Kerry on Iraq: Say What?
October 26, 2005, 7:22 pm |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
John Kerry, his own best enemy, stuck his foot in his mouth again today:
It will be hard for this administration, but it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down, starting immediately after successful elections in December.
Last year, Kerry claimed we needed more troops in Iraq, to be supplied by… someone.
Hmmm… How do we defeat an enemy by providing them with a security vaccum — and a certain timetable under which to prepare for more terror?
Iraq’s terrorists have been busy killing far more civilians than American soldiers. Certainly there is hatred for Americans by Iraq’s terrorists, but it is the democratic process they fear the most. Intimidate the civilians. An Islamic caliphate or death — no free thinking allowed.
Kerry’s argument plays to the usual sing-song: American troops are the cause of the “insurgency,” not the fear of the steady advance of democracy. So the argument goes: the Sunnis feel left out, so their only outlet is terror. But wait a minute, the Sunnis are engaged. “88 percent of the registered voters cast ballots in the Sunni province of Salahuddin,” in last week’s referendum. Sunnis are turning to the ballot box. So we cut and run just when we’re starting to win the fight?
Kerry is shilling for a loss in Iraq. But hey; anything to pander to the radical Left. Forget the center where the power lays. Kerry’s advice is a recipe for disaster, just as was his presidential campaign.
Related: Iraq
October 27th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
You must be joking…
let’s just go with your premiss for a minute: (which is basically)
– Kerry’s exit strategy is a contradiction to his call for more troops last year.
To me, “major combat operations in Iraq have ended” followed by a refusal to withdraw troops (or to even mention a possible benchmark or timeline for withdrawl) seems like the more obvious contradiction. Kerry was not the only one to call for more troops at the begining of this “struggle.” General Casey, and a long list of experts agreed that the number of troops Bush went into Iraq with was too small to succeed in the mission. This is where ALL conservatives that are still for the war, and I differ: to me, the “mission” (in very general terms) involves some improvement of Iraq as a result of our intervention, followed by the withdrawl of troops, and their safe return home, upon which their fellow Americans greet them as heroes… your version of the “mission” (using your logic) requires that are troops stay there for a period of time. You see, if you don’t hope that our troops return safely (which requires a clear exit strategy), then your argument is completely logical. If, like most of us, you hope that our troops return home to safety (at some point), then your refusal to even discuss a withdrawl strategy is a recipe for disaster.
One more thing to consider: if Bush’s notion— a “free and democratic” Iraq will make the world safer because “a nation that is free to choose their own destiny will not be hostile to other nations,”–then why are we (a free nation that allegedly chose Bush to lead us) attacking a sovereign nation that never threatened us?
October 27th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
I don’t take issue with a clear exit strategy, which is not what Kerry advocates. These are his own words: the “insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down.”
“allegedly chose Bush to lead us” - do you have evidence that Bush stole the election?
October 29th, 2005 at 9:06 pm
YOU SAID
“I don’t take issue with a clear exit strategy, which is not what Kerry advocates. These are his own words: the “insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down.”
MY RESPONSE to that:
The entire Kerry speech IS, in fact, a clear exit strategy… you disagree with the suggestion that, our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” (which came from one our top officials we had on the ground in Iraq, General George Casey), and you don’t see how a perceived foreign occupation is an excellent recruitment tool for new insurgents in Iraq… Then I suggest you do 2 things:
1)Look up the definition for the word “Insurgency.” For example,on http://www.wordrefrence.com you’ll find :“an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict.)”
2.)Ask yourself “how many insurgents were in Iraq before the U.S. showed up? ” Or better yet “does the number of U.S. forces in Iraq correlate with the number of insurgents in Iraq? ”
and if you can find anywhere, an increase in our presence resulting in a decrease in the number of insurgents… send me a link. So far, I can only find the opposite to be the case.
YOU SAID
“Do you have evidence that Bush stole the election?” in reference to my last post to you.
MY RESPONSE is:
Read the what I wrote about this again (since you missed the point entirely.)
BUSH likes to say that a “free and democratic” Iraq will make the world safer because “a nation that is free to choose their own destiny will not be hostile to other nations.”
Let’s just say that this Bush-logic is 100% true…
Okay, then explain to me why we have bombed (in operation “Shock and Awe” and many others) a nation (Iraq) that had never threatened us or killed a single American before this entire mess.
Now…if you really are using the Bush-logic consistently when you explain this to me, you can only really have one of two answers:
EITHER you don’t consider bombing a country that never attacked us “hostile” on our part— which will end the argument right here…because if you wouldn’t consider a country bombing another country that never threatened them “hostile”, then another country bombing the US is fair game… (At which point you’ve only proven that You and Bush have way more balls than I do— but have not explained how our actions in Iraq have made us any safer.)
OR you (if your consistently using the Bush logic) can only conclude that WE are not “a nation that is free to choose their own destiny.” You’re comfortable wagering 2000+ American lives (not to mention all the Iraqui deaths) on this logic…I’m not.
October 30th, 2005 at 3:36 am
Consider the positives in Iraq: http://netwmd.com/blog/2005/10/28/86
You seem to legitimize the insurgency, whose openly stated aims are to kill all the “unbelievers” in Iraq and, eventually all who live in the world (http://netwmd.com/blog/2005/10/12/38). This “insurgency” has mostly killed (Shiite) Iraqi civilians. So I’m not sure how intimidating Iraqi civilians meets the definition of “an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict.”
Your logic would then legitimize the Nazi Werwolves who “opposed” the American reconstruction of post-war Germany (http://www.netwmd.com/articles/article344.html).
It was the UN who believed Saddam was a threat (http://www.netwmd.com/articles/article756.html), not just Bush. The UN Security Council, including France, voted unanimously on 08/11/2002 to hold “Iraq in ‘material breach’ of its obligations under previous resolutions.” The same resolution “recall[ed] [a] repeated warning of ‘serious consequences’ for continued violations” by Iraq. Even the NY Times admits Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda (http://www.netwmd.com/articles/article605.html). And Saddam was paying the families of Palestinian homicide bombers for killing Jews. Not to mention Saddam’s killing of about 1 million of his own people. Any dictatorship is an enemy of the free world.
I welcome your input to netwmd, but I have a feeling this discussion could go on forever…