Kerry says: "This President Rushed Us Into War" but is he saying

[KoKo]

"I, John Kerry, would have "taken time to start this war but we would have gone anyway...just MY WAY?

Please help me with this...

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. No he is saying taht if the war

had to be fought (no way one way or the other) he would have done it with a plan that works, and ALLIES

[xray s]

5. I guess the question is, what were those "conditions"

If the weapons inspectors reported no WMD, we wouldn't have been able to wrestle up any allies to invade the way we did. I doubt even England would have gone in under those conditions.

[krkaufman]

16. ... and that it very likely would NOT have needed to be fought...

... since the inspectors would have shown, had they not been pulled out of Iraq due to Bush's impatience, that there were no WMDs.

The Congressional Iraq resolution was approved as a tool to get the UN to vote to put inspectors back into Iraq. Bush misused it, and bent us all over.

[Liberal_Andy]

2. Please God, I pray he's saying, or going to say,

"I would have given the inspectors enough time to finish their job."

[LittleClarkie]

69. Yes

He HAS said that, straight out. It was one of the things on his list that he would have done differently.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. No, he isn't saying that, but SOME people are determined to twist it ...

....so it fits their preconceived notions about Kerry.

[KoKo]

15. Yes...he's said it many times most recently at the Congressional Black

Caucus Dinner rebroadcast on C-Span twice. Kerry has said: I would do everything differently from Bush in Iraq. He says: "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time.."

So, what is the "Right War, Right Place, Right Time?"

And, even though he would have handled Iraq "differently" would he still have gone...eventually?

He never answers this. :shrug: He doesn't.

[Liberal Veteran]

17. What is the point of arguing with you since you have made up mind...

...and just looking for another reason to bash Kerry.

You are far, far more intelligent than you would have us believe based on this thread and I am not falling into your little Kerry bashing game.

[progressivebydesign]

23. Wierd.. the Kerry bashers are out in force this weekend on DU.

People with high post numbers, especially. Freaky.

I think a Demcoratic forum is an odd place to dump on the Democratic candidate locked in a tight race... odd indeed. I've been here almost 4 years, and I've never seen some Democrat bashing as I've seen this week... I'm certainly not accusing anyone of being an infiltrator, or anything.. I just find it so curious that THIS is when the Democrats should be circling the wagons, and instead we're holding a Donner party. This is why the GOP is so successful.. they never eat their own.

[hansolsen]

34. Some of us are just trying to come down on the Carville side of the

Carville / Shrum strategy debate.

[krkaufman]

18. So, what is the "Right War, Right Place, Right Time?"

Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, we've never finished the job and so the people of Afghanistan are in for a world of hurt over the next N years, as the Taliban and warlords fight for power.

[mreh]

46. IMHO – the reason he says “Wrong War, Wrong Place

Wrong Time” is to make fun of * and his W for war campaign crap and to let the people know that he is not against war if it is necessary. People want a leader that is brave and willing to fight if the fight is necessary, they don’t want someone who is afraid of battle. That is why the shrub is liked, cause he is willing to kick arse if need be :puke:

Kerry is making that part of his campaign because he doesn’t want * and his lot to say he is weak and afraid of confrontation.

That doesn’t mean he is “for” the Iraq War, it just means he knows it is something he will have to deal with and try to straighten out once he takes office.

[krkaufman]

58. Correct

Kerry is making that part of his campaign because he doesn’t want * and his lot to say he is weak and afraid of confrontation.

Agreed. Kerry made his military service part of his campaign because if he hadn't Rove would have attacked him for being weak and unwilling to protect the country.

Bottom line... there *is* no safe position against Rove, because there's no level below which he won't go -- no matter the consequences for the country.

[Nicholas_J]

65. Earlier this years Kerry states

That Saddam was contained, as the conditions found in Iraq when we got there proved. Kerry stated that Saddam was effectively contained by the U.N. sanctions and the British/American enforcement of the my fly zones before the war, and again, Kerry has been proven correct. Saddam had not WMD's, he had not been able to rebuild the military forces that were decimated by the U.N. coalition during the Gulf War (90 percent of his airforce destroyed, 50 percent of his tanks destroyed, and half of the Republican Guard killed.) DUring the 12 years between the end of the Gulf War and th recetn invasion, the U.S. flew over 40,000 missions over Iraq without the Iraqi militaary being able to shoot down one plane, while those missions blew up and otherwise destroyed evry military installation Saddam attempted to build. Every radar installation Saddam attempted to build was bombed within hours of the end of construction.

