Is Blair Pulling Away from Bush?

[Matty]

Recently secret documents (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32045-2004Sep18.html) have been released in which Jack Straw warned Blair (pre-war) that Bush had no post-war plan for Iraq.

A few hours after the documents are leaked, it is announced that Britain is reducing its troop levels (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1307980,00.html). Meanwhile, Pentagon sources say directly after our election a large number of reservists and Guard members will be called up with inadequate notice. (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04262/381237.stm)

This all at a time when Republicans and Demcrats are coming together to call on Bush for more honesty regarding Iraq. (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/iraq.senators/)

Blair's defense for the documents: [ QUOTE ]
Blair defended his position at a news conference on Saturday.

"The idea that we did not have a plan for afterwards is simply not correct," he said.

"We did, and indeed we have unfolded that plan, but there are people in Iraq, outsiders as well as former regime elements, who are determined to stop us.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, um, why weren't those people taken into account in the plan?

Bush 'pleased with the progress' in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/bush.iraq/)[ QUOTE ]
"The Iraqis are defying the dire predictions of a lot of people by moving toward democracy," Bush told the paper. "It's hard to get to democracy from tyranny. It's hard work. And yet, it's necessary work. But it's necessary work because a democratic Iraq will make the world a freer place and a more peaceful place.

[/ QUOTE ]

A plan is more than a 9-letter buzzword.

[adios]

......

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
What's Kerry's post war plan for Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some stuff by Kerry here (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html), but unfortunately I don't think there are many different ways you can clean up a mess like the one Bush made.

One difference I can think of though, is getting more global cooperation. All of our major allies prefer Kerry over Bush by a very large margin (If you trust pew polls and I don't see why you wouldn't) and I'm convinced that would translate into more cooperation of different types.

Winning the war of ideas is a very important difference as well.

But I think most importantly, Kerry would level with the American people about exactly what's happening in Iraq, and would give us a realistic prognosis and timeline.

I saw on MSNBC that Kerry's going to give a policy speech on Iraq sometime in the near future. I suspect it will be a main topic in the debates as well.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in Ômission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]
George H W Bush - 1998

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
One difference I can think of though, is getting more global cooperation.

[/ QUOTE ]

From whom, in what form and what's the cost? The French, Germans, Russians and Chineese are on record as saying they won't send troops to Iraq. The French basically blocked participation of NATO troops. From other Arab countries? Nobody believes that any of these countries will offer any kind of military support. So what kind of support are we talking about?

[ QUOTE ]
Winning the war of ideas is a very important difference as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you be more specific and what does this have to do with Kerry's war plan for Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
But I think most importantly, Kerry would level with the American people about exactly what's happening in Iraq, and would give us a realistic prognosis and timeline.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under what conditions will Kerry withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. Are you trying to say that Kerry doesn't have enough information to put forth, as you put it, a realistic prognosis? He may not have as much information as the president does about the situation on the ground but he certainly has enough information to provide what he envisions as his prognosis.


[ QUOTE ]
I saw on MSNBC that Kerry's going to give a policy speech on Iraq sometime in the near future

[/ QUOTE ]

We're 45 days or so from voting for president and Kerry has no clear position on Iraq. Kerry wants to be president. That by default means he wants to inherit the war in Iraq. That he has no clear position on Iraq is unconciounable.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
From whom, in what form and what's the cost? The French, Germans, Russians and Chineese are on record as saying they won't send troops to Iraq. The French basically blocked participation of NATO troops. From other Arab countries? Nobody believes that any of these countries will offer any kind of military support. So what kind of support are we talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]Obviously there is no way for me to know that and any government leaders who would say anything like that publicly right now would be complete idiots.

But right now every major government in the world is punished by its citizens when it stands with the U.S. So with John Kerry as President, those countries would have much more flexibility on what they could do for us. This could include anything from intelligence sharing, to joint military operations, to letting us use their land, to financial aid, to troops. I would not be surprised to see a country or two send troops after Kerry wins- simply because their populations would then allow them to, and countries like to be on the side of our powerful country- they just don't like being bullied by us.[ QUOTE ]

Can you be more specific and what does this have to do with Kerry's war plan for Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]I hope you actually read the links I provided. I don't intend to retype them for you.

