Kerry's Response is Good, but he really should change that Tie

This morning, I listened to Senator Kerry and Senator Reed's response to W's so called strategy for victory, and I really liked the arguement laid out by the Senators. I esspecially was pleased the way that Kerry presented W's Straw Man arguments and other misrepresentations in his speech, even though I am of the opinion that we should withdraw troops "now" - (i want this evil war to end).


Senator Kerry has been fairly public in recent weeks, and in every interview or other public appearance whether it's the Senate Floor or a press conference or an interview with a news anchor -he's wearing the same damn neck tie he wore throughout the campaign, including the debates. I hated then, but I hate now more than ever because it has a negative visual symbolism of a failed campaign, despite the fact I know Kerry won the election and lost to massive election fraud.

To all those who continue to support Kerry, indeed actually campaign for him on this message board - i have a huge favor to ask:

Please ask the Senator to please change that tie - ask him to use a blue tie, or a purple one or some other color strikingly different.

The tie he wears, the print the color is a loser's tie. is a flip flopper tie, it's a swiftboated tie - it's a mealy mouthed tie.

The Senator is trying to demonstrate that he is none of these things, and I want desperately for him to succeed in dispelling those images.

A strategy for success, in my opinion would be signaled with a change of tie, imo. Please ask your candidate to listen to the voices desperate for a policy of success, indeed desperate for his goals to succeed, and for the good of all Americans, please change that tie. <grin>

:-)

;)

EOM

don't you think? :)

the problem with Kerry's tie is not some kind of fashion faux-pas but rather that Kerry TIES his entire plan for withdrawal of troops from Iraq to yet-to-be-defined benchmarks that he wants bush to define ...

will Kerry still be calling for another 12 - 15 months of war six months from now when bush will have failed to even put a series of benchmarks in place by then???

job well done! :toast:

returning to Iraq if the situation deems it necessary


Bush Admin:

But a withdrawal could help the U.S. redeploy to fight terrorists elsewhere. Iraq has placed a particular strain on forces belonging to the Pentagon and the CIA. The U.S. Special Operations Command, which Rumsfeld has ordered to lead the Pentagon's part of the war on terrorism, has 88% of its 7,000-odd commandos deployed overseas assigned to the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. The CIA's clandestine service has only about 900 to 1,000 operatives, a large number of whom have rotated in and out of its Baghdad station, which has had as many as 500 spies and analysts.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/28/withdrawal.tm/


The reality of the region:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L28785301.htm


To what location are American troops going to be redeployed? Americans are targets everywhere in the region. Qatar? Well after the reality of Al Jazeera, Americans may have worn their welcome out there. Kuwait? Sigh! Does anybody really believe American troops are going to be located in that region waiting to see what goes on in Iraq? Who will be the first person to say, "We have troops over there, why don't they do something," at the first sign of trouble.

Now that Bush has turned the region into a hotbed of American hatred, where can a significant number of American troops be positioned that will diffuse the potential for a broader war?


I don't care for that aspect of Murtha's plan and believe that is why many who are hesitant about a full withdrawal (aniticipating a civil war or increased insurgency) are willing to support it. If one believes that America is fueling the insurgency, remove America from the equation, fully. Even if the Republicans lose the majority in Congress, I'm certainly not confident that they will not be able to get support (and that includes public support) for reentering Iraq "if the situation warrants."


IMO, Kerry's call for full withdrawal is best.

I noticed that you missed them in your "overview" of the press conference. He talked about the Ministries functioning, the Iraqis doing the security, regional political changes, economic changes. He lays them out all the time, you just don't want to hear.

You are right, at some point we will just have to leave. Beginning to pull troops out after the election will give us a good idea how well Iraq will hold together and whether a pragmatic withdrawal will help, or whether it'll all go to hell either way. Would you object if a pragmatic withdrawal saved lives??

Here are Kerry's words about withdrawal from Iraq:

you call this a plan????? i call it a non-plan ... Kerry clearly states, now correct me if i misquote him or take his remarks about withdrawal out of context, that the withdrawal of American combat forces needs to be linked to specific, responsible benchmarks ... got that????? ... Kerry's withdrawal plan is totally CONTINGENT on the achievement of benchmarks ... he said it; i didn't ...

and who does Kerry say will provide these benchmarks???? did Kerry provide them ... for example, how many troops will Kerry bring home when 5 Iraqi battalions are fully capable? how many troops will be withdrawn when 10 Iraqi battalions are ready? go ahead ... it's an open book test ... go look at Kerry's words and tell me where he lays out the plan ...