The wrong war at thee wrong time means that we could have waited 6 days, six months, or six years to deal with Saddam as we felt necessary, and spend that time going after the primary threat to the U.S. Al Qaeda. Bush abandoned the mission to capture the top 22 Al Qaeda leaders, in order to remove most of our forces from Afghananistan in order to attack Iraq, where all evidence indicated that there was no viable thrat to the U.S.

The invasion of Iraq more suited Irving Kristols philosophy, straight out of the Third Reichs' playbook, that if there is not real enemy, we have to create one to get the public to have something to fear.

After the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union, there was no enemy left.

Just as Hitler had to build up both Czechoslovakia and Poland into major miltary threats to Germany, It was necessary for Bush to find a threat to the U.S. and build this threat up to one of major proportion Another quote fro Hitler, the bigger the lie, the more people will want to beleive it.

Kerry simply knew that Iraq was no immediate threat, but still wanted to give authority to the executive to act if by some unforseen event, it did become a major threat. And if we could get support from the U.N. once it decided that its own resolution had been defied by Iraq.


The idea that Kerry requires U.N. support to defend ourselves from a real threat is absurd. ut certainly we would want U.N. support if our intention was to enforce U.N. resolutions. It would be absurd for the United States to go to bat and to war to support U.N. resolution without the U.N. itself deciding it wanted those resolution supported by going to war.
But again, only if such sudden threat was found. It was not, but Bush abused the authority given to him, by blindly stating that Iraq was a threat, and providing no evidence of this, nor finding it once the invasion was a faite accompli.

So Kerry saw the inveitable need to do something about Saddam, but not necessily in six months, or a year, or as he said, even six years.

Conditions were such that we could wait to deal with Saddam while we took care of imore immediate threats.


Which have obviously not been taken care of. Ayman Al Zawahari made it perfectly clear that the organization which immediately threatens us is still operative, and itse leadership nearly fully intact, with 19 of the 22 leaders of Al Qaeda still free and on the loose and planning. All fifty 2 cards on the Iraqi deck of emenies have been captured. In relatively short order. While less than half a deck of truly dangerous terrorist who cnstitute the main threat to U.S. security have beel left out on the table and are still in play.

Bush has been fighting terrorism where it is not, and unfortunately it is going to take another severe attack on U.S. soil by Al Qaeda for the American Public to realize that Saddam had nothing to do with it, nor his Baathis regime, as none of them are free at the present to either plan and co-ordinate such an attack, not even provide support and succor for the terrorists.

Even then it might take some doing to convince the American Public that Iraq will have had nothing to do with it. But if someone does a good job acting it out with finger puppets, some may just get it.

Unfortunately, a lot more people are going to have to die before they realize that Bush and company have done nothing whatsover to keep America and its citizens safe from terrorism. They have barely kept the main purpose for the war in Iraq safe from terrorism. The oil in Iraq is still not safe.

[LittleClarkie]

70. The problem is

truth is not something you can cough up in a campaign ad or speech in 30 seconds. With time to explain properly, he makes sense.

The question, "Would you have gone after Saddam even without WMD's?" is like "Do you still beat your children?" There is no good answer.

If yes, you sound like you agree with Bush when you don't.

If no, then apparently you didn't think that Sadaam was evil and that he needed to be stopped.

Of course Sadaam was evil and needed to be stopped. He needed to be stopped when he was our ally. He needed to be stopped 12 years ago. To switch to the "we liberated the people" because it played better in the press than "we're looking for WMDs" is so extremely disingenuous. If we cared so much about the Iraqi people, we wouldn't have left Sadaam in there for even that long.

Did we have time to get a coalition together. Yes. Did we have time to get the troops proper equipment and send them in proper force. Yes. Did we have time to do all the other things right here in America that would have really made us more safe, like border patrols, and pretecting the ports and nuclear plants and such. Yes.

You have to say that Sadaam needed to be taken out somehow at some point. Because he was indeed not a nice man. But in exactly that way and at exactly that time with no help from anyone else? No.

Kerry would have done what it took to make sure we would be safe, whatever that something turned out to be. He wouldn't have used 9/11 for his own agenda. That is the ultimate evil in my eyes. He used a tramatic time for us as a country for politics, the bastard.

Indeed, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.

[ismnotwasm]

71. well

I just put my daughter on the plane back to Afgahnistan, after her two week leave. She hates the army right now, and is planning on getting out after this deployment. She does feel we are doing some good in Afgahnistan. So my husband and I walk my sobbing 5 year old grandson down the airport, I think about what she said about all the single parents, or just parents in general, being apart from their kids because of this inept, incompetent, disgusting administration, and their desire to start war with Iraq, for no reason, that anybody has been to expain that makes sense. Our army would not be in the state it's in if now for this what do you call it--a 2 front war? 4 fronts? A gadzillion fronts? I'm grieving, and not very articulate right now, not that I'm ever. DU, I'm not much of an on-line community person, but you guys, infighting and all, have saved my sanity more than once. John Kerry, is my hope for the future. If nothing else, he is a decent start in a better direction

[dennis4868]

44. Last week....

in cinncinatti Kerry said that Bush should have given the insoectors more time....i did not know this myself but another DUer showed me the part of the transcript from Kerry's website that proved this...but the truth is....he does not say it enough.