You hear a lot of talk from the current Administration about winning the "hearts and minds". That is impossible for them to do. Instead of speaking softly and carrying a big stick, this Administration makes threats through a bullhorn, and stretches their military thin. Nobody respects that- at best they just fear us. And in order to win the global war on terrorism, we're going to need people around the globe on our side. How can we expect them to join our side if they don't respect us?

Kerry would be respected globally. He already is. [ QUOTE ]
Under what conditions will Kerry withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]This, again, is detailed in the links I provided. His lowest-estimate goal is to have troops out within the end of his first term (4 years).

Despite the ditto-head rhetoric, Kerry has been very clear and unwavering about what he would do in Iraq.[ QUOTE ]
We're 45 days or so from voting for president and Kerry has no clear position on Iraq. Kerry wants to be president. That by default means he wants to inherit the war in Iraq. That he has no clear position on Iraq is unconciounable.

[/ QUOTE ]That you would mischaracterize Kerry's plans and revert into this tiresome right-wing rhetoric is unconscionable.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From whom, in what form and what's the cost? The French, Germans, Russians and Chineese are on record as saying they won't send troops to Iraq. The French basically blocked participation of NATO troops. From other Arab countries? Nobody believes that any of these countries will offer any kind of military support. So what kind of support are we talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]Obviously there is no way for me to know that

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is what kind of support is Kerry talking about.


[ QUOTE ]
and any government leaders who would say anything like that publicly right now would be complete idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again Kerry's making the claim. What kind of support is he talking about.


[ QUOTE ]
But right now every major government in the world is punished by its citizens when it stands with the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't be serious.

[ QUOTE ]
So with John Kerry as President, those countries would have much more flexibility on what they could do for us. This could include anything from intelligence sharing, to joint military operations, to letting us use their land, to financial aid, to troops. I would not be surprised to see a country or two send troops after Kerry wins- simply because their populations would then allow them to, and countries like to be on the side of our powerful country- they just don't like being bullied by us.

[/ QUOTE ]

So all of these countries are going to give the U.S. all of this help with no strings attached just because John Kerry is president. That's what you're claiming?

[ QUOTE ]

Can you be more specific and what does this have to do with Kerry's war plan for Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]I hope you actually read the links I provided. I don't intend to retype them for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry gave his speech today and there's new in it. Nothing of substance that he hasn't stated before or nothing that the U.S. isn't already doing.

[ QUOTE ]
You hear a lot of talk from the current Administration about winning the "hearts and minds".

[/ QUOTE ]

The hearts and minds of whom?

[ QUOTE ]
That is impossible for them to do. Instead of speaking softly and carrying a big stick, this Administration makes threats through a bullhorn, and stretches their military thin. Nobody respects that- at best they just fear us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hyperbole and total baloney.

[ QUOTE ]
And in order to win the global war on terrorism, we're going to need people around the globe on our side. How can we expect them to join our side if they don't respect us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Plenty of people respect the U.S. and there are plenty of countries in the coalition.

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry would be respected globally. He already is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok if you say so everyone's entitled to their opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
Under what conditions will Kerry withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]This, again, is detailed in the links I provided. His lowest-estimate goal is to have troops out within the end of his first term (4 years)

[/ QUOTE ]

So unconditionally after 4 years are up or less he withdraws the troops from Iraq.


[ QUOTE ]
Despite the ditto-head rhetoric, Kerry has been very clear and unwavering about what he would do in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

No he hasn't. He's articulated no policy for how he would conduct the war in Iraq and what his exit strategy would be. You can't provide any details because he doesn't have one.

[ QUOTE ]
We're 45 days or so from voting for president and Kerry has no clear position on Iraq. Kerry wants to be president. That by default means he wants to inherit the war in Iraq. That he has no clear position on Iraq is unconciounable.

