Reply #113: Where's your link

[karynnj]

Prosense's link shows what Kerry actually said.

As to where he would get more troops - I think the situation would be different with Kerry as President. He would likely have moved on Iraq first - as he could do a lot unilaterally. He spoke of a Regional/International summit as soon as he was President. In January, he went to Europe and the ME - he came back asking why we weren't taking Jordan, Eqypt, France and Germany up on there training offers. As President, this would likely have been done immediately - it is highly likely that well before the end of 2005 there would have been sufficient trained troops.

Kerry, son of a diplomat, has loved diplomacy since he was a kid. Iraq is a mess, but Kerry is the type who would clearly have had the tenacity to push for more alternatives and the willingness to look at different approaches. As to our image in the area, I can't imagine anyone with more noral credibility on some of the issues that tarnishes our image. In the campaign, Kerry simply would add Abu Grabeh to the list of things that went wrong. A President Kerry could at an international summit say that the US will follow international laws and that these actions would never happen while he ws President. His actions in 1971, calling his own government to task would give him the moral authority America has lost.

So, I would assume that by the time Congress was considering the increase, the violence in Iraq would have been decreasing rather than increasing. By the time the first wave of trained Iraqis returned - much pressure would be off the US.