[blm]

4. No. He would have allowed the weapons inspectors to do their work

and then would have handled regime change diplomatically along with our allies as was in the works when Bush went in because he NEEDED war.

[xray s]

7. That is KEY

There were other ways to handle Hussein if he had no WMD.

Bush tries to play it as war, or Hussein goes skipping through the daisies free as a bird.

[shraby]

9. I think he would have allowed the

UN inspectors to do their jobs and with no WMDs found, would have continued with the sanctions.

[xray s]

11. The point is

Hussein could have been contained quite easily if he had no WMD, without this stupid war. Then our military could turn its attention to the real terrorists that hit us on 9/11.

Now we are fucked. 130,000 troops pinned down in a religious civil war with targets on their backs.

[hansolsen]

33. Face facts - Kerry would have left Hussein in place. Kerry needs to

stand up and say what half the country doesn't want to hear -- we never should have launched this war just to be rid of Saddam Hussein, and he wouldn't have done it. The negative costs of the war in dollars, lives, credibility, and world wide repect for America, has outweighed the benefit of ousting Saddam Hussein by about a thousand to one.

If Kerry had been saying that all along, he would now be leading 60 / 40.

This painful to watch.

[dennis4868]

36. okay but he never just comes out.....

and says this....its always wrong war, wrong time, wrong plan, etc....

[bookman]

6. Look here...

...

http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/

[Pax Argent]

31. This covers it nicely. Thanks for posting this!! /eom

[cindyw]

8. You know damn well he didn't say that.

That is RW media spin.

[KoKo]

13. Yes...he's said it many times most recently at the Congressional Black

Caucus Dinner rebroadcast on C-Span twice. Kerry has said: I would do everything differently from Bush in Iraq. He says: "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time.."

So, what is the "Right War, Right Place, Right Time?"

And, even though he would have handled Iraq "differently" would he still have gone...eventually?

He never answers this. :shrug: He doesn't.

[Liberal Veteran]

14. Seems to me you already have your mind made up then.

And are just looking for another reason to tout your pet cause.

[cindyw]

49. Are you actually equating Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time with

"I, John Kerry, would have "taken time to start this war but we would have gone anyway...just MY WAY?

Not even close. You obviously have always thought that Kerry was a warmonger, so you are seeing connections where there are not.

And yes, there is a time and a place for a just war, there is no way of knowing now if there would have a come a time for a just war against Iraq.

[seabeyond]

10. he cant say what he would have happened because

he didnt get to do. what if he had the power of un and congreess, power to go to war. and what if saddam had come to him, like he did with bush and say he would get out and the soldiers would work with him. what if they had saddam moved to another country and we took over the country without war because the whole world supported getting saddam out

who knows what would happen

what if gore won, and he was aware of obl and heard the aug 6 memo and took it serious and shook the tree and stopped 9/11 and didnt have to go to war. how many lives saved

we cannot know what would have happened if kerry was president. he wasnt president. all we know is what bush has done. and with the war since. alll we can see is the mistakes of bush, we cannot see what it would have been with kerry in.

kerry cannot predict what he will do once in. that is 5 months away, who knows what will be up in iraq in 5 months. we have to trust in his smarts, we have to trust in his experience and perception of vietnam, and we know what bush is doing

[hansolsen]

35. Kerry will own Iraq in seven weeks if he wins. Bush will be a lame duck

and the world will look to Kerry and ask, "What now"?

Kerry must answer that question in the upcoming debates or he will surely lose this election.

[WiseMen]

12. Apart from his close National Security team (R. Beers,S. Rice, W. Sherman)

Kerry surrogates are all over the map with the interpretation of
Kerry's position. Talking points have not been either simple enough
or available to these surrogates.

[kentuck]

19. George Bush says, "If John Kerry was president, Saddam would still be...

in power and would still be a threat to the world". Somebody has to start calling him on his lies. Saddam was not a threat to us or the world. It was an unnecessay war that has led to over 1000 dead American troops and has left Osama alone for 3 years now.

[hansolsen]

37. Yes, but Kerry needs to start by clearly saying, yes Saddam would still be

in power in Iraq. He can't say maybe, or likely or humma humma.

