Kerry: Bush assurances on Iraq a blunder

[ProSense]

Kerry: Bush assurances on Iraq a blunder

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer 58 minutes ago

IOWA CITY, Iowa - Democratic Sen. John Kerry said Tuesday that President Bush committed "a gigantic blunder" by giving top Iraqi officials assurances that U.S. forces would remain indefinitely in the war-torn country.

Kerry argued that his 2004 rival should have pressured Iraqi leaders to set aside their differences and focus on making progress in assuming responsibility for security, a move that could lead to a reduction in U.S. troop levels.

"The absence of pressure I find is an enormous blunder that gives the Iraqi politicians a free pass to continue the status quo that most Americans understand is a failure, that's not working," Kerry said. "I'm amazed by it."

Snip...

The Massachusetts senator was responding to Bush's 15-minute telephone conversation Monday with the Iraqi prime minister. Bush called Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to quell rumors that the United States planned to set a deadline for Iraqis to assume security responsibilities. In his conversation, Bush said there was no deadline and that American troops would remain as long as they were needed.

Snip...

"I think the president committed a gigantic blunder of the proportion of 'Bring it on,' " said Kerry. "When he has a conversation with the prime minister of Iraq and he climbs out and he says that he told him he doesn't have to worry, we're going to be there as long as it take, you've given a message that they can take as long as they want."

Kerry said even Republicans such as Sens. John Warner and Chuck Hagel are calling for a new strategy in Iraq, and Bush needs to get that message.

more...

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

6. Our government is less ethical when unqualified and callow morons are

"elected" and the electorate is deprived of imminently more qualified candidates. Gore and Kerry would have presided over an America whose integrity remained a viable aspect of our national identity.

Under Bush, that is imperiled.

The Far Right fundies voted for Bush-Cheney because they thought a Bush-Cheney White House would put the Ten Commandments over every schoolroom and bury all the homosexuals in a cave. The Corporate State donated generously to Bush-Cheney because environmental controls would be relaxed. And so forth.

Many days go by when I wish to live in Al Gore's America or John Kerry's America rather than the BFEE's America.

Any DU post that can remind us of those long-term distinctions is worth our while.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Imagevision]

2. Mr. Kerry the question is what will happen after the elections??

[ProSense]

3. No, the question is:

Why isn't Hillary Clinton supporting Kerry-Feingold?

[blm]

8. I imagine he'll open the books on BushInc and let the chips fall where

they may - even on Bill Clinton who Poppy talked into closing the books on his crimes, leading to Bush2, 9-11, and this Iraq war.

Why did Clinton pledge his loyalty to BushInc?

[saltpoint]

4. Two presidents are impugned under Kerry's accusation here.

One in Iraq, whose presidency is gasping for breath, as the IEDs kill dozens a day and well-armed militia murder his citizens.

And another in Washington, there having cheated to win -- twice -- over much more qualified candidates. The words there are "much more qualified" and I set them out as a separate but equal point in my response to this excellent post.

Senator Kerry owns the point here, and is using the same succinct but deadly-accurate style he used to destroy Bush in their three debates. He culls from news of the recent past the hinge point, then turns it toward a current development (Iraq's shaky "democracy") and then, quite properly, blames Bush first for creating the conundrum in the first place and then later for lying that things are improving.

Wham.

In debate terms, that settles the question.

I appreciate Kerry acting like the statesmen on the subject of foreign policy generally and on Iraq specifically, since absolutely no one in the Bush administration is up to the job.

EXCELLENT post.

[blm]

33. No kidding - You could replace the top 10 people in Bush administration

with ONE Democrat like Kerry or Gore or Gary Hart or Wes Clark and get more honest brainpower.

[saltpoint]

34. Absolutely. And the 4 you named would make a terrific team.

I surely do love our chances in this midterm coming up, and that bodes well for 2008.

I hope we win big on Nov. 7th and build from that foundation back to full strength as the party of record.

The Republicans deserve to be tossed overboard.

[globalvillage]

5. I agree, it was an incredibly stupid thing to say, even for bush*

Thanks for the post, ProSense. My day is now complete.

[sandnsea]

7. I used to say

certain people would sooner see the war continue than get behind Kerry. I said it half in jest, maybe I was more right than even I thought at the time.

Nobody is leading against the war like John Kerry.

I thought that's what the anti-war crowd wanted.

