Senator Kerry DOES HAVE AN IRAQ ALTERNATIVE

[papau]

Senator Kerry DOES HAVE AN IRAQ ALTERNATIVE - and LATimes Brownstein writes about it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/complete/la-na-assess10apr10,1,5238489.story?coll=la-elect2004-complete


Iraq Creates Quandary for Kerry He must balance his policy critique against his reluctance to appear unsupportive of troops. By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — <snip>Kerry has often been accused of shifting positions and splitting hairs on the war. But on one point the senator has never wavered: that the key to long-term stability in Iraq — and more financial and military support from other nations — is to transfer authority for designing a new government from the United States to the United Nations.

Although many media outlets have reported that Kerry hasn't specified an alternative to Bush's plan in Iraq, he detailed his position in a speech in September and reiterated it this week.

"They need to go to the world and say we're not going to have an American authority that is creating this new government," Kerry said Wednesday. "We're going to have an international authority that will help develop the new government." <snip>

<snip>In September, Kerry said Bush should dissolve the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority now running Iraq and obtain "a new Security Council resolution" transferring authority for developing the new Iraqi government and constitution to the United Nations.

Such a shift, Kerry argued, would "enhance the credibility and legitimacy of the effort and encourage other nations to provide much-needed funding and technical assistance." By sharing political power in Iraq, he said, the U.S. would also be in a stronger position to attract more international troops.<snip>


"We can still do this for a simple, basic reason," says Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a Kerry confidante on foreign policy. "Which is that the Brits, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese cannot afford to have chaos in Iraq and a civil war four months from now…. We just have to give them a chance to act in their self-interest and not make it impossible."


-

[sandnsea]

1. Nobody cares?

I thought everybody was all "what's Kerry's plan". :shrug:

[Cuban_Liberal]

2. DU's been down all day; give people time to catch up.

They'll reply--eventually...

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Well if somebody else wants to deal with the problem...

Then I say by all means share the burden with them. If I were the leader of a foreign country I would not even consider getting involved with Iraq no matter who was President of the US. But if other countries are willing to help us out then I absolutely think we should be negotiating. Only Bush and his friends at halliburton are gaining from total US control of Iraq.

[sangha]

7. Lots of people want to deal with the problem

Do you think the people in Europe want to stand by and watch as Iraq becomes a more modern version of Afghanistan?

How about the other states in the region?

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Good point, I suppose the US can't be trusted to fix it themseleves...

Especially under Bush.

[MoonRiver]

4. Kerry will be the most awesome president. He'll fix Iraqmire,

and lead our country back to peace, prosperity, and international respect.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. I hope so, but fixing Iraqmire in 8 years is pretty optimistic...

But at least he will put us on the right track.

[Avalux]

6. reluctance to appear unsupportive of troops -

how can wanting to fix the mess be unsupportive?

Look - shrub is toast in the international community. No way they'll help with him in office - he bought the farm, so to speak. We need Kerry in office to work with the rest of the world and change the US occupation of Iraq into an international endeavor that will benefit the Iraqi people. I hope that's the message - it will bring our troops home, and THAT is being supportive.

[sangha]

8. You mean Nicole lied to us?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/politics/campaign/10KERR.html
Kerry Says Policy in Iraq Compromises U.S. Safety

"...Mr. Kerry said the United States should show "a little bit of humility" and go to the United Nations and build a coalition of allies to take over the policing and reconstruction of Iraq.

The Bush campaign attacked Mr. Kerry for criticizing the president on the war and said he offered no real plan of his own.

"Instead of showing the world and the enemies of freedom that America stands firmly behind the effort in Iraq, and is committed to victory," said Nicolle Devenish, a Bush campaign spokeswoman, in a statement. "John Kerry has made the political calculation to rail against the war on terror at every stop on the campaign trail without offering any credible alternative."...

[Avalux]

9. "rail against the war on terror..."