[/ QUOTE ]That you would mischaracterize Kerry's plans and revert into this tiresome right-wing rhetoric is unconscionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then elaborate on his policy. You can't because he doesn't have one. All you've stated that because he's so respected around the world other countries will rush to his side and give military aid and financial aid to the U.S. in fighting the war in Iraq. It's obvious to most that one doesn't get this kind of assistance for nothing. One must provide something in return. It's debatable to me that the price for this could ever be paid. What you're trying to sell is that respect for Kerry will result in financial and military assistance from the French, Germans, the Russians, and the Chineese. That seems to be an absurd and ridiculous viewpoint. Kind of like believing in magic. The other "linchpin" of the Kerry policy that you've stated is that he will unconditionally withdraw after 4 years in Iraq. That doesn't seem like much of a policy to me. Why wouldn't he just go ahead and do it ASAP? As far as right wing rhetoric, what specifically are you referring to.

What you really want is a "wayback" machine so the invasion of Iraq can be undone. More belief in magic I suppose. Kerry want's to be president and thus wants to inherit this war. He owes the American public more regarding how he would conduct the war in Iraq and what his exit strategy is. Sorry but I hope to get em out in 4 years doesn't constitute an exit strategy.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Then elaborate on his policy. You can't because he doesn't have one.

[/ QUOTE ]What, specifically, do you want him to give you that Bush has already given you? Name one thing.

I hope you're not asking for something like specific military plans or a set withdrawal date.

Here are four points of action which contrast with what Bush is doing, from the link I provided above:

[ QUOTE ]
1) Persuade NATO to Make the Security of Iraq one of its Global Missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace in Iraq. NATO participation will in turn open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.

2) Internationalize the Non-Iraqi Reconstruction Personnel in Iraq, to share the costs and burdens, end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation, and help coordinate reconstruction efforts, draft the constitution and organize elections.

3) Launch a Massive and Accelerated Training Effort to Build Iraqi Security Forces that can provide real security for the Iraqi people, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.

4) Plan for Iraq’s Future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts and by supporting the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights. We will also convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs

[/ QUOTE ]

In a volatile situation like Iraq there aren't many thing that a Senator in the U.S. can say for sure about Iraq's future. But at the very least Kerry's plan is as detailed as Bush's. Unfortunately there aren't many different ways you can get out of Bush's mess. Bush and the military are currently doing most things correctly in Iraq, so there will not be a vastly different plan under Kerry.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
The other "linchpin" of the Kerry policy that you've stated is that he will unconditionally withdraw after 4 years in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]That's a [censored] pathetic lie. Conversation with you is obviously worthless.

[adios]

Imus commented on his conversational call with Kerry:

"I was just back in my office banging my head on the jukebox," Mr. Imus said. "This is my candidate, and ... I don't know what he's talking about."
Kerry's Iraq war comments leave backer Imus confused (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/091604dnpolkerryiraq.6249a.html)

Here's a transcript of the call:

Sen. John Kerry talks to Don Imus (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6009011/)

part of the transcript:

What's Kerry's plan?
IMUS: You know, Senator Kerry, you say you have this plan to get out of Iraq in your first term, which, barring some scandal, would be four years.

(LAUGHTER)

I've known you a long time, Senator Kerry.

KERRY: That's counting correctly. That's counting correctly.

IMUS: What is this plan you have?

KERRY: Well, the plan gets more complicated every single day because the president...

IMUS: Try to simplify it for me so I can understand it.

KERRY: I'm going to just tell you why.

IMUS: OK.

KERRY: Because about -- I can't remember whether it's -- several months ago, I said, "This may the president's last chance to get it right in Iraq." That's what I said. And I said, as Joe Biden did and others did, "Mr. President, you've got to lead. You've got to get the international community at the table." The president has never done that. Now it's obviously, with the situation on the ground, much more complicated; I have to acknowledge that. It is more complicated. But I would immediately call a summit meeting of the European community. They haven't lived up to the obligations of their own resolution that they passed at the U.N. It is important to do much more rapid training. Senator Biden came back from over there, other experts have observed they're not doing the training that's necessary, at a pace that's necessary, in a way that's necessary to establish the security. And it is going to be critical to accelerate that kind of training.

