I need help responding to an editorial against Kerry.....

[Gloria]

that appeared in my local Gannett rag today...the infamous Las Cruce Sun-News.
After interviewing Kerry by phone about base closures, during which Kerry said that the world had changed so much that maybe the process should be delayed and reassessed, this paper proceeds to carry on about his votes, the last one being in 2001. Then they defend the process because it's been going on for years and we have two fine Senators (one of them Domenici) who are involved, so shut up John Kerry. Well, I can hammer them on BRAC...but later, they go on about about voting for then against funding the Iraq thing (I take it it's the $87 billion votes), also easy to explain.....

However, I can't figure out what to do, if anything about this portion of this editorial (which is timed, by the way, to Bush's visit to NM at any moment....I'm suspicious, aren't you??):

"Early, when Kerry was one of the many seeking the Democratic Party nomination, he made doubtful statements about the strength of our forces in Iraq. They were irresponsible. He had voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq and then voted against funding it. Why? Did times change, as he says it has for BRAC?"

Can someone clue me in about what Kerry statements about troop strength were "doubtful" and "irresponsible"??? Anybody know? I for the life of me can't recall anything that would be described that way....

Thanks for any help or leads on this....



From the editorial.....

Who’s the real Kerry?

Aug 11, 2004, 12:01 am

Will the real John Kerry speak up?

As a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, Kerry voted at least three different times to close military bases as part of the Base Realignment and Closure process.
As a candidate for U.S. president, Kerry told reporters Sunday on the campaign train in New Mexico that he will, as president, stop the process until he is convinced that it is the right move.
How is it that he was convinced of the appropriateness three earlier times but now it is not? The last of his three votes was in 2001 authorizing the BRAC round now being developed for announcement next year.

SNIP

Would President Kerry politicize military decisions by having his political appointees weigh in on what truly needs to be professional military decisions? If he thinks the present secretary of defense and national security advisor are silent on military strength and troop movements, he doesn’t listen to the talk shows upon which he appears so often.

SNIP

Candidate Kerry said he will stop the process until he can learn more about it. Well, he knew enough to vote for it three times. May we humbly suggest that if he feels his information is limited, some of the millions of dollars contributed to his campaign could be used by his team to gather sufficient information upon which to make informed statements.

Early, when Kerry was one of the many seeking the Democratic Party nomination, he made doubtful statements about the strength of our forces in Iraq. They were irresponsible. He had voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq and then voted against funding it. Why? Did times change, as he says it has for BRAC?

We are not the only ones who have noticed the contradictions between his record and what he says. As it appeared he had the nomination wrapped up, his statements became more tempered, even to pabulum in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Party convention. Now, and to a small group, it appears his statements are again harsher. Interesting.

MORE

[papau]

1. New base closing have not be chosen or reviewed - and "NEW" is

what Kerry is referring to looking into.

The process is old - but that is a strawman used in your editorial for no logical purpose.

Kerry will look into the new suggested closings.

They have not been voted on by Congress.

[Gloria]

2. I get that, but I'm asking about the reference to "doubtful" and

"irresponsible" statements about Iraq troop strength....

[papau]

3. Good question - hard to answer if they will not give you a quote!!

"when Kerry was one of the many seeking the Democratic Party nomination, he made doubtful statements about the strength of our forces in Iraq"

We needed 250,000 per Pentagon for winning the peace - and Kerry did nor disagree - and General was fired that said that.

Since then our decrease in folks has actually been an increase as we "overlap" withdrawels with replacements.

The military folks advising Kerry are top flight Pentagon - the ones Bush fired so as to not hear that invading Iraq would not be a cakewalk.

I suggest your paper needs to do a little research!

[KurtNYC]

4. Too few to do it properly

I'm guessing they mean he was among those saying that the sunny expectations of the administration were wrong and that by sending too few troops we were risking more casualties and a longer stay (and look what happened).

This is part of their attempt to level Kerry -- take him down to Bush's level. One part of this is the Boat vets for Bush, who try in vain to make Kerry's service to the country in Vietnam equivalent to Bush's service to Red Blount. The lie of the week is this 'Kerry would have invaded with no WMD also' crap.

Anyone's voting record is easily distorted. I don't know why the simple answer for those attacks isn't:

"As you know various version of the same bill come to votes. You vote for the package you think is best and that means voting against one version and for another."

[Gloria]

6. That's what I've been thinking, too....

thanks for the input everyone....

[chiburb]

5. Try irresponsible Republicans questioning troop strength...

Snip:

I don't think any of us anticipated the amount and sophistication of these attacks," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said in an interview from Iraq hours after the U.N. bombing Tuesday. "I think they may need more people, both in the military generally and perhaps here on the ground."

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, agreed: "I'm increasingly concerned we don't have enough soldiers and Marines to do all the jobs that must be done

More:

Retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash, who commanded U.S. peacekeepers in Kosovo, said an additional four brigades (about 25,000 combat troops) are needed to supplement the 146,000 U.S. troops already in Iraq.

"The pattern we have seen since earlier this month shows there is a terror offensive taking place," said Nash, who is now affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations. "It's not going to stop unless we put a stop to it."

But there may be precious few combat troops to send. Of the Army's 33 combat brigades, 20 are already stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea or Kosovo. "And to get that 20, they raped the other 13," said retired Brig. Gen. David Grange. Units deploying overseas that were short on platoon sergeants or tank commanders simply borrowed from units remaining in the United States, leaving them undermanned, he said.

"We find ourselves today waging two simultaneous wars, the guerrilla war in Iraq and another smaller guerrilla war in Afghanistan," said retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, who teaches international relations at Boston University. "The active forces are too small to wage both of them without making it impossible to take on contingencies such as Korea."

More:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03235/214252.stm

[Gloria]

7. OOH, thanks for the quotes!!

eom