NYT: John Kerry questions the underlying logic of Bush's Iraq policy...

http://nytimes.com/2004/04/06/politics/06PREX.html?position=&hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

Democrats, led by Mr. Bush's presumptive opponent in the presidential race, Senator John Kerry, seized the moment to question the underlying logic of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy.

"We can't allow this to continue," Mr. Kerry said, meeting with reporters on Monday. "There has to be a political, diplomatic solution which, regrettably, this administration seems stubbornly determined to avoid."

He called the absence of Arab neighbors as part of the stabilization force "staggering," saying, "All have a major stake in not having a failed Iraqi state, no matter how they feel about our getting there."

"I think the president owes it to the American people to explain who we're turning over sovereignty to and how on June 30th and what is the security plan for after June 30th," Mr. Kerry concluded.

_____________________________

Damn straight, JK! The grownups are not in charge, and they will not give up their Iraq booty--no matter the cost in blood and treasure.

By making statements like this he is opening up for demands to show his hand.

Question is if it´s too early to present an alternative? What do you think?

in Iraq--internationalizing the situation--both politically and militarily--and saying it is the only way to get the "targets off the backs of our soldiers". Our major allies are not going to come into Iraq without our ceding some political control--what Bush has refused to do.

There is an excellent article by Naomi Klein in the most recent issue of The Nation magazine...

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040419&s=klein

As the June 30 "handover" approaches, Paul Bremer has unveiled a slew of new tricks to hold on to power long after "sovereignty" has been declared.

Some recent highlights: At the end of March, building on his Order 39 of last September, Bremer passed yet another law further opening up Iraq's economy to foreign ownership, a law that Iraq's next government is prohibited from changing under the terms of the interim constitution. Bremer also announced the establishment of several independent regulators, which will drastically reduce the power of Iraqi government ministries. For instance, the Financial Times reports that "officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority said the regulator would prevent communications minister Haider al-Abadi, a thorn in the side of the coalition, from carrying out his threat to cancel licenses the coalition awarded to foreign-managed consortia to operate three mobile networks and the national broadcaster."

The CPA has also confirmed that after June 30, the $18.4 billion the US government is spending on reconstruction will be administered by the US Embassy in Iraq. The money will be spent over five years and will fundamentally redesign Iraq's most basic infrastructure, including its electricity, water, oil and communications sectors, as well as its courts and police. Iraq's future governments will have no say in the construction of these core sectors of Iraqi society. Retired Rear Adm. David Nash, who heads the Project Management Office, which administers the funds, describes the $18.4 billion as "a gift from the American people to the people of Iraq." He appears to have forgotten the part about gifts being something you actually give up. And in the same eventful week, US engineers began construction on fourteen "enduring bases" in Iraq, capable of housing the 110,000 soldiers who will be posted here for at least two more years. Even though the bases are being built with no mandate from an Iraqi government, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy chief of operations in Iraq, called them "a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East."

To see why, please read http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1352644

There are no nice happy solutions and I don't think we should expect anything easy.

From the Wilderness says that perpetuating our presence in Iraq will necessitate a draft.

Ironic isn't it?

What is it about Kerry's approach to Iraq that you disagree with?

"perpetuating our presence in Iraq " -- that's Bush's policy, not Kerry's. Are you confused as to the difference?

just a sane policy, and an administration that's straight with us about what they're doing.