Kerry Rips Bush's Go-It-Alone Iraq Policy

What does Kerry see as "our mission" in Iraq?

try to get the UN involved... That's why I really don't see any
difference. Oh sure, he talks about getting the military better
equipment, more armor for the HUMMERS and body armor for the troops...
:eyes: But he doesn't state that we NEED TO GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE!!!! :mad:

to what end?

Put some kind of government in there, under the authority of the UN, that the Iraqi people agree on. And then get the fuck out.

Iraqis can have elections and take over their government. Getting the UN right in the middle will help a lot. Who knows whether it will be enough.

And "how can you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake"?

(Smoke coming out of my ears)

better ask those "liberal" think-tanks that wrote similar crap like
PNAC...

He could really raise hell if he wouldn't have. Now the best he can do is criticize technique and split hairs. I really wonder what the UN could do here. They can't provide many troops and we've completely neutered them in so many ways that they just are not very effective at anything anymore. Besides, why the hell would anyone volunteer to send troops to die by the dozens in that hellhole? JMO

Bush would have went in anyway and we'd still have the exact same mess and we'd still have to figure out a way to stabilize the country before we could leave. His vote has squat to do with anything. Try a new Kerry bash why don't you?

you don't think it's at least a little less effective Kerry criticizing a war he voted for as opposed to one he was against all the way? No matter what he says about how it was a bad idea, all the repubs need to say is, "You didn't think it was such a bad idea when you voted for it!" And I know he wouldn't have went about it the same way, but sorry, just not as effective.

Doesn't change it one single bit. And I'm really sorry people just don't seem to be able to understand that the IWR called for all diplomatic and peaceful means to be exhausted, that the IWR was what forced the UN to put inspectors back into Iraq, that the IWR was not a "vote for war". The only one who decided to go to war when he didn't have to was George Bush. Surely you have the ability to measure intent? It doesn't matter what a bunch of stupid ass Republicans say. George Bush could pee in their face and they'd call it champagne. It's a lame damn excuse to criticize Kerry and I don't understand what's to be gained from it.

He's had a consistent strategy for dealing with Iraq, before and after Bush decided to launch this stupid war. But we're in there now and when he's the President, he's going to have to deal with reality. The reality is it would be grossly irresponsible to abandon the Iraqi people and even more irresponsible to allow Iraq to become a breeding ground for terrorists to kill thousands of people all over the world. Because he recognizes that doesn't mean he's got the same plan as Bush and I can't imagine what kind of mind thinks that way. I really can't.

I know his vote didn't change anything and I don't think we would be in this mess if Kerry or Gore or anyone else like that would have been president. But he keeps saying the war was a just war or the right thing to do or however you want to put it, so in the minds of most people, we still would have invaded if Kerry were in charge. He should say we would NOT have invaded if I were in charge and Saddam was cooperating to the extent that he was, but we would have worked diplomatically and covertly to resolve this and we would most certainly not be occupying Iraq in these circumstances. Or we could all just say the truth that no one was even thinking for one second about Iraq until dumbazz decided he suddenly had to piss on Saddam Hussein for God knows what reason(eventhough I know Kerry can't say that).

Senator Kerry was given facts that stated Iraq was a threat to the US. He like almost every other US Senator voted to allow Bush* to address that threat. What Bush* has done is increase that threat and for that criticism is just and due.

All Dems except Chaffee and Jeffords.

,...and forgive the rest who did that "benefit of the doubt" thingy.

Some of them KNEW what they were walking into, some of them had an inkling and some of then had NO CLUE WHATSOEVER.

Some of them were independent enough to be skeptical, some of them were torn by the game and some of them really didn't give a damn.

ALL of them were human beings and acted accordingly.

Many Dems do not trust him because of it, as well as the rest of the Dems who were looking out for their own interests.

Now he is really stuck, and needs to tip toe around the real issue

which is that Bush lied to us and invaded Iraq illegally on the treasonous lies he told us. No one can bring it up who voted to give this insane man a blank check. NO ONE. Kerrh is among them

Why is it that no one can bring this act of treason up? I simply cannot understand why when a man as stupid and as insane, with all the religious delusions we read about, that NO ONE calls him on it.

Our children are dying and being maimed and NO ONE can call an evil man, an idiot and less than intelligent man who stole the presidency an insane person.

