Kerry Says June 30 Iraq Handover Date a 'Mistake'

[NewYorkerfromMass]

obviously.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4766378

[cygy2k]

1. Weasel Speak

I think a weasel could have told you that. Way too early to hand anything over but the presidency.

[newyawker99]

32. Hi cygy2k!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[AlinPA]

2. This statement by Kerry is well timed. Believeable. This puts

Bush* & Rove on the ropes.

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. Better to say Iraq ..a mistake

What does he propose to do instead? Stay the course with Jerry/Paul/L Paul or whatever Bremer, since that is working so well?

The Shia have got them all over a barrel I'm afraid.

[David__77]

4. I disagree with Kerry on Iraq, but will strongly support him.

I want a pullout now and will demonstrate and work toward this end. One day is one day too long to occupy that country.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. We shouldn't assume a "Kerry occupation" of Iraq

would in any way resemble Bush's. Kerry knows the troops are in a lose lose situation right now because of the tunnel vision of the administration.

[David__77]

7. I think it's safe to say...

that it would still be an occupation. I don't foresee a President Kerry withdrawing troops. Whether it's under a US or UN banner--or even if it's under a puppet Iraqi "government"--it's still an occupation until the troops leave.

[Voltaire99]

12. Kerry is terribly wrong about Iraq

"We shouldn't assume a "Kerry occupation" of Iraq would in any way resemble Bush's. Kerry knows the troops are in a lose lose situation right now because of the tunnel vision of the administration.

Yes. To be exact, a Kerry occupation would be 40,000 troops worse.

That's how many additional forces he wants to send. It's called deepening the quagmire. Kerry should know better; that he doesn't is evidence he subscribes fundamentally to the same imperial view as the neocons. He's just nicer about it, euphemistically "involving" the UN to sanction and proxy troops to clean up after US invasions. Read his literature: he's a neoliberal warrior, the sort that is anathema to progressives. For his sake, I hope he understands the polls: the 44% who want the US to pull out of Iraq now are very likely to be the same voters Kerry is depending upon for reelection.

You're being too narrowly partisan if you think Iraq is a failure because of Bush. Iraq is a failure because Kerry and others in Congress gave Bush permission to invade a nation against all international norms of civilized behavior, and the peoples of that nation, lately strangled by US sanctions and recently shocked and awed by US missiles and bombs, do not want to be occupied. Iraq will continue to be a failure--moral, pragmatic, strategic, fiscal and human--until the US leaves.

It's time Kerry became part of the solution. And so he will, if he wants my vote.

[sangha]

19. That is not true

Yes. To be exact, a Kerry occupation would be 40,000 troops worse...That's how many additional forces he wants to send.

From Kerry's website:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0318b.html

"...Among Kerry's proposals were providing more training and equipment to U.S. troops, improving military housing, and increasing military health care subsidies and family separation pay. He also proposed temporarily increasing the size of the active-duty Army by 40,000 troops. That step, which his aides said would cost up to $8 billion a year, would be intended to ease the burden on those deployed for longer than their usual term..."

Those 40,000 will be used to reduce the avg deployment time, and not to increase the # of troops in Iraq at any one time.

Read his literature: OK!

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/
"A Reasonable Plan and a Specific Time Table for Transferring Political Power and the Responsibility for Reconstruction to the People of Iraq

As President, John Kerry will immediately lay out a concrete plan for the transfer of power to the Iraqi people. This plan will provide a reasonable timetable for a rapid turnover of power to Iraqi authorities. Engaging the Iraqi people in rebuilding their country and shaping their new institutions is fundamental to the cause of a stable, peaceful, and independent Iraq that contributes to the world instead of threatening it. "

[IndianaGreen]

36. Kerry never asked the Iraqis if they wanted us to stick around

Kerry is trapped in Beltway-logic. He needs to step out of the box.

[goforit]

26. Hmmmmm.........Vietnam all over again KERRY?......

Kerry shouldn't get too cocky over this statement,
cause Bush may just get all the Antiwar supporters.

His statements may be placed tooo soon.

[neverborn]

34. Oh sure,

I can see that. Anti-war Protestors for Bush.

[Malva Zebrina]

6. well whala whala whala

and our troops are being slaughtered.

Never mind--it is essential to play the Washington game. Kerry is looking like a incompetant

Too bad we are forced to vote for him to get the evil Bush out.

[Nicholas_J]

8. Kerry is an internationalist

And right now international law, the Geneva Convention, The Nuremburg Accords, and the U.N.Charter would make pulling out of Iraq even more illegal than going into it was. The only option for a democratic president is to get more international involvement through the United Nations but pulling out would be even more illegal than going in. The primary rule is that if one invades a nation by terms that it consideres necessary, it must remain in order to clean up the mess it has created and that requires military presence. All of the people who suggest that troops be immediately pulled out havnt the faintest idea of what international law regarding war entails.

[dudeness]

9. Dissenting..

I believe we do know what international law states in regards to war..its a pity those holding the political levers have suffered memory loss...bring the troops home now..

