Here’s a speech Kerry gave today outlining his specific plan for Iraq. It’s actually pretty damn good:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0920.html
For those saying, “well what would Kerry do differently?”, here’s the answer.
Dan
But if i refuse to read it, I can still insist he has no plan… not so much here, but on any other forum I keep seeing that kind of logic.
Chet
<fingersInEars>La la-la la-la la la</fingersInEars>
Well, thats his plan today or when he made the speech. What about tomorrow or the next day or next week perhaps? Its likely to change and considering how often he changes his mind back and forth and back and forth - much like a dopey pendulum on this issue (and other issues) who can be sure what his actual plan is? Or pehaps he is more like a yo-yo. So this is currently his Iraq “yo-yo” plan. The problem is that his base is split. Some of them want us to leave immediately and others want us to finish the job, so whatever he says he risks pissing off part of his base. This balancing act is a beautiful thing, seriously, it really is. So beautiful in fact it almost brings tears to my eyes- tears of joy.
Well, thats his plan today or when he made the speech. What about tomorrow or the next day or next week perhaps?[/quote]
You mean when the situation has changed?
That’s an interesting assertion. Have any evidence or is that purely opinion?
My gripe with the speech isn’t that he’ll supposedly change his mind, since he’s a “flip-flopper” (I suspect that whole thing is Big Lie, but I haven’t really looked in to it) it’s that there really wasn’t much of a plan there.
He talked about putting more effort into training Iraqi troops, but that program is still ramping up (see today’s NYT where it’s criticized for not being fully staffed before it’s supposed to be fully staffed.)
He talked vaguely about diplomacy and multilateralism, but it does seem like Bush has learned this lesson, at least in part, and I’m not so sure that Kerry’s Kerriness is all that’s needed to make Europeans countries do their share of combat zone operations.
But mostly he talked about Bush’s errors in Iraq. Fine, he made lots of errors, but recounting them doesn’t qualify as a plan.
Isn’t there a legal requirement to be over 13 to post on this forum?
Thats some of what I was about to say. First of all we are training Iraqi troops and police, tens of thousands of them and we should see many of them ready to go by the new year. In addition, we are trying to rebuild important Iraqi infrastructure but our convoys and projects are constantly attacked and sabatoged. Much of that should change with this influx of Iraqi forces that we will soon see. Bush is going back to the UN for the third time in two years:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/shared/news/politics/stories/09/19un.html
"Bush’s U.N. agenda — seeking a multinational protection force for U.N. officials in Baghdad, speeding the training of Iraqi troops and forgiving Iraqi debt — is stalled, said Victor Bulmer-Thomas, director of Chatham House, an independent think tank in London.
“Nobody’s going to say ‘We refuse to participate,’” he said. “But everyone is playing for time, some of them because they hope President Bush will lose” the November election."
Kerry is talking about basically bribing our supposed allies into sending troops, but even if he was able to pay off the French and Germans to go along, its unlikely they would send many troops. The US and UK would still be doing almost all of the heavy lifting-so what would change? Other than the fact that American taxpayers would paying the French back stabbers money and helping the French economy, of course. Bush pissed the French off when he cut off their supply and future supply of Saddam’s “Blood Money.” We still have thousands of foreign fighters there and native insurgents want all foreigners gone. That part of his speech sounded like a pipe dream. The UN Mighty Mouse to the rescue. HA! If they actually cared about Iraq they would already have sent troops there or done something. The fact is they never did, they just claimed they cared while working behind our backs to secure promises and blood money from saddam. Now they won’t help because they want some revenge against Bush. Revenge against him for ridding the world of a brutal dictator and they are hoping he will lose. In the meanetime the lack of help may be costing lives. Who knows if thats true, but some of our “allies” could care less.
I was watching Dick Morris talking about it on one of the cable news networks and they put up the poll numbers taken from current Kerry supporters. The poll was done by one of the more well known poll groups I recall, maybe Gallop. As I recall around 35% are the strong peacenik anti-war types and want us out of there immediately. Around 57% wanted us to stay the course and finish the job. Practically ALL of Bush’s base, around 90% agree with Bush that we should stay until the job is finished. Kerrys problem, as outlined by Morris, is that if he is not very careful he could piss off some of that 35% and they could go over to Nader who wants us out now, or at least Nader has made statements like that in the past. So no matter what position he takes he pisses of a good portion of his base. In addition, if he appears wishy-washy or wobbly on the issue he is screwed with the undecideds. This requires Kerry to perform a very difficult balancing act. If he’s too pro-war he may get some of the peaceniks to go over to Nader. If he’s too anti-war and says leave immediately he may even lose some of that 57% and definitely many undecideds whom, polls have shown, a majority believe we should stay the course.
So he is choosing to take an approach Bush has basically been at least trying to take for the past several months, but somehow Kerry has to make it sound like the approach is very different. In fact, its not really that different. Bush is saying stay the course until the job is finished. Kerry has to say stay the course while at the same time promising we will be out of there in his first term or within 4 years. Even that may not be good enough for the peaceniks, though, but may appeal to undecideds. Anyway it goes, he is in a difficult position. Its never good to have your base split on such an important issue - not when they have an alternative liberal candidate who may agree more with them on that issue.
I have tried to find the poll I am referring to, but cross referencing Iraq, polls, and Kerry are pulling up far too many results. There are far too many polls being done daily :P
On issues of political strategy Dick Morris is a brilliant political strategist and he generally knows what he is talking about. Does any of this makes any sense to you, though?
Oh, and I would also like to add that I have seen many polls that show amoung Kerry supporters that they don’t so much as like Kerry as they dislike Bush. Whereas amoung Bush’s base almost all of them like him- a lot. So there is that likeability factor as well.
Thats some of what I was about to say. First of all we are training Iraqi troops and police, tens of thousands of them and we should see many of them ready to go by the new year.
Last time we tried this - all of a few months ago - they ended up either deserting or fighting for the insurgents, so forgive me if I’m expecting nothing out of this.
For you we made an exception. :wink:
So
that Kerry’s plan is the same as his, and that Kerry’s planning to retreat from Iraq.
Although Bush said Kerry's Iraq proposals mirrored his own, his campaign put out a strongly worded - and contradictory - statement. "John Kerry's latest position on Iraq is to advocate retreat and defeat in the face of terror," said spokesman Steve Schmidt.
Why choose when you can have it both ways?