But look, I have to look and see what I have on January 20. At the rate the president's going, nobody can predict what will happen on January 20. I'll tell you this: A new president, with new credibility, with a fresh start, who listens to the military leaders, doesn't fire them, like General Shinseki, when they give him advice they don't like, a new president who has credibility with the foreign leaders, will have the opportunity to isolate the extremists and to bring people to the table in different ways: for border security, for training, and to do the things necessary to provide stability. I'm committed to providing that stability, but I'll tell you, this president is making it tougher every single day by just not understanding and not being honest about what's going on.

IMUS: But it sounds -- that may or may not be a good plan, but meanwhile, we had three soldiers dead in Iraq yesterday and how many die before -- wind up over there in the rehab room at Walter Reed before a plan like this kicks into effect? Also, I was talking to...

KERRY: Well, Don, I realize that, but the fact is that the president is the president. I mean, what you ought to be doing and what everybody in America ought to be doing today is not asking me; they ought to be asking the president, What is your plan? What's your plan, Mr. President, to stop these kids from being killed? What's your plan, Mr. President, to get the other countries in there? What's your plan to have 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost being carried by America? I mean, he is the president today, and we have given him advice from day one; from day one, from the floor of the Senate when we debated it where I said don't -- you know, you've got to have other countries with you, don't make an end runaround the U.N., the difficulty is not winning the military, it's winning the peace; and he ignored it. And others -- the bipartisan, Dick Lugar, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Joe Biden, and the Foreign Relations Committee gave him advice that he chose to ignore. And since then, many times we've stood up and said, "Mr. President, this is what you have to do." He's chosen not to do those things.

IMUS: We're asking you because you want to be president.

Kerry's as clear as mud.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry's as clear as mud.

[/ QUOTE ]Once again, what, specifically are you confused about?

What do you want to know about Kerry's plans that you already know about Bush's plans?

[adios]

1) Persuade NATO to Make the Security of Iraq one of its Global Missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace in Iraq. NATO participation will in turn open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.

Bush has already gone this route. What your stating is that Kerry will accomplish this because he commands so much respect. If Kerry really believes that he ought to make the case. Again getting military and financial cooperation from the French, the Germans, the Russians and/or the Chineese is more or less a non option. There's always a cost and the cost is bound to be high. It's also debatable that their cooperation will have much impact in the ultimate outcome in Iraq.



2) Internationalize the Non-Iraqi Reconstruction Personnel in Iraq, to share the costs and burdens, end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation, and help coordinate reconstruction efforts, draft the constitution and organize elections.

Given the hostages being taken I'm not so sure we'll see a lot of volunteers. And what is the nature of the Non-Iraqi Reconstruction personnel in Iraq anyway. The constitution has been drafted and the date for elections is in place now.



3) Launch a Massive and Accelerated Training Effort to Build Iraqi Security Forces that can provide real security for the Iraqi people, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.

Which is exactly the course Bush has taken.

4) Plan for Iraq’s Future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts and by supporting the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights. We will also convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs

Through Bush diplomatic efforts much of the Iraqi debt has been forgiven. There is a new Iraqi constitution in place already.

What is the exit strategy?

[Matty]

Hey adios, what specifically do you want to know about Kerry's plans that you already know about Bush's plans?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, what, specifically are you confused about?

[/ QUOTE ]

What Imus is unclear about.

[ QUOTE ]
What do you want to know about Kerry's plans that you already know about Bush's plans?

[/ QUOTE ]

So Kerry's plan is a nuanced Bush plan. From what you posted above that's pretty much it except I'd substitute 'trivial' for 'nuanced.'

[adios]

I answered below.

[Matty]

Even according to conservative sources, Bush stole Kerry's Iraq plans (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=Kerry+It+was%2C+in+fact%2C+prescient.+It+was+a head+of+the+curve+about&btnG=Search).[ QUOTE ]
I answered below.

[/ QUOTE ]No, you didn't. I asked you to tell me specifically and you didn't.