He needs to go on and say Saddam really was no threat and the cost of what we are doing, in myriad ways is a thousand fold the benefit of ridding Iraq of Hussein.

Some people will say the soldiers in the field don't want to hear that kind of talk when they are in combat. I say the soldiers in the field always want to hear the truth.

[oasis]

20. DUers used to spend all night picking Bush apart. (eom)

[KoKo]

21. Kerry is our "designated leader" if we don't criticize and pick him apart

then we might as well be Bush Bots...who do Heil to the Chief...This is America...we have a right to criticize everyone....

[Octafish]

22. Good point. So why keep going over and over the same old same old?

It's like a broken record.

Weeks after 9-11, Kerry got lied to. Bush and Co. were talking about mushroom clouds over US cities. Bush said he'd do things differently and he didn't. That's not Kerry's fault. That's Bush's fault. Right now, I prefer to talk about that.

[hansolsen]

38. Some of us are just trying to do on-line debate prep for our candidate. NT

[oasis]

24. I agree. "We have a right to criticize everyone." Some here still choose

to criticize Bush 100 percent of the time. I just long for the good old days. :-)

Edit to ad the word"to"

[KoKo]

25. Yeah...but this site was started because of a "stolen election" and the

guy picked to "replace Gore" in our Dem eyeballs should have learned, studied and been filled with OUTRAGE!

But, he isn't. He's "nuancing" why we went into Iraq and leaving open American Agressions into other places in the ME by saying...

"Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time."

What would be "Kerry's War, then" A War at the "Right Place and Right Time?"

Do we want another President that we didn't listen carefully to his nuanced words for where he wants to lead America, our people?

Should we forgive Kerry for more than we FORGIVE BUSH?

Or...hold his "feet to the fire?"

[mreh]

47. Let's get him elected, then hold his feet to the fire.

Just like no one knows how Gore would have handled 9/11 or if it would have happened if he had been given the position he won, no one knows what Kerry would have done or not done if he were president before the Iraq war.

Wrong war, wrong place is just a talking point so that Kerry doesn’t appear to be afraid of conflict. Let me know when you run for office so that I can be sure to pick your campaign apart and not be supportive of your efforts!

[KoKo]

50. LOL's...but I am working for Kerry...it doesn't negate my right to

question where he's going in his public statements and addresses to different groups..

[mreh]

53. Your working for Kerry? Wouldn’t know it from your post!

Or your inability to understand the intricate balancing act that campaigning really is or how truly complicated the war in Iraq truly is. Sure anyone can say war is bad, wouldn’t have gone to war, but does that answer the how do you handle the situation now? Of course not, when campaigning you try to stay away from absolutes that you may not be able to live up to. Kerry has no idea what he will be able to accomplish regarding Iraq until he gets into office and determines how f**cked up things really are. This admin is the most secretive admin in our nation’s history and they have robbed our nation and the Iraqi people of billions of dollars. Kerry will need congress’ support to get things accomplished, he cannot do it alone. The voters have to see Kerry as strong and brave and willing to use force if and when necessary.

[KoKo]

54. Yes...definitely working for Kerry...part of his campaign, unlike Repugs

those of us working in the Democratic Organization/Party can still feel free to criticize our leaders if we think they are going on the wrong track.

I'm active and working for Kerry...I still have a brain, though.

[mreh]

57. Then I am rather shocked. It doesn’t take much of a brain to

realize that no one can say what Kerry will be able to accomplish relative to Iraq until he gets into office. At the same time, there are many, many factors to take into consideration relative to a stance on the war. Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time does not make Kerry a war monger, it makes him a man that is telling the nation that * handled things badly relative to Iraq.

Again, I suggest you run for office one day and see how complicated it is to run a campaign and get the votes. Especially when the mainstream media refuses to adequately provide you with coverage and is biased for the other guy.

You don’t have to have much of a brain to figure out that Iraq is a very complicated situation, the effect on our nation, on our troops, on the injured, on the families of those who died, on the vets that have been wounded and on the international community, not to mention rebuilding all that we have destroyed and trying to make amends for the thousands we have killed, all are issues that have to be considered and dealt with relative to trying to straighten out * mess. Not to mention getting congressional support (in funding – if there are any funds to use) to attempt to rectify the situation.

Why you want absolutes when none can be given is a mystery to me and that you post negative posts that require absolutes at the same time you work for Kerry is beyond my ability to fathom. And see, I have a brain and I don’t have to follow your convoluted thinking, I just use common sense.

Hold his feet to the fire after the election. Support the democratic candidate during the campaign. Rethugs are successful because they do not eat their own.

The trick to doing a better job than * is getting elected. All the good intentions in the world will mean nothing if Kerry isn’t elected.

