Kerry pulls a major flip-flop on Iraq and US troop strength

I should have known better. In a matter of hours after I praised Kerry for finally unloading on Bush with both barrells, he pulls this stunt...

MSNBC News

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — In a major national security address Wednesday Democratic presidential contender John Kerry was sounding an alarm about premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. “I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy,” Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Council on Foreign Relations.

THE MASSACHUSETTS senator accused Bush and his aides of a “sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal without adequate stability,” which he called “an invitation to failure.”
He contended that it would be “a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle” to accelerate the transfer of authority to Iraqis so as to allow “a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops.”

SEND MORE TROOPS?
Kerry foreign policy advisor Rand Beers told reporters Kerry “would not rule out the possibility” of sending additional U.S. troops to Iraq.

“It is very clear the number of troops is inadequate” in Iraq, Beers told reporters in a telephone conference call previewing the speech.

Kerry’s first preference, he said, would be to persuade foreign governments to deploy more troops to help share the burden with Americans.

But by not foreclosing the possibility of dispatching more U.S. troops to Iraq, Kerry seems to have changed his position and to have repositioned himself as a more hawkish alternative to Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean.

In a Sept. 4 debate in Albuquerque, N.M., Kerry said, “We should not send more American troops. That would be the worst thing. We do not want to have more Americanization. We do not want a greater sense of American occupation.”

<<snip>>

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000750.asp?0sl=-21



John, John, John. See this is why so many of us don't trust you. You have to figure out how you are different from Bush (IF you have much of a difference) and formulate your positions from there. Loud agreement with the crux of the Bush doctrine is not going to win you the support of the Democrats who are getting more put out by this Warchimp than ever.

Again, while criticizing Dean.

For a self-proclaimed foreign policy expert, he sure follows Dean's lead a lot.

do you?

John Kerry!

Dean is a lightweight.

Read it and weep honeychild. Your boy flops on this issue like a trout on a flat rock. I'd call him and give him a piece o' the old mind if I were you.

Seems to me he is right on.

about when he talks about sanctions, and is aware that the whole party gets smeared when shootfromthelip opens his mouth on foreign policy.

Kerry's positions are always well thought out because he understands diplomacy while taking tough stands.

until Dean does stakes one out.

and Kerry is adjusting accordingly.


Dean was trying to act like a hawk when he made his remarks because he didn't want people to see him as a pacifist. Bush's cut and run wasn't a factor.

Or did the "we'll be in and out in less than two years! don't worry" message the Bush admin was sending for months before the war not get through to you or Kerry?

was that he said today in the first month of his presidency he would go to the U.N. and major capitals around the world...

"The 8 point plan Kerry outlined today:
I. CREATE A NEW ERA OF ALLIANCES
II. DENY TERRORIST SANCTUARIES
III. CUT-OFF TERRORIST FINANCING
IV. ENGAGE SAUDI ARABIA
V. IMPROVE INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION, COORDINATION AND ANALYSIS
VI. MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
VII. KEEP WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FROM TERROSITS:
VIII. BUILD BRIDGES TO THE ISLAMIC WORLD
In forming his plan, Kerry consulted with former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter about his agenda.
And Kerry supporters Senators Gary Hart, Max Cleland and Ambassador Joseph Wilson will talk about the speech in separate interviews and appearances throughout the day Wednesday."


Premature withdrawl is NOT what any of us want when we win the election, we'll have a HUGE mess dumped in our hands that the international community will expect us to clean up when it goes to shit. Before you and MSNBC go ape, think this through...

He never mentioned sanctioning Saudi Arabia. Read the speech, it's posted in a thread below. He proposed declaring which countries, banks and organizations were cooperating and which weren't and threatening to create an international incident if various institutions didn't cooperate. Sanctions were thrown out as broad policy, not directed at Saudi Arabia. It'd sure be nice if people would read the candidate's actual words.