Not so after all??

[AtomicKitten]

10. after he voted for it he's now leading a movement against it

Yep, sounds like Kerry alright. FTR, we anti-war folks want somebody that didn't vote 'yes' on the IWR.

[sandnsea]

11. I don't know what your problem is

I do know the solution. Buhbye.

[AtomicKitten]

12. Well, I know what your problem is.

You are intolerant of another point-of-view.

See ya!

[partisan]

13. You've made your point clear - several times

I don't think anyone here is intolerant of your opposing POV; however, it's the same thing over and over again. We get it. You don't like John Kerry. Move along, nothing to see here.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. Because you aren't eviscerating Kerry on at least 3 threads right now

Also: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy

[AtomicKitten]

16. not Kerry, silly

YOU -- and, again not ALL the threads as you claim; most are the same old, same old boring press release, hey look at me, I swear I won't fuck up again crappola.

And you better get used to the notion that Kerry's support is lukewarm at best. The assimilation of that information by you all will be fun to watch. You have succeeded in making your candidate the last one one earth some here would vote for simply by virtue of your behavior. And, yes, that is funny to me.

[ProSense]

18. Anti-war! LOL! n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. Cute. You attack Kerry even as you say you are not

How do you even keep track of your own dishonesty?

Your last paragraph is laughable. Kerry's support was dead in the water according to the conventional wisdom whores in 2003 and 2004, too - and frankly, anyone who reads DU who think that anyone but YOU is the belligerent negative bully is not someone whose intelligence I have a great deal of regard for. Have a wonderful night!!!!!

[AtomicKitten]

21. you know what's really funny?

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

Kerry went from 11% to 9% in polling among Democrats. Yep, he's a firecracker alright.

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. You know what's even funnier?

He was polling at something like 3% two months before Iowa in 2004.

Well, shit, a poll two years out shows him polling at 9% - you're right, I'd better throw in the towel now!

lol

[Mass]

25. I hope you are rooting for Hill, because this poll shows that Edwards

has collapsed and Gore has gone down as well.

This said, these polls are meaningless so early. Sorry if the Kerry threads offend you. May be you can just skip them just as I try to ignore you as much as possible.

[karynnj]

27. The difference is not significant

The 2 polls are independent and this poll has a moe of 4.5% If the other study had the same sample size - none of the changes are significant - though the Edwards decline of 6 points is the closest. What this shows is that the sample size of this study can detect only very large changes.

About the only significant thing is that Hillary is ahead more than a year before the primaries. The media spotlight on Edwards doesn't look like it is taking. Kerry is as much in contention as Edwards.

[blm]

30. Kerry always grows stronger in the polls as DEBATES go on. All those blank

slates start talking and laying out their goods, and ..........

[tavalon]

29. Then don't read these posts if they bother you so much

You aren't compelled by outside forces to read them, you know? I am still angry at Kerry and yet, I read some of these things because frankly, he is doing good work now. If I was still angry at Kerry, I would skip the postings as I did for most of the year after he conceded.

In other words, grow up.

[AtomicKitten]

37. thanks for the advice

Congratulations on working through your anger BTW. I guess now that you have, it is your expectation that we all just "get over it." Some of us hold our leaders accountable with perseverance and without rationalization.

[tavalon]

47. Nope, you don't need to get over it

but neither do you need to keep pulling the scab off of your wound by continuing to find these posts to get pissed about. Use some judgement - that was what I was trying to say. It took me all of a year and a few months beyond that to get over my anger. I have no problem with anyone who still hasn't. I could easily still be one of those. If he gets the second chance he's asking for to run in 2006, my anger will be rekindled. I don't want to go through that twice.

[ProSense]

17. That would rule out Clinton and Gore

First of all it was not a vote for war!

Hillary Clinton can't seem to commit to withdrawal:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Gore's speech was based on Bush's proposed resolution:

In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, etc., wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations. It means also that if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.

Snip...

Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, an that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

Gore was laying out a criteria for war and it's aftermath!

Gore, however, disagreed with Sen. John Kerry's, D-Mass., call to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

"I would pursue the twin objectives of trying to withdraw our forces as quickly as we possibly can, while at the same time minimizing the risk that we'll make the mess over there even worse and raise even higher the danger of civil war," Gore said.