The poor dear, she got the War on Terror and the Iraq War confused - oh wait - no she didn't. She's been programmed to spread GOP misinformation - make the two 'wars' one-in-the-same in the minds of Americans. :mad:

[sangha]

11. Yeah, but with a name like "Nicolle Devenish"

I bet she's just as cute as a a button.

[ACK]

10. The media is warning Kerry to be careful (ie to be soft)

Every other news organization seems to be taking their talking points from the Repubs on Kerry's criticism of the war.

Everytime CNN mentions Kerry's lines on Iraq they warn him in a not so subtle way that he is walking a thin between criticizing Bush and appearing to be unsupportive of the troops. They actually said this crap and not on an analysis piece but their regular damn report.

Ok, they have warned him.

He has still had a number of appearances and one showed up as a Washinton Post article where he went on about shrub being an arrogant dangerous unilaterist. Sounds tame next to most of our talk but its pretty tough for a Dem. Sad? Yes. True? Yes too especially when the media has warned you they will bash your ass if you go hardcore.

Then he outlines an internationalist approach.

It is good standard Democratic talk. Talk to the UN, form a coalition, straighten the mess out ... you know the deal.

There is one problem. I like Kerry. I think the man is a good man.

The problem is that I do not believe he is not going to have any good options by the time he gets into office.

Bush has let things go too far. He will either have to go deep into the quagmire or leave the country in a horrible mess we will have to face later with the jihad guys start crawling our butts looking for revenge for what we did. Either way it is not going to be pretty.

I think it is perhaps too late for the UN. It would take a huge coalition of united and strong allies -- Arab and European to handle this. Who in the hell would send large numbers of troops into the middle of that firefight?

No one.

There are no good options left.

[Bill Todd]

12. If Kerry's current stance on Iraq were the sole issue in the election

I'd support him in a heartbeat: he may have been utterly unacceptable in this area a year ago, but given where things stand today at least seriously attempting to get the rest of the world involved (with particular emphasis on countries the Iraqis might find more sympatico) by offering a transfer of authority to the U.N. combined with continuing economic and logistical support is the best remaining option, even if there's no guarantee it would succeed (and God help the region if it doesn't).

- bill

[Nederland]

13. The UN doesn't want our mess

I fail to see why anyone believes that the UN wants anything to do with Iraq. Shrub has screwed us royally and when Kerry wins in November he will have to deal with Bush's mess all alone.

[sangha]

14. It will

Do you think the Europeans want to watch Iraq implode? How about Iraq's neighbors?

[Nederland]

16. Yes and Yes (nt)

[sangh0]

17. Care to explain why?

I didn't think so

[Nederland]

18. Sure

25 years ago when the Shaw was deposed and Iran blew up, Europe and other Middle East countries sat around and let it happen. 15 years ago when the Soviet Union left Afghanistan and it blew up, Europe and other Middle East countries sat around and let it happen. What makes you think they will behave any differently with Iraq?

[sangh0]

19. OK

25 years ago, no one had heard of Al Queda. Current concerns are different than those of 25 years ago. Also, some Europeans might have been nervous about intervening in Iraq seeing as how it's neighbor was the USSR.

And Afghanistan is a lot farther away from Europe than Iraq.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. That doesn't make much sense.

You were asked: Do you think the Europeans want to watch Iraq implode? How about Iraq's neighbors?

You answered: Yes and Yes

You were asked why they would want that.

You answered: 25 years ago when the Shaw was deposed and Iran blew up, Europe and other Middle East countries sat around and let it happen. 15 years ago when the Soviet Union left Afghanistan and it blew up, Europe and other Middle East countries sat around and let it happen. What makes you think they will behave any differently with Iraq?


Totally avoiding the question of why would Europe and the Middle East want to watch Iraq implode.

So without avoiding the question -- why would Europe and the Middle East want to watch Iraq implode?