On troop strength:

Sept.
"This shift of authority from the United States to the United Nations is indispensable to securing both troops and financial commitments from other countries."
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0930a.html

July
"Number one?We increase overall troop strength with more allied troops with the right skills and training. And that means particularly, that people with Arabic speaking skills, and even, hopefully, Muslims. Without adequate security, every other peacekeeping goal is at risk. That means you have to immediately offer NATO a role to give Allies a graceful way to participate. Without real allies in real numbers, especially Arab-speaking, we are asking our young men and women to bear a needless risk for an length of time that is undescribed. We also need greater United Nations involvement in the humanitarian and governance transformation. And the world needs to be invested in the outcome in Iraq"
http://www.bankofknowledge.net/2004/archives/000150.html

He hasn't said anything different. He's always said we need more troops. He's only said not American troops.

And saying something 'isn't off the table' is just military speak, remember Kosovo? You never say something is 'off the table' when speaking in military terms.

It seems to me they are expecting Bush to pull troops out right before the election.

They have to start now in getting the message out that this is a political move, and so far I've heard Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle and someone else say what Kerry is saying.

I disagree with the part you have in bold, I think this is about Bush, not Dean.

Or is that beyond your grasp?

And Kerry bashed him for it.

Is that beyond your grasp?

Does Kerry usually bash someone's position before adopting it himself?

The fuckhead was lower than Lieberman, IMO.

Now he's approaching the first level of Zell.

When this backfires on Kerry, he's going to be fumbling around like a drunken man, bewildered over why his "gloves off Kerry" didn't work, why his "I'm meaner than Dean" didn't work, now why his "I'm really tough on defense" aint gonna work.

My only complaint is that....well how is it best to put this...

WILL THE REAL JOHN KERRY PLEASE STAND UP?

considering your famous open-mindedness, tomorrow he might be your #1. :-)

number 4 on my list.

Zell being the 9th level

On the ninth level of Zell you will find Miller with his three faces, feet frozen in black ice.

In each of his mouths is a different Democrat who is being chewed on by Miller for all eternity:

1) John Breaux
2) James Traficant
3) Joe Lieberman

of "The Nine Levels of Zell"..
Flawless!

ROTFL

GOOD one!

Eloriel

Send in more soldiers into an unwinnable war.

Ive spent the last three weeks trying to get the fact that he voted for IWR out of my craw so I could convince myself to get behind him whole heartedly if he gets the nomination.

Now, I guess there's no point......

This "flipflop" makes sense, so don't worry about it.

edit: spelling

For positions he's now taking himself.

He claimed the mantle of "foriegn policy expert" and used that to try and paint Dean as some naive twit.

Stabilize, toss to UN(after mending Chimp's fences) and then get the fuck out. Good idea for a shitty situation.

Your point about Kerry bashing and then adopting is well-taken. In the original post we hear from the "FP God," Rand Beers.

Irony is a kick.

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

You lil fucks are the most polarizing thing in the Democratic party!

Nope,that's not a polorizing comment or anything.You might want to remove the log from your own eye before complaing about others :freak:

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Nah...he wouldn't be able to make up his mind between Harleys and Mopeds.

To think that I once thought this sap had ethics.

too bad in what was an excellent speech all you could find to comment on was your inflammatory "flip flop" expression ...

maybe if you read the actual speech instead of providing a link to msRNC, you would have had more positive things to say ...

Kerry said "We have a President who has developed and exalted a strategy of war – unilateral; pre-emptive; and in my view, profoundly threatening to America’s place in the world and the safety and prosperity of our own society." ... are you critical of this statement or is this what democrats should be saying?

Kerry said "Simply put: The Bush Administration has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history." ... i certainly can understand why you're so critical after hearing him say that ...

Kerry said "How is it possible to do what the Bush Administration has done in Iraq – win a great military victory yet make America weaker?" ... can't imagine many on DU would agree with that idea ...

Kerry said "By so quickly and cavalierly dismissing the concerns of the international community in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the Administration compromised American credibility and leadership, made our job in Iraq harder, and weakened the war on terrorism. " .. now he's really gone off the deep end ... imagine that, Kerry criticizing bush ... no wonder you chose to criticize him ...