Something is wrong--very wrong and I do not count on John Kerry, an entrenched Washingtonian to do any different.

He is forced to hang on his own petard, and to become boring and banal and that is what he is.

We have thousands of complete and total innocents, women , children and old men, killed because of Bush's lying and impatience, and Kerry cannot do anything about it but complain that Bush is not handling the slaughter and the invasion well. These murders were done in the name of the United STates of America =--and people are going around pretending that it was perfectly fine--get over it--we must go on and do all we can to fix it because if we do pull out, the country will be totallhy lost in civil war.

I do not believe it. I think what that means is that someone will be a leader in Iraq, if it is left to straighten out itself, that the United States would not approve of.

I think what Kerry and those who rejoice or voted for this invasion are USING that for an excuse. that the Iraqis will be WORSE off if we take out our troops. Well, is that not what Bush is doing? HE is refusing to back down.That is what Kerry and whose who wanted this invason are also doing.

The most honest amongst them is the one who saw it for what it was.
An invasion, and both parties have pulled the wool over the eyes of the American people, altough one party made an attempt to smooth it over and not appear so barbaric.
\
They actually want Iraq and all of it's resources for their own or for the United STates. So they talk out of both sides of their mouth

I do not admire that in anyone.




Bleh--sick of them all.

might be a lot more accepting of UN people. If the US were to hand over complete control of Iraq to the UN, then the UN would be the negotiator.

Interesting that Kerry criticizes specifically the "tactics." Does this mean that he agrees with the strategy; the one Bush recently characterized as "changing the world?"

When did he ever say he was for global military domination??? Hmmm? Dare you to find a quote where he said that.

What is Kerry's strategy for Iraq? He repudiates Bush's tactics specifically. I'm simpy wondering, for my own honest edification, what he thinks should be the strategic objective in Iraq. What is our mission? When will we have succeeded? Just honest questions.

behind a disaster. We would be unleashing a blood bath if we do not help Iraq rebuild its country (which was fine until we bombed it into the stone age.) The administration of re-establishing a viable, safe country needs to be turned over to the UN and NATO and in all fairness should be paid for by US and Britain. Actually Bush, Blair and the cabal should pay for all of it...throw in Haliburton and Carlyle. We should not get one barrel of the Iraqi oil. The Iraqi people should be getting paid to rebuild the infrastructure in their own country.

under your scenario? When do the troops come home? When is the missioned really accomplished?

When they have a government recognized by the UN and approved of by the Iraqi people. At least that would be John Kerry's definition of mission accomplished. Like I already told you and I guess you just missed.

and as great and glorious as you are, I was looking for an authoritative representation of Kerry's plans. If his agree with yours, perhaps you can point me to a source where Kerry says we will get out as soon as Iraq has a government recognized by the UN.

I watched the press conference and he said the goal needs to be stabilization and some form of government, not necessarily a complete democracy, in order for troops to be pulled out.

"Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday "it may take a new president" to build a multinational coalition that can stabilize Iraq, but the presumptive Democratic nominee also said he hoped President Bush can reverse course and gain military support from allies by giving the United Nations oversight of the country's governance and reconstruction."

"If I were president of United States . . . I would be personally, deeply involved with the leaders of those countries. I would be working with (UN Secretary General) Kofi Annan much more directly as to how we transfer that authority and how we rapidly defuse the sense of American occupation. But I think this approach of this administration has been consistent and stubborn in the way that it persists in this American occupation and proceeding down the present road. They have made that mistake from day one, and it is costing us money and, I think, it is costing us lives."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/04/15/kerry_sees_wider_coalition_on_iraq/

That's the best you can find? Defusing the SENSE of American occupation is hardly an exit strategy. Frankly, I like your plan for Iraq, too bad Karry doesn't seem to share it. You suggest we get out as soon as Iraq has a legitimate government, I'd really, really like to hear that from Kerry.

why don't you offer a plan. Or, at the very least, why don't you invite a discussion about how we can clean up this mess? Damn, man, I get real freakin' tired of character assasinations in lieu of discussions about how to solve problems. At least Kerry is open to a discussion.