[Nicholas_J]

11. Would lead to either the total destruction of the United Nations

As a result of theU.S. attempting to veto sanctions against it. Further international isolation for not living up to dozens of treaty obligations that the U.S. is not only a signatory to, but primary author to, and very likely even more sanctions against U.S. businesses and exports throigh the WTO and the EEC.

Pulling out would result in even more serious political isolation than the U.S. currently suffers from. No way possible for the U.S. to pull out without facing far worse consequences. far worse. And likelihood of having to send in even more troops later in a massive war that would spread from Iraq, into Kurdish Turkey, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and half a dozen other flash points in the area. Turkey in particular, being a member of NATO would require U.S. presence when the Kurds begin rebellion.

The statement "pull out immediately" is based on an extremely simplistic concept of international law. It is imperative that if Bush is replaced, that a new democratic president does not also thumb his nose at international laws and agreements, which is exactly what pulling the troops out now would be doing. It would actually be outperforming Bush's complete disregard for the international community and the United NAtions.

[dudeness]

14. good points nicholas..

speaking on the iraq quagmire only..the UN can play no significant role in iraq due to its history of compliance with the US and UK in upholding genocidal sanctions for over a decade..we have seen this message delivered loud and clear with the bombing of the UN headquarters in iraq..i would point to the hypocrisy underpinning the argument of international law being applicable in this case..this was an illegal invasion under international law..to now advocate that an occupation is somehow within international law is, at best wishful thinking..what would perhaps placate those that feel this was a criminal act would be to see bush, blair and howard stand trial for crimes against humanity in ICC..along side the likes of saddam and milosovic..the doctrone of pre-emption and unilateralism must be defeated and the world would be a safer place for us all and rule of law adhered to..

[Nicholas_J]

21. AS I have noted elsewhere

The state that the victors left both Germany and the Ottoman Empire in after Workrld War I were the direct cause of World War II, and are very largely responsible for the state of affairs that exist today in the Middle East. It is absolutely essential for any president replacing Bush to abide by international conventions and not avoid the reposnsibility that Bush placed on the U.S> by going to war in the first place, regardless of the legality of Bush's actions. Or more simply, two wrongs do not make a right.

[aneerkoinos]

13. Nope

Actually, under UN the primary rule is that when a country illegally invades another country, it is the moral obligation of other nations to help kick the imperialist bastard out.

If Syria and Iran start aiding this Iraq Independence war against Kerry and Blair, they have every legal right to plus my moral support.

[David__77]

16. No, make reparations instead.

I don't think if the US troops withdrew there'd be massive disorder as compared with prior to the aggression. I think financial reparations would be helpful instead of troops.

[Nicholas_J]

22. Todays current events

Indicate precisely the opposite. Pulling out would lead to the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds into a massive civil war. The only thing that kept this in check for the last 30 years was Saddams repressive regime.

Either a civil war resulting in three separate states, or a civil war in which one strongman comes out on top and another regime similar to Saddams takes the place of the one that was there to begin with.

No amount of reparations are going to prevent such a civil war, and again, international law requires more than mere reparations, but assurances that the nation is left in a relatively stable condition.

[neverborn]

35. Financial Reparations

to who? Which leader? What government?

[Voltaire99]

17. LOL, nice try, Nick!

And right now international law, the Geneva Convention, The Nuremburg Accords, and the U.N.Charter would make pulling out of Iraq even more illegal than going into it was. The only option for a democratic president is to get more international involvement through the United Nations but pulling out would be even more illegal than going in. The primary rule is that if one invades a nation by terms that it consideres necessary, it must remain in order to clean up the mess it has created and that requires military presence. All of the people who suggest that troops be immediately pulled out havnt the faintest idea of what international law regarding war entails.

Let's see. It's 1939. Germany, determining that invasion is necessary for its defense, enters Poland.

Unfortunately, vacating Poland will be impossible, as Germany's military presence is required to clean up the mess. Now, Hitler may not be a nice guy, and indeed members of his circle, including one Herr Perle, willingly concede that international law has been broken. But look! There's another German pol waiting in the wings to take over from them who is an "internationalist," so the occupation will be just fine once he's in charge. He'll have no choice but to continue, either. Why, it would be "even more illegal" for Germany to vacate Poland now than it was for it to invade!

[Nicholas_J]

20. The current international laws

Were set up as a result of exactly the conditions that existed in 1939,and resulted in World War II. The cause was the state that the winners of World War I left Germany in after that war, that led to the current laws which are designed to require that the victor in any war clean up the mess it makes. Your reference to 1939 and its causes make my point.

[gulliver]

10. "Bush may have chosen June 30 for political reasons."

Why did the Bushies choose the date if not for political reasons?

[mulethree]

15. provide Americans with "a thorough understanding of exactly who we are

turning the authority over to"

Add a definition of "the authority"

Whats wrong with an arbitrary date if you can always redefine "occupation" and "authority" and even "Iraqi's"?

I think the danger is, that unless you're talking to a well
indoctrinated American, then changing the rules mid-game tends
to make you look like a untrustworthy cheater.

[waldenx]

18. Kerry doesn't think they are ready to govern themselves?

Kerry obviously doesn't comprehend WHY there is violence.