well, let me save you the trouble ... he doesn't ... here's what he did say: "The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn.

so, you see, Kerry's withdrawal plan is actually a non-plan ... and why is this? because Kerry's plan calls for bush to provide, as i said in an earlier post, a yet-to-be-defined series of benchmarks on which withdrawal will be 100% conditional ...

but you can't hear that ... you think Kerry layed out the best plan ... you think Kerry was specific ... you don't believe his whole idea for withdrawal is 100% contingent on events ... you think it's just fine and dandy to call for 12 - 15 months more war and occupation when you and i know damned well that bush will never make any plan containing "withdrawal benchmarks" ... and here's another thing to consider, Kerry's 12 - 15 months started on October 26 ... can we now reduce that to 11 - 14 months or, since bush did nothing, we're still stuck with 12 - 15 months? see the problem here? bush does nothing and Kerry keeps extending the war ... not much of a plan ...

the problem with Kerry's whole idea on Iraq is that, after he appropriately criticizes bush failures, is totally dependent on bush defining and implementing a plan ... perhaps you trust bush to do this; i choose not to ...

I think this is a good idea.

Some if the things he wanted are:
No permanent bases in Iraq. (Murtha has not called for this, but I think the other Dems are getting there.) This is an absolute requirement for me. I won't support any plan that doesn't call for this.

Pulling back the US troops from inside Iraq to bases further out. (Stated on 10/26) Getting US troops out of 'search and destroy missions and out of routine policing jobs in Iraq ASAP. This goes to the idea of the Iraqis seeing the US as part of the problem. Draw back the troops and lessen their footprint in Iraq, right away.

Kerry does believe there is room for special forces operations in Iraq but that doesn't require any more than a fraction of the troops that we have now.

The idea is to get the troops out in 12 - 15 months. (From 10/26/05, when he first proposed this.)

let's be clear on this point ...

i've written point-by-point responses to Kerry's "plan" ... some of his points i agreed with including the "no permanent bases" ...

but the point i made above stands ... regardless of what Kerry said, he did not provide the benchmarks on which withdrawal would be 100% contingent ... he called on bush to provide those benchmarks ...

i'm glad to hear the "Kerry ticker" began on 10/26 ... i'm not clear why the 12 - 15 months doesn't keep getting extended until a plan with benchmarks is put in place ... why do you believe the time period began on 10/26 regardless of whether bush complies or not??

Bush is. The benchmarks are within the parameters that he drew. I happen to agree that the Dec 15th elections are one benchmark. A lot comes after that and we get to go on from there.

There is only so much that the party out of power can do. (Esp. since we are waaaaay out of power.) I think Kerry's plan is fine. I also think that the Dems shoudl sit down and settle their differences because they are very close to a more unified plan that everyone can follow and recommend. (Ahm, except Joe Leiberman, he's with Bush on this all the way.)

i also agree the elections were the only benchmark Kerry outlined ... of course, they too were conditional ...

you think the Dems are close to a unified plan? many House Dems, and Murtha, believe we have to leave Iraq without conditions (let's not consider the "given" of troop safety a condition) ... Senate Dems are looking at another year or more of war BASED ON CONTINGENCIES ... they keep saying we cannot fail; they call their plans things like "Plans for Success" ...

it seems to me that those thinking we can still achieve a positive outcome and are willing to spend another year or more differ significantly from those who think Iraq is over and done and that our presence, even for one more day, is making things worse ... yes, there may be some similarities in the plans about diplomacy, Iraq's internal politics, permanent bases etc., but the differences about the essential nature of the war and our withdrawal plans seem miles apart to me ...

Murtha's plan calls for withdrawing the troops as soon as practical. Given than Bush is the CIC, he is the one defining what is practical.

It also calls for having troops close-by to reintervene if there is terrorism. Who defines that: the CIC.

Except for a resolution that would force Bush to withdraw the troops right now and for ever , you are dependant of your CIC. It is pretty bad when this CIC is Bush, but this is true.

So, given that Bush is CIC, ALL PLANS ARE DEPENDING ON BUSH (or are you calling for an impeachment, because it would be a different story)?

he used the term "immediate redeployment" ... i understood that to mean as quickly as the safe transport of the troops permitted ...

Kerry's plan will help keep us in Iraq 10 years from now; Murtha, had the hawkish Dems backed him up, captured the nation's attention ... Murtha was our ride out of town; Kerry's 'plan' inspired no one ...

and yes, i am calling for bush's impeachment ... i think those hearings should begin right after his war crime trials are completed ... maybe they could even be held simultaneously ... the country cannot afford 3 more years of this nightmare ...

they all are because none of these Dems are in a position to dictate policy to anyone. (We are the minority party.) Bush will no more take Jack Murtha's plan than he will John Kerry's. You know this, we all know this. The purpose of Murtha and Kerry and Feingold and everyone else is to put pressure on Bush to change course.