[daveymck]

The next couple of weeks is the last labour party conferance before our elections probably sometime next year.

Blair is trying to change the agenda making comments that twe are now in a Second War, that now is all about getting democracy and morla issues and we need to fight the insurgents in Iraq.

Basically he is trying to deflect the attention from the original reasons for the war which still is not popular in this country. It isn moving away from Bush is more turning inward and looking towards the british public.

[adios]

Ok Bush stole Kerry's ideas on Iraq, that makes a lot of sense now /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
It isn moving away from Bush is more turning inward and looking towards the british public.

[/ QUOTE ]I would contend that they are the same thing. =]

[adios]

Kerry does Iraq: unfit for command? (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1094730946115711.xml)

Kerry does Iraq: unfit for command?
Thursday, September 09, 2004
DAVID REINHARD
T he Republican National Committee may be in big trouble. The RNC, you see, put video out chronicling John Kerry's many positions on Iraq over time -- the flips and the flops, the zigs and the zags, the waffles.

The GOP put out the 11-minute video (www.kerryoniraq.com) during the Democratic convention . . . and had to go back to the editing room after Boston when Kerry said he would still vote for the war knowing what he knows now. Then, the RNC reissued a 12-minute Kerry-on-Iraq video . . . and Kerry changed his position once again. On Monday, he said, "It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."

At this rate, the RNC may go broke having to edit and re-edit its devastating Kerry video over the next months.

Alas, all this would be laughable if the stakes were not so serious. The United States is in the middle of a war, and Kerry has treated a major front in that war like a local sewer project. He's adjusted his stand on a grave issue of war and peace as if he's windsurfing off Nantucket Island -- except windsurfers are more serious about their business.

Oppose the Iraq war or support the Iraq war, but don't contort yourself into every position on the issue imaginable, depending on the political season and campaign advisers. And don't insult voters by telling them your shifting views on the war are just so complexified and nuanced. Kerry's inconsistency -- or utter cynicism -- makes you long for the principled opposition of Howard Dean -- "Yeaaaaaaaarhh" scream and all.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims Kerry's Vietnam record makes him, according to their book title, "Unfit for Command." But it's Kerry's record on Iraq that may make this case.

Two weeks ago, I picked out two sample Kerry statements from the RNC video. I was going to leave the documentary there. But reader reaction to one of the "Kerry Does Iraq" clips and his continuing somersaults on the war required more extended treatment.

Kerry's "wrong war" remarks this week recalled a telling exchange in the video. At a Democratic candidate's debate in early May 2003, ABC News' George Stephanopoulos questioned Kerry on Iraq.

"George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him," said Kerry, who had voted for the Iraq war resolution the previous fall.

Then Stephanopoulos turned to Howard Dean: "Now, Governor Dean, you've criticized Senator Kerry on the campaign trail, saying he's tried to have it both ways on the issue of Iraq. Was that answer clear enough for you?"

And the unapologetic anti-warrior from Vermont said, "[I] think this was the wrong war at the wrong time. . . ."

After Dean's surge later that year, Kerry changed his tune, voting against the $87 billion in funding to support U.S. troops in the field and finding ways to criticize the Bush decision he had supported in May. The capper in the RNC video comes when MSNBC's "Hardball" host, Chris Matthews, asks Kerry if he is one of the Democrats' "anti-war candidates."

"I am, yes," Kerry says in the RNC video.

Some readers and Matthews himself think the RNC unfairly yanked these words out of context. I don't -- Kerry himself is the one who bought into the anti-war term -- but judge for yourself. Here's the full quotation: "I am, yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris. Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was and we should have done it right."

OK, he's anti-war, yet pro-war -- except he doesn't think Bush took us to war "as he should have."

How very Kerry.

Kerry fans who still think the RNC's abbreviated "Hardball" anti-war quotation is unfair now have to deal with this week's latest fact: Kerry is using the very words of his party's chief anti-war candidate, Dean.