[Nicholas_J]

23. Kerry certainly does understand why there is violence

And that the American Presence is only a small part of it. If anything else toppled Saddams regime, civil war would have been totally inevitable. It took the British shoring up an incompetant and brutal monarchy before Saddam, the British themselves before that, and the Ottomans before that to prevent the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds from engaging in almost constant war for over a thousannd years. Like the U.S. being there is the root of the violence.

[malachibk]

24. I'm really conflicted about this...

On the one hand I think this war was the worst idea in my lifetime and I want the troops home yesterday.

On the other hand, we are there and we've destroyed an entire country for no reason and the world hates us because of it so we can't just leave and let everything really go to shit. Plus, the world'd blame us for 2 things -- bombing and leaving behind a disaster zone.

I wish Kerry would give voice to BOTH perspectives and join them with a big HOWEVER. As anti-war as I am, I have to admit that leaving right now would be the most geopolitically idiotic thing we could do.

I'm hoping that's what's behind Kerry's 40,000 odd troops. I just wish he'd say it.

[Crachet2004]

25. We are not going to leave Iraq. I wish we were,, but forget it.

I think the plan is to pull back to bases in the desert that would be difficult for guerillas to attack successfully.

Iraq will be allowed to sell it's oil to whoever...but whoever has to pay for it in dollars. The Dollar/Euro game is what is really going on. Kerry will reach an understanding with the Europeans in this matter, acknowledging the power of the rival currency-if an agreement is NOT reached soon, the rest of the world may abandon both currencies for Forex reserves denominated in some other way(as both float, with fictive values), and chaos would ensue...at least for a time.

Once something has been worked out in the Dollar/Euro dialogue, The UN, and probably NATO will become involved in Iraq proper-and we will fade into the desert, to our already prepared bases.

But no, we are not going to completely leave Iraq...probably never. Mores the pity.

[goforit]

27. This is a perfect example of M.Moore's "Stupid White Man's "response!!

We can get out of the IRAQ WAR Pronto if we are man
enough to admit is was and still is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Crachet2004]

29. Yeah we could...wish we would...but we won't. Watch and see.

"Things are not what they seem". Longfellow

[NewYorkerfromMass]

31. It would be wrong to just get up and leave.

that would be unbelievably irresponsible.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gloria]

30. Interesting. On CNN last night Clark said the date "probably should

"stay" but then said we really don't know what it really means. (sic)

But he then said the KEY thing, that I haven't heard anyone else say...
that the big problem is the Administration's ties to Chalabi...the Admin. "can't get past that" and that's critical. Because the Iraqis know that Chalabi is a US puppet and resent how he stayed away for so long, then is the annointed one.

As Wes said, it's the political solution that must be pursued, because we can't really win the thing with just using the military....

Please, oh please, this man must be the VP....

[w4rma]

33. Jeb's exec. order #01-261 ends June 30. What's so special about this date?

Jeb Declared Martial Law In FL On 9-7 …

Just some quick facts (no rumors what-so-ever) concerning the Bush family brothers, Governor "Jeb" of Florida and President "G.W." of Washington City, with regards to the events of 9-11:

On Friday, September 7, "Jeb" signed Florida Executive Order No. 01-261 which states, in part:
…
http://www.rense.com/general14/jebdeclared.htm

EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 01-261
…
Section 2.

I hereby delegate to The Adjutant General of the State of Florida all necessary authority, within approved budgetary appropriations or grants, to order members of the Florida National Guard into active service, as defined by Section 250.27, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of training to support law-enforcement personnel and emergency-management personnel in the event of civil disturbances or natural disasters and to provide training support to law-enforcement personnel and community-based organizations relating to counter drug operations.
…
Section 6.

This Executive Order shall remain in full force and effect until the earlier of its revocation or June 30, 2003.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and have caused the Great Seal of the State of Florida to be affixed at Tallahassee, the Capitol, this 7th day of September 2001.
http://sun6.dms.state.fl.us/eog_new/eog/orders/2001/september/eo2001-261-09-07-01.html

Florida under martial law?
Rumors persist despite official denial from Jeb Bush administration
…
The articles sparked a flurry of e-mails to WorldNetDaily. Did we know that the governor "immediately" after the Trade Center's second tower fell had issued an executive order, with no termination date, declaring a state of emergency? Did we know that the governor had made the interim head of the Division of Emergency Management into a czar of anti-terrorist operations, giving him the power to seize land and personal property and order people evacuated from their homes? Were we aware that Bush had mobilized the National Guard just four days earlier?

WorldNetDaily investigated. The articles provided links directly to the executive orders themselves, and these were exactly as described. Bush, through Executive Order 01-261, had activated units of the Florida National Guard on Sept. 7, four days before the kamikaze assault on the Trade Center. His second executive order, EO 01-262, did in fact delegate awesome powers to a non-elected official, the interim head of the Division of Emergency Management, the agency responsible for implementing Florida's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Moreover, the governor issued it shortly after the attacks, strongly suggesting he had been apprised of events ahead of time and was ready to sign the order with a stroke of his pen as soon as he received an appropriate signal.
…
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25051