Kerry Wants to Cut and Run in Iraq

[adios]

With some Kerry advisers convinced he cannot win a debate over whether the United States should have gone to war, given Bush's relentless attacks on Kerry for shifting his positions on the war, the Massachusetts senator has settled on a two-phase plan to refocus the debate. Aides say he will first challenge the president's optimistic assessment of conditions in Iraq and then draw a sharp contrast with Bush over getting the United States out of the country within four years.

I'm sure posters will point out that he's not saying that. I'd point out that Kerry seems to have clear and logical viewpoints on few issues most notably Iraq. What is a sharp contrast to Bush in Iraq over an exit strategy? A Vietnam style exit. Kerry's returning to his roots. Is that what the U.S. should do?

Divergent Views of Iraq Defining Election (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31726-2004Sep18.html)

[jokerswild]

or"Bring it on"

[adios]

First of all why don't you answer the question.

[ QUOTE ]
4 years is cut and run?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh you better check your dates again regarding the war in Iraq. As far as mission accomplished, is Saddam still in power?

[jokerswild]

If you'd bother to be informed, Kerry's position is to try and withdraw by the end of Kerry's first term.

I guess the mission isn't accomplished. Someone needs to let you know.

[sam h]

Here are some things I think are relatively clear.

1) The situation in Iraq is really bad at this point, putting the prospect of holding January elections in great doubt.

2) Bush has naturally tried to downplay the critical nature of the situation, which any politician would do in his shoes.

3) Bush also has no real strategy for what to do, except to hope that things get better.

4) Kerry likewise has no real strategy for what to do, except to hope that things get better.

5) Saying that he will differentiate himself from Bush by promising to pull troops out within four years isn't much differentiation. Bush definitely wants to get them out within that time frame as well, and while he hasn't affixed a number of years, he's made it clear to the American people that he wants to bring the troops home.

6) This strategy thus seems like a loser for Kerry. He should focus on elaborating a domestic agenda and just hammering Bush aggressively on his handling of Iraq and the war on terror.

[andyfox]

"The fact is a crisp, sharp analysis of our policies is required. We didn't do that in Vietnam, and we saw 11 years of casualties mount to the point where we finally lost," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran who is co-chairman of President Bush's re-election committee in Nebraska.

"We can't lose this. It is too important," Hagel, R-Neb., said on CBS'"Face the Nation."

Senator Richard Lugar noted that Congress appropriated $18.4 billion a year ago this week for reconstruction. No more than $1 billion has been spent. "This is the incompetence in the administration," Lugar, R-Ind., said on ABC's "This Week."

Senator John McCain said Bush was not being "as straight as we would want him to be" about the situation.

So three prominent Republican senators have A) compared Iraq to Vietnam and insinuated that without rethinking, Iraq may be another Vietnam; B) called the administration incompetent; and C) called the administration to task for not being as straight with the American people as it should be.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with their assessments, I find these comments today extraordinary, in light of Bush's recent upswing in the polls and his planned defense of his Iraq policy, and criticism of Kerry's in a speech tomorrow.

[adios]

Well? I'm going to add something. I'm not looking to quibble with posters. I want someone to offer some ideas. To me if one feels that the situation is such that withdrawing U.S. military support from Iraq ASAP is the best course of action then there are some obvious reasons why this would be the case. One might very well be that spilling another drop of U.S. blood there won't effect the outcome of who gains political power in Iraq one iota. There are other possible reasons.

[adios]

Ah but what are Kerry's policies. Can you honestly tell me Kerry has provided a "crisp, sharp analysis" of what our policies should be in Iraq. The guy wants to be president and he has no clear policy about conducting the war in Iraq nor does he have an exit strategy. You can parse my words but Kerry isn't being forthright.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
3) Bush also has no real strategy for what to do, except to hope that things get better.

4) Kerry likewise has no real strategy for what to do, except to hope that things get better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not much difference. At least someone like Howard Dean provided a clear alternative to Bush policy in Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
5) Saying that he will differentiate himself from Bush by promising to pull troops out within four years isn't much differentiation. Bush definitely wants to get them out within that time frame as well, and while he hasn't affixed a number of years, he's made it clear to the American people that he wants to bring the troops home.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.



[ QUOTE ]
6) This strategy thus seems like a loser for Kerry. He should focus on elaborating a domestic agenda and just hammering Bush aggressively on his handling of Iraq and the war on terror.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Kerry provided a credible alternative to Bush policy in conducting the war in Iraq and a credible exit strategy, Kerry would win the election IMO.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry's position is to try and withdraw by the end of Kerry's first term

[/ QUOTE ]

Try or will pull out? What conditions are necessary for Kerry to withdraw all or almost all U.S. troops from Iraq.

[andyfox]

Kerry is rarely sharp, never crisp. But a good starting point is to recognize and admit that the whole thing was poorly thought out and that many things (allowing looting, dibanding the army, not allowing defense dept. participation in CIA post-war planning sessions) were botched. I'd rather have a guy who recognizes these things than an administration with a Defense Secretary who says that sooner or later the Iraqis will get tired of being killed.

Bush was never more prescient than when he described why nation-building rarely works when he ran for president.

[sam h]

Leaving Vietnam was the right thing to do, not only because the toll the war was taking but because letting the country go communist wasn't really a security threat and people finally figured this out by the early to mid 70s.

Leaving Iraq right now would be disastrous, basically letting the country descend into a civil war that could destabilize the whole region.

So the die is cast. The only policy is to wait and see, although I am very pessimistic about a positive outcome. It would be nice if we could move the national discourse in the direction of admitting that there is a huge problem over there that is quite likely to end very, very badly. But, since Americans don't react well to bad news, neither candidate will be willing to tell them that.

[Cyrus]

The time to FOLD in Iraq is not now, or tomorrow, or the day after -- it is yesterday. All Dubya does is send good money after bad.

This is a classic mistake in poker, one committed by novices: They include in their "calculations" the money they have put in the pot in the previous rounds. They view that money, erroneously, as something like an "investment"!

An investment that weighs heavily in their minds when these players think about whether to call another bet (and then another) (and then another)!

A graceful exit from the current hand/pot/game/mess is of the essence.

And as graceful exits go, I cannot think of a better exit than an "Iraqization" of that war (because it is a war) aye ess aye pee.

[adios]

Fair enough, at least you present an alternative that can be debated. Kerry gave a speech today and didn't clear up anything as to what his policy would be.