"The wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" will sound "anti-Iraq war" to people not blessed with Kerry's gift of nuance? Those words certainly won't sound like the Kerry of May 2003 or Kerry's hawkish statements of 1998 and beyond.

Maybe this is all agonizing nuance and complexity. Or maybe it's all just politics. Whatever the case, it's hardly the clear, consistent and principled presidential leadership we need in wartime.

[adios]

Nowhere Left to Flop (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27549-2004Sep16.html)

Nowhere Left to Flop

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 17, 2004; Page A27

If the election were held today, John Kerry would lose by between 88 and 120 electoral votes. The reason is simple: The central vulnerability of this president -- the central issue of this campaign -- is the Iraq war. And Kerry has nothing left to say.

Why? Because, until now, he has said everything conceivable regarding Iraq. Having taken every possible position on the war, there is nothing he can say now that is even remotely credible.

If he had simply admitted that he had made a mistake in supporting the war, he might have become an antiwar candidate. But having taken a dozen positions, he has nowhere to go.

He now calls Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." But, of course, he voted to authorize the war. And shortly after the fall of Baghdad he emphatically repeated his approval of the war: "It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him."

When Don Imus asked him this week, "Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq, any?" Kerry responded: "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see. I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The president distorted that." But just last month he said that even if he had known then what he knows now, he would have voted for the war resolution.

Is Iraq part of the war on terrorism or a cynical distraction from it? "And everything [Bush] did in Iraq, he's going to try to persuade people it has to do with terror, even though everybody here knows that it has nothing whatsoever to do with al Qaeda and everything to do with an agenda that they had preset, determined."

That was April 2004. Of course, shortly after Sept. 11, Kerry was saying the opposite. "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally," he said in December 2001. "This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. . . . Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue [with], for instance, Saddam Hussein."

So then Hussein was part of the war on terrorism -- a "for instance" in fighting "terrorism globally." Kerry temporarily returned to that position last week when he marked the 1,000th American death in Iraq by saying the troops have "given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, in the war on terror."

How did Kerry get to this point of total meltdown? He started out his political career voting his conscience on national security issues. During the 1980s he was a consistent, dovish liberal Democrat: pro-nuclear freeze, anti-Star Wars, against the Reagan defense buildup, against the war in Nicaragua. And then he joined the overwhelming majority of his party in voting against the Persian Gulf War.

That turned out to be a mistake. And Kerry suffered for it. The very next year he had to watch as Al Gore, who got the Gulf War right, was chosen for the 1992 Democratic ticket, a spot for which Kerry had been on the short list.

Kerry learned his political lesson. Or thought he did. So when the Iraq war came around, he did not want to be caught on the wrong side of another success. He voted yes.

But then things went wrong both for the war and for him. What did he do? With Howard Dean rocketing toward the Democratic nomination, Kerry played to his deeply antiwar party by voting against the $87 billion to fund the occupation.

Two months later, with Saddam Hussein caught and the war looking better, Kerry maneuvered again, slamming Dean with: "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

Kerry is now back to the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," a line lifted from Dean himself. So we are not better off with Hussein deposed after all.

These dizzying contradictions -- so glaring, so public, so frequent -- have gone beyond undermining anything Kerry can now say on Iraq. They have been transmuted into a character issue. When Kerry went off windsurfing during the Republican convention, Jay Leno noted that even Kerry's hobbies depend on wind direction. Kerry on the war has become an object not only of derision but of irreconcilable suspicion. What kind of man, aspiring to the presidency, does not know his own mind about the most serious issue of our time?

Expect the hue and cry regarding Kerry's gutless statements about Iraq to continue through the election. If he's elected longer than that.

[adios]

Waiting for the Candidate to Emerge (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/opinion/20herbert.html)

Waiting for the Candidate to Emerge
By BOB HERBERT

Published: September 20, 2004


had a feeling John Kerry was in trouble when, coming out of the primaries, voters kept saying they were for him because he could win. It was clear that many voters had cast primary ballots for Mr. Kerry not because they liked him, or because they felt strongly about his positions on the issues, or because they were drawn to his compelling vision of a better future for the United States and the world, but simply because they felt he was capable of beating George W. Bush.

