should be more agressive about criticizing bush's failures in Iraq ...

Consider the following:

50% of the Iraqi people are unemployed ... Christians are fleeing the country for Syria because the U.S. approved Constitution in Iraq recognizes the Shi'ites as the country's religion and allows it to be codified in Iraq's new laws ... this is a total failure on bush's part to recognize the need for separation of church and state ... i fear this will eventually lead to genocide against Iraqi minorities ... virtually none of the U.S. budget for rebuilding Iraq has been spent ... what little has been spent is going to U.S. defense contractors often in the form of no bid contracts ... in fact, much of the funds for rebuilding Iraq are coming. not from the U.S., but from very sparse Iraqi revenues ... and what about Iran ?? for years, the Iranians have been held in check by Saddam's power ... and now bush is telling us how dangerous Iran has become ... is it just a little possible Iran is stronger because Iraq is weaker?

There are many things Kerry should be speaking out about in Iraq ... Kerry is doing very well politically today, but he should not become complacent ... Kerry needs to highlight the failures of the bush administration in Iraq ... this will not portray him as "soft on defense" ... but bush must be held to the standard he uses to justify the invasion ... we were supposed to be making Iraq better for the Iraqi people ... and it just isn't going to happen ... there is no liberation to be realized in a country devastated by war, torn apart by religious strife and occupied by those who never had its best interest at heart in the first place ...

[DaveinMD]

1. I stand with

Kerry in authorizing the use of force. That doesn't mean we should go to war. Having the threat of war can be a great diplomatic tool. However, there was no need to rush into war and the inspections should have taken place. This is just what Kerry wanted to happen, but Bush botched it.

[Proud liberal Kat]

2. I think Kerry is in a tough spot with this one

I disagreed with his vote and still do, it is the one thing that sticks in my craw about him LOL, but I can live with it. I was disappointed in the whole Congress, they threw a hot potato off along with their Constitutional Duty to the Executive Branch, IMHO. But the blame lies with Bush for how he went to war.

Unfortunately with so many of the voters listening only to the sound bites, Kerry has to be careful how he says things...if only we could get the majority of the country intrigued by politics and researching things. Or the media going back to real journalism, both seem like pipe dreams though.
Kathy

[Jackpine Radical]

3. So think of it this way:

We're about to send a cop out into a bad neighborhood. Should we give him a gun? Yes.
The cop panics and kills a kid with the gun.

Does that mean we shouldn't have armed the cop?
No.
It means we should get a better class of cop.

If Kerry wins, he's going to have to go into some bad neighborhoods, and he'll maybe want a gun. If he now says it was wrong to arm the first cop, his opponents wilol turn that into an argument for not giving him a gun when he goes in there.

[welshTerrier2]

5. huh ??

either you're missing what i'm saying or i'm missing what you're saying ...

let me clarify my post ... i was NOT arguing that Kerry should now say he is against our presence in Iraq ... while that is my personal view, I don't think it is politically viable ... so, if you're reference to cops and bad neighborhoods was suggesting that i thought Kerry should say he wants to immediately withdraw, it is not correct ...

the point of my post was that the Iraqi people are suffering ... there is no democracy in Iraq regardless of whatever smokescreen the bushies are trying to sell us ... there is increased religious persecution, suppression of the press, poverty, no jobs, multi-national corporate corruption, and probably martial law ... Kerry should find a way to speak out about these things ...

if i'm stuck responding to your bad neighborhood analogy, look at it this way ... there are rats in the buildings ... the people don't have jobs ... the schools stink and many of them are shut down ... there is no clean drinking water ... the majority is killing the minority over religious issues ... and gangs are occupying the neighborhood ... my post was not about the cops ... it was about the neighborhood ...

[Jackpine Radical]

6. I was reacting to your mention of opposition to the war res. vote.

The vote didn't in itself mean Kerry thought the war was a good idea. Somehow I didn't see Post #1 above, which makes the same argument I do.

Maybe Kerry should speak out on the things you mention during the campaign, maybe he shouldn't. I don't pretend to know. It's a strategic question. His job right now is to get elected, and so far he's convinced me that he knows a whole lot more about doing that than I do.

[welshTerrier2]

7. it's also a moral question

first of all, let's be clear that i didn't ever say that Kerry thought the war was "a good idea" ... i said that i thought his vote was wrong ... post #1 completely failed to respond to the essence of the base post which did not focus on the Iraq vote but rather on what's going on in Iraq today ... i more than showed my tolerance for Kerry's vote which i still believe was dead wrong ...

i certainly agree with you that what Kerry should do and say regarding Iraq is a strategic question ... but it's also a moral question ... and strategically, Kerry may need to be clearer on what he will do to help the Iraqi people recover from this mess ...

yes, Kerry's job right now is to get elected ... but I believe that commenting on the many tragedies occurring in Iraq will likely help him to do so ... and not doing so will not only be a disservice to the Iraqi people but very possibly to his campaign as well ...

[welshTerrier2]

4. welcome to DU, KerryKat ...

yes, I certainly agree Kerry has to be careful how he says things ...

the essence of my post was that it is also dangerous for him be portrayed, or perceived, as being afraid to say things that many of us see happening in Iraq ...

Kerry frequently uses the phrase "we won the war but failed to plan for the peace" ... it's a great phrase but I think he needs to back it up by highlighting what is happening in Iraq to the Iraqi people ... he can't allow bush to paint a picture that the Iraqis are only months away from free elections ... the current puppet government is very close to declaring martial law and they just kicked out a major arab news agency ... does this sound like democracy ???

Regardless on where Kerry stood going into Iraq, he should take advantage of his visibility now and speak the truth to the American people and the rest of the world ...