Kerry said "Intoxicated with the preeminence of American power, the Administration has abandoned the fundamental tenets that guided our foreign policy for more than half a century -- belief in collective security and alliances, respect for international institutions and international law, multilateral engagement, and the use of force not as a first option but as a last resort." ... zzzzzzzzz ... more boring Kerry flip-flopping ...

Kerry said "Our best option for success is to go back to the United Nations and leave no doubt that we are prepared to put the United Nations in charge of the reconstruction and governance-building processes. I believe the prospects for success on the ground will be far greater if Ambassador Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority are replaced by a UN Special Representative for Iraq." ... might as well break out the DINO banner on this guy ... what kind of right-wing flip-flop nonsense is this !!!

The reality is, my critical friend, that, and I confess to not having read every word, that Kerry, at least in this speech, said nothing about sending more troops to Iraq ... his main emphasis was that we need to do everything possible, exactly the opposite of what bush has done, to re-involve the U.N. and all nations in supporting a peacekeeping effort in Iraq ... he was extremely critical of bush's unilateral vision in Iraq ...

you got a problem with that ??????????????

read the speech ... here's the link:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1203.html

btw, I'm not a Kerry supporter ... i'm a bush hater ... and calling anyone who stands up against bush a flip-flopper isn't doing our cause any good ... this was a great speech by Kerry ... it's hard to believe you wouldn't find a ton of things to like about it if you took the time to read it ... stay away from msRNC ... they'll only tell you things that help the other side ...

Its a damn Washington Insider with a feeling of entitlement continuing to pander to the Bush Doctrine while acting like a revolutionary.

Get it?

but i provided quite a few direct quotes from Kerry's speech ... i'm fairly certain you didn't comment on any of them ... is that correct ??

and since you have repeated this point about Kerry endorsing the Bush Doctrine several times, perhaps you could help me understand why you think he's done that ...

because when I read his speech, and take a look at any of the paragraphs I provided or the full speech itself, I see a world of difference between where Kerry's coming from and bush's insane policies ...

I'll tell you what ... let me make two lists for you and you let me know whether you think the positions represent Kerry's views or bush's views ...

OK ... here's list number 1:

unilateral, preemption, war as first resort, Iraq IS the war on terrorism, if you're not with us you're against us, it's unpatriotic to criticize our policy, distort the intelligence to gain support, coverup 9/11, support Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, Iraqification, $87 billion ...

OK ... now see if you notice any differences with list 2:

U.N. must be involved, war only as a last resort, Iraq has set back the global war on terrorism, diplomatic efforts, rushed into battle, oppose pre-emption and U.S. role as "occupying power", belief in alliances and international law, transfer sovereignty to the Iraqi people as soon "as quickly as circumstances permit.", no $87 billion given the current lack of direction ...

do these two "doctrines" sound the same to you ????????????

Kerry's speech is going to be on C-Span at 9:45 est ... i was impressed with your openness to Kerry yesterday ... and please understand, i'm not supporting him ... i hated his IWR vote ... but this was a great speech and I think you overreacted to the MSRNC spin ... do yourself a favor and hear what Kerry said from the horse's mouth ...

The first could have been avoided by comprehensive reading. You said:

"and since you have repeated this point about Kerry endorsing the Bush Doctrine several times, perhaps you could help me understand why you think he's done that ..."

If you go back to the post of mine you are addressing, you'll note that I smacked down Kerry for PANDERING to the Bush doctrine. There is a difference between endorsing and pandering. Endorsement would be a direct statement of support for all tenets of said doctrine, which thankfully Kerry hasnt done. Pandering is what he HAS done. By pandering I mean:

*Kerry continues to bob and weave from responsibility for his IWR vote. He needs to come out and renounce it. Voting for the IWR in fact gave Bush a blank check to pull this stunt, and any legislator who claimed ignorance of what they were really voting for is either a liar or completely incompetent; both rendering them usless for public service. Kerry pandered to the Bush agenda by KNOWINGLY enabling him to make war while at the same time claiming that he didn't actually "vote for war". This is chickenshit dodging at it's worst.