History tells us you need more of a rationale than that to win the White House. The best candidates offer the electorate not just something, but someone, to believe in. Describing the aftermath of Harry Truman's remarkable triumph over Thomas E. Dewey in 1948, the biographer David McCullough wrote:

"To such staunch Truman loyalists as Sam Rayburn and George Marshall, to the weary White House staff workers who had been with him all the way, there was never any question as to why Truman won. He had done it by being himself, never forgetting who he was, and by getting to the people in his own fashion."

Who is John Kerry? He doesn't seem to want to let on. More than anything else, he presents himself as someone who fought in Vietnam. But that was more than 30 years ago. Who is he now?

A longtime Democratic operative recently complained, "He's not displaying a moral center, or showing us a philosophical foundation. For him, it's all about tactics."

Mr. Kerry has suffered recently in the polls primarily because of his reluctance to put his authentic self on display. He's run a cautious, soulless campaign so far, saying only the things he thinks he should, and shadow boxing instead of really mixing it up, as if he were afraid, as Bonnie Raitt once memorably sang, "to throw a punch that might land."

If Mr. Kerry has a message, he's garbled it pretty badly. If he's passionate about anything, he's kept it to himself. George Adair, a 50-year-old Democrat from Alabama who responded to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll, was succinct on this point: "I don't feel I have a clear enough picture of Mr. Kerry's agenda."

There is a hunger in America for change. Doubts are rising daily about the fiasco in Iraq. There is a sense that the threat of a terrorist attack in the U.S. may be increasing rather than receding. Economic insecurity remains high.

I believe American voters would exchange George W. Bush for a first-rate Democratic candidate in a heartbeat. More than 50 percent of the poll respondents believed the country was headed in the wrong direction. But the poll also showed that regardless of how the respondents intended to vote, 61 percent believed Mr. Bush would win in November.

Mr. Kerry has only a few weeks to turn things around. Nearly everyone who thinks the Bush administration has been a disaster for the United States is rooting for him. Sort of. More precisely, they are rooting for Mr. Bush to lose. And this, I think, is Mr. Kerry's fundamental problem.

He was selected by Democratic voters because they thought he could beat the president. But he has yet to exhibit the warmth or political savvy necessary to fully energize potential supporters and achieve that victory. An overly cerebral campaign fronted by a candidate too inhibited to blow the whistle on the insanity surrounding us is a big-time recipe for defeat.

John Kerry needs to make a stronger emotional connection with voters, and he won't be able to do that without revealing more of what he truly feels and believes - in other words, more of himself.

Voters may want change, but they don't want to step into the unknown. The race is still close enough for Mr. Kerry to prevail, and there are debates coming up. But time is short.

The No. 1 issue facing the United States is the war in Iraq. Senator Kerry intends to address that issue again this week. If he tries to finesse it, if he tries to play hawk and dove at the same time, if he fails to draw convincingly a clear and distinct line between his approach to this great tragic misadventure and that of the Bush administration, he might as well fold his campaign tents and go home.

Senator Kerry said over the weekend that he was ready to step up his campaign effort, that he was in a "fighting mood.'' We'll see.

Leadership at times requires great courage. John Kerry has not yet closed the deal with voters who are dissatisfied with President Bush. He may find, in the final weeks of this campaign, that the most important quality he can draw upon is the courage to be himself.


Even those pre-disposed to Kerry knock his lack of conviction and wishy washy positions. The man wants to be president of the United States for cyring out loud.

[Chris Alger]

Excerpts from a Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0921/p02s02-usmi.html) article, 9/21/04:

A strident minority: anti-Bush US troops in Iraq

Inside dusty, barricaded camps around Iraq, groups of American troops in between missions are gathering around screens to view an unlikely choice from the US box office: "Fahrenheit 9-11," Michael Moore's controversial documentary attacking the commander-in-chief.

"Everyone's watching it," says a Marine corporal at an outpost in Ramadi that is mortared by insurgents daily. "It's shaping a lot of people's image of Bush."