[KoKo]

59. You're talking to someone who went through Cold War and Vietnam.....

it's a matter of perspective which goes deep into those of us who lived through it's souls and governed our lives from childhood.

We take this stuff very seriously...too seriously and if we seem convoluted about this...it's because of what we know and see from sad experience.

And, Yes...I'm working my butt off for Kerry, but the way he's going he's not making it easy.

If you have my same perspective of living through Cold War and Vietnam then you have a different opinion and I respect you...If you haven't then try to see where I'm coming from, okay?

Peace to you...

[mreh]

61. I too, have lived through VietNam and the Cold War . . .

You are asking for absolutes from a candidate that cannot give them.

Let's try to analyze this from the perspective if Gore had won, would 9/11 happened, possibly, but then again, it is doubtful as he would have paid attention to Roger Clark and the memo that warned that Bin Laden was planning an attack on the WTC (most probable target in NYC). Also, if Gore had won, then Clinton probably would have continued his efforts against Bin Laden until January with Gore's blessing. Now, without 9/11, there would have been no reason to attack Afghanistan. We all know that 9/11 was an excuse to attack Iraq, so would Kerry have attacked Iraq, well of course not. Kerry wasn't the candidate at that time, so his actions should not even be an issue. The lies fostered and spread by this admin relative to the dangers of Saddam would not even have come into play. Saddam had no connection to 9/11.

Kerry has explained over and over again that he voted to give * the authority to use force because that authority was necessary for our nation and the UN to have leverage relative to the search for WMD's and the continuation of the UN's efforts to disarm Saddam (but we would have learned that he had no arms). Bogus intelligence given to congress lead them to believe Saddam had WMD's. Do you think Kerry would have utilized bogus intelligence to foster his desire to attack Iraq? These are non issues. What Kerry would have done is not the issue.

That Kerry will try to gain the respect of the international community again is the issue. That American is distrusted by all other nations and we are seen as the threat is the issue. Kerry will try to restore our reputation in the international community. Kerry will work to remove our troops, with honor, at the same time, trying to prevent the civil war that is brewing in Iraq and trying to help rebuild that which we have destroyed.

Since you have lived through the Cold War, when others question you about what Kerry would have done in Iraq, simply explain that since he was not running for the office, that is not the issue. Turn the question on them, ask them what they think * would have done during the Cuban Missile Crisis if he had been president and not Kennedy. Ask them if they believe that they would be alive today to vote for what is best for our nation. Leadership is not just blasting a nation that is considered a threat (pre-emptive doctrine) (relative to Saddam, it was a false threat, a threat based on lies and false intelligence and forgeries). Restraint and knowing when to attack and who to attack is the true sign of leadership. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, following the * policies, * would have attacked Cuba and nuclear war would have occurred.

Kerry has been to war, knows the horrors of war and does not take waging war lightly and on a whim.

The question is not what Kerry would have done. The question is what has * done correctly? Did he listen to his military leaders? Did he try to get the international community behind him the way his father did in the first Gulf War? Did he go to war based on false intelligence? Did he fore sake the hunt for Bin Laden just to go to war in Iraq, a nation that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11? Did he follow his birth father's advice not to go to war in Iraq without an exist strategy? Does he have an exit strategy today? These are the issues. Not what Kerry would have done.

I wish you great success in your effort, I also pray that you stop allowing the questions to continue to be what would Kerry have done and instead help folks realize that what has been done has been done illegally, immorally and incorrectly. Our nation is now the hated rouge nation in the international community, we are the feared aggressor and other nations (like Iran) are developing their nuclear weapons to prevent our attacks and invasions. Sadly, we are in greater danger today than we were on September 12, 2001. Then we had the support of the international communities and the terrorists were short 19 terrorists, now we are distrusted and the terrorists numbers have grown in the hundreds.

Peace and much success to you.

[bigtree]

26. I can't believe you don't know how to find how John Kerry actually feels

about this.

You seem satisfied to replace his numerous statements on this and replace them with your own cynical view. That is either pitifully weak or willfully misleading. No one should have to take the time to spell this out for you, With all of the time you spend here mangling Kerry's position you could just as well do some research and discover a myriad of consistent words from our candidate that places him well above Bush on this issue. What more needs to be known? Bush lied, people died.

[Jacobin]

27. If WE'RE confused, what the fuck do you think the country is thinking?

Jeeze I hate this fucking campaign.

Sucks lava.

[bigtree]

28. Every path to a new understanding begins in confusion.

Mason Cooley (b. 1927), U.S. aphorist

[Jacobin]

29. Mason Cooley must be running the campaign, then

Lovely sentiment and all that, but in an American campaign fer chrissake, its gibberish.