Bush is CIC. He sets policy, much as we hate to admit it. These various plans from the Democrats are treated by Bush as mere suggestions. The idea of all of these, and the reason I sent support to Cong. Murtha was because this type of pressure is beginning to have an effect. (This is why Bush is being forced into explaining himself, whereas before he thought himself immune to having to explain anything. There are, of course, a lot more steps to take.)

For the rest, people here heard "immediate withdrawal". They did not even bother to check what was proposed in the bill. We could still be in Iraq in 10 years with Murtha's bill and Bush as CIC. All he needs to do is to say that he sends back the troops stationned nearby because he needs too. I know it is difficult to accept because you dont want to hear it.

The reason why it is so good to have Murtha speak out is BECAUSE HE IS A HAWK and therefore the pressure of Bush to do something is very high.

and a real Hawk on defense stuff. It was obvious that if he got this info, then he got it from people on the ground. He is the opposite of any kind of 'cut and run' guy. If Murtha says we need to be worried about what we are doing to our military in Iraq, then people should listen.

Jack Murtha did not just become a dove. Far from it. His criticism is rooted in a love of the military and an outrage at what Bush has done to it. And Murtha comprehends just how much it's going to cost to rebuild equipment and such after this debacle in the desert.

i really wish DU's Kerry supporters would stop analyzying me and suggesting that i hear what i want to hear ...

first of all, did we all hear Murtha use the phrase "immediate redeployment" ... or did he call for a series of contingencies ... which did you hear??

i remember Murtha specifically talking about eliminating the idea of contingencies from his plan ... his concern regarding withdrawal was solely for the safety of the troops ...

finally, i keep seeing this "only the CIC can make a plan" nonsense ... there is no reason good leadership and real opposition can't suggest a plan ... in fact, we should define a plan for withdrawal and put it before the American people ... no, Democrats are not in charge ... no, they don't have the vote in Congress ... so where does their power lie????

i'm glad you asked ... you did, didn't you? ... their power lies with the American people ... their power does not exist when Kerry and others offer wishy-washy plans ... Kerry's plan had no effect on the national consciousness ... none ... Murtha's plan, and understand that there are things i don't like about it at all, made a huge difference ... the Democrats had a real chance to tap into the national "tidal wave" against the war ... instead, we were pummeled yet again with more contorted "Senate speak" ... Democrats are not the CIC; until they represent the national mood, they won't be anytime soon ...

Democrats are playing politics by demanding that bush define the plan ... first, he's not going to do it and if he did, it would be vague enough to be useless (he'll say it's vague to protect the troops) ... Democrats need to give bush a budget of time and money and take their case to the American people ... and the budget needs to make a "splash" on the news ... the only way to do that is to put a "date certain" on the record ... bush gets 6 months to wrap things up ... no, we have no power other than next year's elections ... we need to put our demands on the record and fight for them ... what Kerry did had little or no impact on the national discourse; what Murtha did, until he was submarined by his own party, stimulated the first spark of real debate about Iraq ...

common sense ones that need not be stated in paragraph length writings for people to understand them.
How about the December 15th passage/ratification of the Constitution.
How about the Iraqi forces completely trained and able to lead in the fight rather than following the Americans.
How about the Iraqi economy.
How about a time when the Iraqi's take over the re-building of their own county.
How about diplomatically structured talks aimed at coming to a majority consensus.
I could go on, but time does not permit.

give it a rest. :eyes:

and tie Bush up. Then explain to him that he's not on a mission from God. Explain to him that the little voice he heard was not God's.

look that closely at his ties. Or for that matter other peoples ties either, I guess you could say ties don't excite me. Apparently, they must do something for you.

In fact.. he looked..... ... "rather dashing!"

I'm not into bright colors or busy patterns.. but that tie didn't look bad with the dark coat and white shirt.

Funny actually that there's a discussion on his tie though! http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif

Wolf is making me sick today though.. He thinks Bush's speech today was perfect. :puke:

He brought on a state department employee to comment on Senator Kerry's statement. The idiot was saying that Kerry isn't correct because when he was just there with Condy Rice, everything was just hunky-dory.. just peachy..

'Course he failed to mention that he never left the cushy hotel lobby located safely in the green zone.. (and Wolf never questioned him about where in Iraq he visited)..