Dismissing calls for any deadline, Gore added, "It's possible that setting a deadline could set in motion forces that would make it even worse. I think that we should analyze that very carefully. My guess is that a deadline is probably not the right approach; but again, you have to weigh that question in the context of how the political decisions are made between the Congress and the executive branch. Sometimes the Congress itself has blunt instruments and limited options to play a role in matters like this."

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=elections&id=4...

Kerry, on the other hand, cited Bush's resolution, and clearly stated that the resolution was revised to specifically address Iraq (nothing to do with distractions or rebuilding as Gore suggested, but everthing to do with ensuring that war was a last resort):

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq , and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq . It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

Snip...

As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

Page: S10173

Kerry-Feingold

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

That's clarity!

[AtomicKitten]

20. Al Gore was against the Iraq War from the get-go.

Nice try. And I don't give a rat's ass about HRC; I won't vote for her either in the primary.

What else ya got?

[ProSense]

23. Al Gore suggested that Congress put forth a resolution

requiring "commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan" and that "the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq."


Kerry said war should be a last resort!

[blm]

31. Guess you never read Gore's speech about what HE would put in the IWR

to make it acceptable to him.

[TayTay]

35. That's not true, he was not against it in the way Ted Kennedy was

He was for the compromise of Biden-Lugar and said that faced with the Congressional vote as it was, he would have pushed for the changes and supported it.

You are cherry-picking your facts. This is inaccurate.

[blm]

32. You SHOULD want someone who is capable of crafting a withdrawal plan.

But political posturing seems to be more important, and even more important than making Bush accountable for going to war in VIOLATION of the IWR which directed weapons inspections and stepped up diplomatic measures FIRST before any determination was made for military action.

Inspectors reported there was no need for force, Bush lied and said he determined there was - useful idiots spend the next 3 years attacking Democrats and the IWR instead of Bush for VIOLATING the IWR.

[AtomicKitten]

36. You SHOULD hold Kerry accountable for his "yes" vote on the IWR

Instead you pretend like it never happened. He and 28 other Dem Senators helped put us in Iraq because they were more worried about looking weak on terror than doing the right thing in saying "no." You can rationalize that all you want and not demand accountability, but don't expect others to be so lax and selective in their standards.

[blm]

38. You would be wrong - I believe presidents should have threat of force

as a tool of negotiation to PREVENT the use of it in the long run.

THIS president did what no other president would do - violated the IWR to start a war that was proved to be unnecessary.

YOUR thinking is that IWR took this country to war - it did not, and would have PREVENTED war if administered honestly.

Focusing all blame on IWR and the Democrats was a useful ploy to take scrutiny off of Bush's VIOLATION of the IWR to start his war. YOU let Bush off the hook for violating the IWR when you instead focus blame on the IWR and Dems who supported that resolution as if that IWR was the reason for war. It was NOT. And if you read Bush's signing statement attached to the IWR you would realize that the WH knew damn well it didn't give him War Powers.

[AtomicKitten]

39. no, you would be rationalizing again

You can continue to pretend otherwise all you want because all the crappola you dish up to "prove" your rationalization is for naught. Not buying it. I hold my leaders accountable. If you think for a second that anyone thought Junior was going to use the "threat of force" Congress abdicated to him honorably or wisely, then you seriously underestimate their complicity in the fiasco that ensued. Convenient for cheerleading, but deadly to thousands.

[blm]

41. Letting Bush off the hook for violating IWR - enjoy that stance. Rove did

.

[AtomicKitten]

44. oh he violated it -- but that doesn't exonerate those

that gave him the opportunity. Apportioning blame doesn't alleviate the responsibility that was breeched.

[ProSense]

45. That doesn't make any sense!

If he violated it, then he broke the law. That's his decision.

[blm]

46. If IWR took us to war that would have some merit. It didn't, so it doesn't

.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

26. You keep saying that! n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

28. And yet, you so obviously don't

Or else you never would have clicked on it to begin with.

Good night!

[Mass]

40. A plea - Do not feed the Kerry bashers.

Some here are just in need of attention. Just ignore them.

[AtomicKitten]

42. advice from

someone that just can't cope with reality so instead equates those that don't support their candidate with "bashing" .... you don't love him so you must hate him. Only children think in such stark, exaggerated terms.

Whatever gets you through the day - your own personal brand of attention-seeking. Unfortunately it only plays to the choir.

[Mass]

43. LOL - whatever.