[bigtree]

32. BBBBBush sucks

What more do we need to know? Fuwnsmk Busjwskh!!!

[Jacobin]

40. I can live with that!!

:-)

[WI_DEM]

30. his most common line is "I would not have done just one thing

differently I would have almost everything differently" which is fine, and is a good start to a speech to clarify his stand on Iraq but he needs to explain in laymans language exactly what he would have done differently. The American people are waiting for that explanation and unless he makes it he will probably lose. They want to replace Bush but they want to be reasured by Kerry.

[hansolsen]

39. No, he needs to say what he ** will ** do differently starting seven weeks

when he will own Iraq if he wins this election. Forget what he would have done -- that is ancient history and second guessing. What is he going do do now and on Jan 20, 2005?

[Jacobin]

41. The only problem with that is.....

The only real solution is getting the heck out (as we did in Vietnam). I'm hoping he will do that, but it will require him to sacrifice his career (think Gorbachev) for the greater good.

There IS no way to "do" Iraq successfully. It is its own country and will not tolerate occupation by American puppets.

[hansolsen]

51. We need to leave, but we don't need to leave in retreat from the roof of

of the embassy in the Green Zone. We could American presence to a referendum, and stay if they want us, leave with out dignity in tact if they don't. Now that would be a real world example of democracy in action.

What is wrong with that idea?? I ask.

[Jacobin]

55. No referendum or election is possible.

The entire country is a war zone. Any polling places would be attacked and few would vote.

They are fighting each other as much as they are fighting to evict the occupiers.

Anyway, the last poll done by Bremer said that 83% wanted us out right now. I think its pretty clear.

[sundancekid]

42. he laid all that out in his speech to American Legion on Sep. 1st and can

be found on the Kerry website
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0901.html
(about half way down)

<snip>
So when the president says we have the same position on Iraq, I have to respectfully disagree. Our differences couldn’t be plainer. And I have set them out consistently. When it comes to Iraq, it’s not that I would have done one thing differently, I would’ve done almost everything differently.

I would have relied on American troops in Tora Bora when we had Bin Laden in our sights. I never would have diverted resources so quickly from Afghanistan before finishing the job.

I would’ve given the inspectors the time they needed to do the job.

I wouldn’t have ignored my senior military advisors.

I would’ve made sure that every soldier put in harm’s way had the equipment and body armor they needed.

I would have built a strong, broad coalition of our allies around the world.

And, if there’s one thing I learned from my service, I would never have gone to war without a plan to win the peace.

The bottom line is that if I don’t believe we had to be shouldering nearly the entire financial cost of this war – more than $200 billion – and shortchanging investments in education, health care, and our safety at home.

But the question now is not just what we should have done, but what we can and must do now in Iraq. We do not need what President Bush has called "catastrophic success.” We need real success.
<snip>

[mreh]

43. Have any of the folks that wish Kerry would say "Iraq War Bad"

ever considered that Kerry is fully aware the impact those words can have and will have on the troops in Iraq and the vets who fought there, not to mention the families of those who lost their lives in Iraq? The wounds of the VietNam war and the anti-war protests on this nation and the vets that served are still impacting our nation today. Hell, most of the anti-Kerry vets are mad at him for his anti-war stance. Maybe he wants the vets of this war to be proud of their service and to come home as heros, not forgotten, not ashamed.

I heard an interview where Kerry was asked about his anti-war speeches and he said that there were things he would have done differently, he never realized the impact his words would have on the vets. He said that he was young and he probably could have handled things a little differently if he knew then the pains some of his words would have had on those who served their nation proudly.

Today he is doing things differently, he is campaigning to be a president that will properly handle the war and lead our nation out of the mess created by *. He didn’t start this war, but he intends to do what is right for the troops and our nation relative to the proper handling of the horror created by *. Part of that entails not making the efforts of the troops wrong or criminal. Part of that is helping the vets deal with life after the war and that can only be accomplished by helping them come home with honor and not shame. The shame is not the troops, but the * administration.

[hansolsen]

60. Are we discussing the same John Kerry who said this is the "wrong war,

in the wrong place at the wrong time"? He also Bush misled us into this war.

The troops can be proud of their service and still hear the truth about Iraq. The troops know the truth about Iraq -- they would probably getting to hell out of there sooner rather than later, alive and well rather than dead or wounded. Wouldn't you?

[mreh]

62. Sure, like all of those guys that fought in Viet Nam who knew

they were fighting an illegal war and were aware that their country misled them, did they come back without guilt and other issues that they are trying to live with today? Have you ever dealt with a Viet Nam vet? The guilt they live with, the horrors they recall and the fact that they felt like they were forgotten haunts them to this day.