*Kerry has waffled like an IHOP special about the US occupation in Iraq. Last Sept 4th he was steadfastly against a troop increase - NOW he is for one. Which is it, John? A troop increase means that you're going along with Bush, who really wants a US military presence in there as long as possible. John, you're pandering again.

*Kerry is noted recently for ripping into the Patriot Act - the very thing he voted FOR. Now he and others claim they didn't have time to read it before voting on it. In that case they should have, en masse, called a press conference and told the American people that this was being railroaded through Congress in a very undemocratic, very unamerican way. But did they? No. They pandered to Bush Doctrine by weaseling out under the "no time to read it" excuse, thereby making a "safe vote" with an excuse to renounce it when and if it were politically expedient to do so. This, again, is pandering to the Bush Doctrine. Enabling it while claiming inability to change it.

If John Kerry wants to salvage his wallowing campaign, the REAL John needs to come out and tell people where he stands and stop this ridiculous excuse game. He'll win some supporters, he may lose some; but that's politics. And if John Kerry doesn't like it, he needs to look into another field.

I just listened to Kerry's speech on C-Span ... it was one of the best speeches I've ever heard on foreign policy ...

I did NOT hear him say anything about increasing the number of troops in Iraq ... fwiw, i do not support the increase of troops in Iraq either ...

You'll find no argument from me re: Kerry's IWR vote ... i hated it ... but to look at his speech today and say he's supporting the "Bush Doctrine" is a clear indication you neither read nor heard the speech ... few speeches by any of our candidates more sharply and articulately attacked the specific failures of the "Bush Doctrine" ...

the evidence you presented to support your position seems to derive not from Kerry's speech but rather from his horrible IWR vote ... the speech was great ... you've provided no specific references to anything in his foreign policy address that justifies your criticism ...

if you have problems with Kerry for some of his past votes, welcome to my world ... but I'm not about to criticize his latest efforts ... they've been great ... he's hitting hard at bush's failures and to view these great speeches through the lens of petty primary politics (go ahead, disagree with me ... but it's still pretty good alliteration !!) does a real disservice to the battle we should all be fighting ...

I am not particularly a fan of Mr. Kerry, nor do I support his run for the Democratic nomination.

I find it fascinating however that you have posted such reasoned and measured responses to the criticisms being made here. You have been articulate, logical, and polite. In return you get single line replies that present no argument and do nothing to refute your points. In fact, they seemed designed to do little more than throw kerosene on this little forest fire of a thread.

In spite of this you manage to keep the focus where it should be, on defeating Bush. I admire your integrity. Keep it up.

i am genuinely passionate about crushing bush and the damage he's doing to this country and to the cause of world peace ...

it is tragic that so many here on DU have become so candidate-biased that they cannot stay focussed on who the real enemy is ... it's ok to criticize a candidate for bad things they've done ... i have no problem with that ...

but too often, i read nonsense about "kerry on a motorcycle" or some other candidate on the flag burning amendment ... i have opinions on this nonsense too ... but you know, bush is trying to promote the idea of developing "smaller, useable" nuclear weapons ... he's gutted every environmental law and treaty on the books ... he's sold our country to multinational corporations ... and on and on ... it's tragic ...

and i come to DU to hear about Kerry has a stupid haircut or Kucinich is too ugly or Clark made some positive remarks about bush before he entered the campaign ... if i'm a republican, i'm just loving this dialogue ...

Kerry's speech today was remarkable ... it was extremely specific on exactly where and why bush's foreign policy has been a total failure ... he was very-well received by the CFR, not exactly an easy group to win over while criticizing republicans ...

i can't thank you enough for your kind words ... they really mean a lot to me ... i'm not here to tear people down ... i'm just trying to keep the focus where it clearly needs to be ...

Your last post was basically a redux of your first one on this issue, so lets go back to the beginning. The thread was started with a news article about Kerry showing how he, in his own words, has flip-flopped on the issue of staying in Iraq and increasing the troop strength there. You may not like it, Kerry's die hard supporters may not like it, but there it is anyway - in his own words.

Covering up the eyes, covering the ears and stamping the feet while yelling "I can't hear you..." won't change the fact. Don't kill the messenger, take it to the source. Phone or write John Kerry and tell him you either support or denounce this flip flop of his. If Mr. Kerry doesn't harden up and make his positions consistent...soon...his campaign will be over.