I'm not running for president. I'm trying to decide who to cast my vote for. Rather than post my "plan" on a message board, I'd rather try to accurately determine Kerry's plan. So far, there seems only a minor difference between Kerry and Bush on tactics with no apparent strategic differences --- but you guys knew all this before you nominated Kerry, right?

the Yahoo story....

The part about Nato UNDER U.S. COMMAND (following "Stubborn" heading).....who does that sound like? (not the Nato part, the 'under US command" part)...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3635675.stm


Kerry blasts Bush Iraq 'mistakes'
John Kerry
Kerry called for a new UN-backed mission to help rebuild Iraq
Democrat presidential hopeful John Kerry has accused President Bush of failing to do enough to get the world support needed to win peace in Iraq.

In a weekly radio address to Democrats Mr Kerry said the Bush administration had to change its strategy in Iraq.

This month has seen a surge of violence and kidnappings of foreigners in Iraq, including an American soldier.

Jordan's King Abdullah II has said the presence of US troops in Iraq has led to great animosity in the Arab world.

The king, in the US for talks with Mr Bush, said the feeling "being felt toward the United States around the region and around the world is not a healthy one".

'Stubborn'

Meanwhile, Mr Kerry called for a new UN-backed mission to help rebuild Iraq, with a Nato security force under US command keeping order.

"The president may not want to admit mistakes, but his choices in Iraq have so far produced a tragedy of errors," he said.

"Staying the course does not mean stubbornly holding to the wrong course."


MORE

- world. They know all about PNAC. Why wouldn't they be freaked out about a US imperialist agenda? If we were on the receiving end, we would be very freaked out, too.

At this point, whether anyone will acknowledge it or not,...the whole world is likely figuring how to go about containing us, whether it be economically or otherwise.

This is what we have become,...the bully to be contained.

It's crazy. I don't like Kerry's parroting Bush on this.

At the same time, by omitting this info, they leave Kerry out there with the UN....which is a weak point, becasue the RWers abhor the UN and they use it incessantly in their talking points.

Can't win on this one....either way

a week or two before Georgie attacked? That there was NO REASON to attack when you have gained your objectives. B* sure did NOT "exhaust" every other remedy before the attacks.

http://www.post-gazette.com/world/20030228iraqworld2p2.asp

is exactly what the Republicans want right now. Kerry is correct in regard to bringing in the UN, NATO. He will have to recreate the most F'ed-up cabinet ever to control the WH and American lives. What's needed now through the election in November is solidarity in supporting the Democratic nominee in his bid for the WH. I don't agree with all Kerry says, represents, or his senatorial history of voting. However, it's crucial that Democrats stand behind and support this man to stop the insanity that is destroying any chance of stability in the Middle East and elsewhere in our world. As a Democrat, I see myself as part of a larger global community that seeks to work with other nations to restore order to the chaos and danger created by Bush and the PNAC members of his cabinet. Had Bush et al. stayed the course in actually working to a positive end and not unilaterally making the decision to kill thousands of innocent people, including our troops, as well as exploiting the horror of September 11, 2001 to seek control of Americans with an eye to dismantling our Constitution for corporate gains, and to without a doubt, seek to roll our nation and the world back into the days of the Cold War, perhaps things, including our economy, would be in a much better place today.

The point is, Bush has to be defeated in November. We have one man from our party that has taken on this job. The infighting and divisiveness among Democrats needs to end. We must bring our troops home, but in order to do that, we must also turn to the UN and NATO to bring about cohesive change and stabilization to a crucial part of the world that has been turned into such a mess barely comparable to Viet Nam that was created by Bush and his cronies.

Bush has to go. I wish I could roll back the clock and have him never to have stolen the position of POTUS. Kerry has to win in November regardless of the disagreements between Democrats about his previous history and political stands. In personal conversations with quite a few friends, I am hearing more and more that since they don't like Kerry, they are giving up and stating they won't be voting at all come this election. It's so disheartening to see people giving up. It's so distressing to get a sense of doom from my friends regarding our chance to recover from the Bush administrational nightmare.

I could point out a lot of reasons as to why Kerry wasn't my first choice as the Democratic nominees for POTUS, but he's who we have. If we want the insanity to stop, we have be united in getting him into the WH to have any chance of stopping the Bush runaway train as well as the erosion of our Constitution. Divisiveness among the Democrats will play well in Bush's Peoria.

Peace
O8)

:hi: there, balanced O8)