We cannot pull out just to pull out, we made the mess and we owe those that fought and those died and the rest of the world and especially the Iraqi people more than just our absence. We have to try to correct and repair what we have destroyed. That cannot be done under *.
It is that simple and that complicated.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mourningdove92]

48. The individual that started this thread

consistently bashes Kerry. Consistently. Never anything positive. Never anything encouraging. Just bashes Kerry. Over and over and over.

[Julien Sorel]

52. And why not?

It's not like there are rules against it or anything.

[KoKo]

56. The individual who started this thread is working for John Kerry...in case

you didn't notice...are you out there doing "phone banks" and working with your local Democratic Party? Organizing in your Precinct? Hearing from fellow Democrats who aren't on DU or reading the "internet blogs" about questions they have about Kerry and his vote for the war and how he differs in plans for Iraq from Bush?

You are not hearing what the "folks on the street" are asking. And, what the folks who are volunteering for his Campaign are asking...

I said in my post what they and I are asking.

[mreh]

63. Compare the campaign websites:

Kerry's (and this doesn't even include a lot of stuff, like the Military Families Bill of Rights he has proposed):

A New Military To Meet New Threats
Today, our military is overextended and our troops are overburdened. John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions. To accomplish this, they will (1) expand our active duty forces, (2) double America's Special Forces capability and increase other specialized personnel, (3) complete the process of technological and educational transformation, (4) redirect the National Guard for homeland security, and (5) enact a Military Family Bill of Rights to relieve the burden on military families.


Expand America's Active Duty Forces
As president, John Kerry will ensure that our military has sufficient troop strength to protect our national security without placing an undue burden on the men and women of our armed forces. He will:

Add 40,000 Troops To The Active Duty Army To Prevent And Prepare For Other Possible Conflicts (not to increase the overall number of soldiers in Iraq). Currently, eight of the Army's ten active duty combat divisions are either in Iraq, preparing to go to Iraq, or recently returned from Iraq. While only a third of the Army would typically be deployed at any one time, under current deployment schedules 31 of our 33 active duty combat brigades will have been deployed by the summer of 2004. The Bush administration is relying on temporary solutions including "Stop Loss" orders, recalling the Individual Ready Reserve and extending tours to meet our commitments. These temporary measures have increased the burden on our troops and their families without addressing the underlying reality: we need more troops.

Streamline Various Large Weapons Programs, emphasizing electronics, advanced sensors and munitions in a "systems of systems" approach to transformation, reducing total expenditures on missile defense, and further reforming the acquisition process, this proposal can be made budget neutral.

Double America's Special Forces Capability and Increase Other Specialized Personnel
John Kerry and John Edwards recognize the critical role that the Special Forces and other specialized personnel play in America's military. Today we rely on these forces more and more to meet the new threats we face. As president, John Kerry's plan will strengthen our force structure. He will:

Double The Army's Special Forces Capability By The End Of His First Term. As part of the 40,000 new troops, John Kerry will double overall Special Forces capabilities in his first four years as president. His plan calls for adding 3,500 active duty and 1,400 reserve Special Forces personnel. This will effectively double the number of Special Forces available to perform overseas operations, including missions with foreign forces such as the anti-Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. The Special Forces units will also by be manned at 115 percent, enabling extended absences for individual long-term language and cultural training. This over-strength will also allow for surge-capacity in times of crisis.

Add A Special Operations Helicopter Squadron To The Air Force. As president, John Kerry will add a second special operations helicopter squadron to the Air Force, enabling Army forces to better complete their missions.

Increase Active-Duty and Reserve Civil Affairs Personnel. As president, John Kerry will increase by 1,200 the number of civil affairs personnel - 200 active-duty and 1,000 reserves. Today's missions are increasingly dependent on civil affairs personnel, including judges, physicians, bankers, health inspectors, fire chiefs, and so forth - the very skills that are needed in post-conflict situations. Active-duty civil affairs personnel provide "quick fix" support until the appropriate specialist teams from the reserves can be activated and deployed. John Kerry's plan represents a 50 percent increase in active-duty civil affairs personnel, and a 20 percent increase in reserve personnel.

Increase Active-Duty Psychological Operations Personnel. Today, 70 percent of our psychological operations (PSYOP) personnel are Reservists. As president, John Kerry will add 500 active duty personnel to the 4th PSYOP Group, the only PSYOP Group in the Army. This will round out regionally focused battalions, reduce the burden on Reservists, and provide increased opportunities for language training.