The film's prevalence is one sign of a discernible countercurrent among US troops in Iraq - those who blame President Bush for entangling them in what they see as a misguided war. Conventional wisdom holds that the troops are staunchly pro-Bush, and many are. But bitterness over long, dangerous deployments is producing, at a minimum, pockets of support for Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry, in part because he's seen as likely to withdraw American forces from Iraq more quickly.

"[For] 9 out of 10 of the people I talk to, it wouldn't matter who ran against Bush - they'd vote for them," said a US soldier in the southern city of Najaf, seeking out a reporter to make his views known. "People are so fed up with Iraq, and fed up with Bush."
. . .

"Nobody I know wants Bush," says an enlisted soldier in Najaf, adding, "This whole war was based on lies." Like several others interviewed, his animosity centered on a belief that the war lacked a clear purpose even as it took a tremendous toll on US troops, many of whom are in Iraq involuntarily under "stop loss" orders that keep them in the service for months beyond their scheduled exit in order to keep units together during deployments.

"There's no clear definition of why we came here," says Army Spc. Nathan Swink, of Quincy, Ill. "First they said they have WMD and nuclear weapons, then it was to get Saddam Hussein out of office, and then to rebuild Iraq. I want to fight for my nation and for my family, to protect the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, not to protect Iraqi civilians or deal with Sadr's militia," he said.

Specialist Swink, who comes from a family of both Democrats and Republicans, plans to vote for Kerry. "Kerry protested the war in Vietnam. He is the one to end this stuff, to lead to our exit of Iraq," he said.

'We shouldn't be here'

Other US troops expressed feelings of guilt over killing Iraqis in a war they believe is unjust.
"We shouldn't be here," said one Marine infantryman bluntly. "There was no reason for invading this country in the first place. We just came here and [angered people] and killed a lot of innocent people," said the marine, who has seen regular combat in Ramadi. "I don't enjoy killing women and children, it's not my thing."

As with his comrades, the marine accepted some of the most controversial claims of "Fahrenheit 9/11," which critics have called biased. "Bush didn't want to attack [Osama] Bin Laden because he was doing business with Bin Laden's family," he said.

Another marine, Sgt. Christopher Wallace of Pataskala, Ohio, agreed that the film was making an impression on troops. "Marines nowadays want to know stuff. They want to be informed, because we'll be voting out here soon," he said. " 'Fahrenheit 9/11' opened our eyes to things we hadn't seen before.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
A strident minority: anti-Bush US troops in Iraq


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the title of this piece says it all. Its a minority and based on my own anecdotal experiences, a very slim minority, as the number of people I have talked to in the military who want Kerry to win can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

[Matty]

Hey adios, instead of posting op-eds ad nauseum, how about you tell me what specifically you want to know about Kerry's plans that you already know about Bush's plans.

Thanks,

[Cyrus]

On May 21, a US military court sentenced Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia Castillo of the Florida National Guard to the maximum penalty of one year's imprisonment for desertion. He had refused to return to his unit in Iraq, citing moral reasons, the legality of the war and the conduct of US troops towards Iraqi civilians and prisoners. Amnesty International considers him to be a prisoner of conscience, imprisoned for his conscientious opposition to participating in war.

Forget for a moment Sgt Mejia's conduct and read his account of how American soldiers were screened before been shipped off to Saddam country. It's chilling.

"The training at Ft. Stewart was merely intended to make our unit deployable. A soldier is not supposed to deploy if he or she doesn't pass a physical exam. I knew a soldier whose hearing had been impaired after many years' service in the artillery. But this didn't matter; they checked the 'Pass' box for hearing on his medical form.

Another requirement was that we qualify with our rifles. After several attempts at the firing range, many soldiers still couldn't qualify but they were all judged to be qualifed. Training cadres would initially fail a few soldiers and then change this to a passing score. Not a single soldier ever had to go back to the range for testing.

Every soldier passed every test the same day they were tested."


Camilo Mejia refuses to return (http://www.notinourname.net/troops/mejia-17mar04.htm)

[Dr Wogga]

.....does Blair pull out of wife's Bush?