I'm sorry to bring bad news but that's the way it is.

not ruling out the possibility of more troops was a statement made by Beers, not by kerry ... that's the first point ... your statement "in his own words" is not supported by the very article you posted ... i invite you to reread it ...

and more importantly, it 1. does not call for an increase in troop strength as you incorrectly stated ... it allows the "possibility" presumably if it became necessary to protect existing troops ... and 2. according to the article you posted "Kerry’s first preference, he said, would be to persuade foreign governments to deploy more troops to help share the burden with Americans." this is the exact opposite of bush's failure to enlist global support and build a real coalition ... show me where in any of your posts in this thread you acknowledged this important point about Kerry's preferences for foreign support in Iraq ...

it seems you have not only not read Kerry's actual speech but have not read the article you included in your own post ...

do you or do you not agree with bush's unilateralist foreign policy ??? how can you oppose Kerry's call to take the onerous domination of the U.S. out of the mix in Iraq ... Kerry is all about internationalizing the situation ... do you disagree with him on this issue?

i bid you goodnight ... i'm outta here ...

have a good one ...

His IWR vote may well be the end of his campaign, but I watched that speech tonight and though it was easily one of the best speeches I have ever heard. Sometimes it boggles my mind how irrational some people on here are when it comes to the candidates.
Read over that transcript and please explain why John Kerry should be compared to Zell Miller.

Kerry said "We have a President who has developed and exalted a strategy of war – unilateral; pre-emptive; and in my view, profoundly threatening to America’s place in the world and the safety and prosperity of our own society." ... are you critical of this statement or is this what democrats should be saying?


That's super. So why the hell did he vote for just that? Why the hell did it take him 13 months to arrive at this stunning epiphany?

You bet I have a problem with it.

Eloriel

Might some of the blame for the war actually lie with Saddam? ...as well as Bush?

And I find it interesting you think so.

Saddam is an evil man, but he wasn't lying about WMD. That was the pretext for the war: NOT liberating Iraqis, NOT removing an evil thug.

I can't see how ANYone can blame Saddam at this point, except for being in the wrong place at the time Bush decided he wanted his war on.

Eloriel

or maybe you have it well in hand...

The quality of his campaign shows me that if he was nominated he would be 20 points behind in the polls within 3 days of the convention.

about Mr. Kerry - that he is rapidly becoming unelectable. He is tanking faster than I ever imagined he would.

scared shitless of Kerry - more than any other - they definitely want Dean as the Dem candidate.

and we all have them.

Kerry foreign policy advisor Rand Beers told reporters Kerry “would not rule out the possibility” of sending additional U.S. troops to Iraq.

“It is very clear the number of troops is inadequate” in Iraq, Beers told reporters in a telephone conference call previewing the speech.

Kerry’s first preference, he said, would be to persuade foreign governments to deploy more troops to help share the burden with Americans.

But by not foreclosing the possibility of dispatching more U.S. troops to Iraq, Kerry seems to have changed his position and to have repositioned himself as a more hawkish alternative to Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean.

<>

---------

Ok, first things first: "would not rule out" does not mean advocating a position. Not ruling out tax hikes does not mean advocating them. Deanies should know this one all too well, because it's a big reason they will lose.

This is such a ridiculous amount of spin, I think it ultimately has to reflect on the people who have used it to promote their own agendas.

So, let's move on down selective memory lane, shall we?

---------

Dean has made at times contrasting statements on Iraq, at one point saying in the Sept. 4 Albuquerque debate, “We need more troops. They’re going to be foreign troops, as they should have been in the first place, not American troops. Ours need to come home.”

But four days later Dean said, “We cannot pull all the U.S. troops out of Iraq. We have to stay there for the duration…. We need to reduce our troop strength in Iraq. We cannot do that until we get foreign replacements.”

---------

Gee, I'm sure the Deanies will be outraged when they finally come to this part of the article. You know, the article they cited in the original post.

... and who came up with it?

It is inflammatory.