Complete The Process of Technological and Educational Transformation
John Kerry and John Edwards are committed to building an American military that leverages technology and military education across the spectrum of conflict, for every mission performed by the active duty, National Guard or Reserve. To advance this transformation, John Kerry will:

Invest In The Right Technologies. As president, John Kerry will focus defense investment in those capabilities vital to waging war successfully in the 21st Century. These include:

Advanced communications and information technologies, which will be vital to the full range of military capabilities
Sensing and control technologies that will provide the foundation for effective operation of unmanned, even robotic systems
Precision weapons, including directed energy weapons that can produce lethal and non-lethal effects
Data fusion technologies that will enable our military to act more decisively with enhanced situational awareness and greatly improved intelligence assessments

Focus On New And Existing Challenges. As president, John Kerry will create more digital divisions, harness the power of "network centric" warfare, and improve tactical communications crucial to future military success whether the next enemy is a terrorist, an outlaw regime or a would-be peer competitor. He will also invest in new, non-lethal technologies - like directed energy weapons that can incapacitate the enemy without risking the lives of innocent bystanders - for use in urban combat and stability operations so that America's forces are equipped to win the peace as well as the war.

Improve Counter-Proliferation Capabilities. As president, John Kerry will strengthen counter-proliferation capabilities to deter, defend and protect the United States and its allies against weapons of mass destruction. He will create new counter-proliferation units that specialize in finding and destroying the most dangerous weapons before they can be used against us. These special units will be trained, equipped and prepared to intercept and disable nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and secure any related facilities. With these capabilities, future presidents will have practical, usable military capabilities against weapons of mass destruction rather than depending on new nuclear weapons.

Educate And Train Our Forces For The 21st Century. As president, John Kerry will make sure our troops are prepared for the tasks required of them by ensuring that all aspects of education and training - including basic training, weapons training, combat simulations and professional military education - are fully supported.

Transform The National Guard for Homeland Security
As president, John Kerry will integrate the National Guard into our broader homeland security strategy. To accomplish this goal, he will:

Make Homeland Security a Primary Mission Of The National Guard. Today, more than 165,000 Guard and Reserve troops are on active duty. About forty percent of our forces in Iraq are from the Guard and Reserve. Some have been on the ground in Iraq for as many as 15 months - much longer than was expected or promised. Large deployments of Guard members to Iraq have actually weakened local defenses because so many members of the Guard are first responders in their communities - fire fighters, police officers, and emergency medical technicians.

Giving The Guard The Clear Mission Of Using These Critical Skills For Homeland Security. As president, John Kerry will assign National Guard units to a standing joint task force, commanded by a National Guard General. This task force will create and - if necessary - execute a coordinated strategy to protect our homeland, working with the states and the federal government to respond in times of crisis. Apportioned Guard forces would retain a valid combat capability, but would be rolled into missions that are needed to support homeland security, including intelligence, first responder security, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear missions.

Relieve The Burden On Our Military Families
John Kerry and John Edwards believe that the need to keep faith with our troops extends to their families. The Kerry-Edwards Military Family Bill of Rights will provide military families with competitive pay, good housing, decent health care, quality education for their children, first rate training and the best possible weaponry, armor and state-of-the-art equipment. The Military Family Bill of Rights will also provide assistance to families affected by extended deployments, or injury or death in the line of duty. And military families will receive the best possible information on deployments and responsive government support after their military service is completed.

_____________________________________________________________________

Bush's:
Transforming the Military

America's men and women in uniform serve all over the world to confront terrorists wherever they hide, wherever they plot, and wherever they receive aid and comfort. American soldiers deserve the best support America can offer. President Bush recognizes their dedication and has pursued bold plans to ensure that our military resources are used wisely and that our capabilities remain the best in the world. As part of this plan, President Bush has a bold vision for the future:

America Must Continue to Adapt to the Challenges of the 21st Century - President Bush will continue leading the transformation of our Nation's Armed Forces. America will develop a lighter, faster, more lethal force, with the best training for the new challenges of the new century.
American Forces Overseas Will Be Restructured to Use Existing Forces More Effectively and More Efficiently Support Servicemen, Servicewomen, and Their Families - After three years of extensive review and consultation with Congress and our allies around the world, President Bush has begun the most comprehensive restructuring of the U.S. military presence overseas since the end of the Korean War. His new initiative will bring home many Cold War-era forces while deploying more flexible and rapidly deployable capabilities in strategic locations around the world.

[oasis]

66. Thank you for providing this information.

:thumbsup:

[mreh]

67. You are welcome, it is fun to compare their websites

The chimp's site is so lacking!

[K-W]

64. No, you are misreading.

The president rushed us into war means the president took us to war rapidly and unprepared in this context.

[Kahuna]

68. Nobody knows what he's saying. That's the problem. This coy

routine is very grating on voters.