[sandnsea]

40. Those were OUR messes

The Shah was our little puppet and Iran took U.S. hostages. That made it OUR problem. Who do you think was behind the Afghanistan resistance? You think they fought that war all by themselves? OUR problem. We run around the world and create all these puppet regimes and throw out the ones we don't like, then when they blow up we insist the UN handle them the way WE want, or not at all. And yes, Iraq is more of the same. But a different kind of US policy will bring the world to our side, and John Kerry is for a WAY more different US policy than I think most people understand. And like Sangho said, al qaeda changes the interests of the world altogether.

And if you're going to criticize a UN solution, then I guess nobody in this election has a plan and we may as well just keep Bush.

[sangh0]

15. *kick*

Funny how few of those who have been asking "What has Kerry said about Iraq?" are posting in this thread

[curse10]

20. thanks papau

:-)

[mgarretson]

21. this article sheds some light...

Ronald Brownstein has done some awesome political reporting in the last couple day... Not necessarily pro-Kerry but at least he's been showing the complexities of the decisions Kerry and his team faces. I'm heartened by more talk from Kerry on foreign policy and Iraq... It's complex but it's something we're going to have to figure out.

[sangha]

22. Wow, that sounds incredibly like....

real news!!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Kerry's position on Iraq has been consistent all along.

I wonder how many times I will hear people pretend he doesn't have an Iraq plan.




http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0930a.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html

[Bill Todd]

24. Wow, Kerry can't go after Dubya about lack of WMD, I guess

Not after having laid out so specifically in that October, 2002 Senate speech exactly what WMD his own understanding of intelligence reports indicated that Iraq had and was actively developing (plus specific delivery systems that also turned out to be illusory, such as the UAVs).

And in that speech he also criticizes Bush for not going after Iraq immediately after 9/11, using the excuse of the war on terrorism (because Iraq might provide WMD to some terrorist organization which might use them against us) and leveraging the world-wide support we enjoyed at the time. Oops...

And of course this is the famous "If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out" speech. Much of the material following that memorable phrase creates in retrospect quite an indictment of Kerry's follow-through on clear and solemn promises: it's been a while since I read all this, and it certainly merits remembering.

The second speech is classic Kerry waffle: no less than four repetitions of the phrase "bold, progressive internationalism" combined with something of a retreat from his earlier endorsement of unilateral action should it be necessary - definitely iron-hand-in-velvet-glove on the one hand combined with soothing encouragement for cooperation on the other with no clear resolution at the end (which is not to suggest that Kerry's general international attitude wouldn't be a major step upward from Bush's, of course - but we're talking specifically about Iraq here).

The remaining speeches listed discuss mostly not the war itself but the handling of its aftermath. But the first of them (September, 2003) contains the telling statement "They went to the UN, but used it as nothing more than a drive-by on the road to war. This may be the most arrogant, deceptive moment in our foreign policy in many decades."

Why wasn't this as clear to Kerry in the month before the war as it was to so many others around the world? He wouldn't have been 'the first to speak out', as he had promised to be, but at least he would have spoken out in time. And he even refers back to that period in stating "But the Bush Administration, impatient to go into battle, stopped the clock on the inspectors against the wishes of key members of the Security Council and despite the call of many in Congress who had voted to authorize force as a last resort" - so it's not as if he was asleep that month and simply missed it.

Oh, yeah: the next speech, on 12/16/03, contains the pointed comment "And no one can doubt that we are safer – and Iraq is better – because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars" - plus several other explicit swipes at Dean that in retrospect say far more about Kerry's unfitness to be president than about Howard's. Way to go, JFK: if the man whose Senate seat you inherited were still alive, he'd recognize a Pander Bear when he saw one. But he does manage to get in yet another reference to "bold, progressive internationalism."

I certainly won't deny that Kerry's positions on Iraq have been at least fairly consistent right along, at least to the degree that Kerry ever commits to a clear position on anything. And I tend to agree by and large with his position on the appropriate course to take now that we're there. But his positions on the war itself were reprehensible, from his initial acquiescence to Bush's requests for a degree of autonomy expressly discouraged by the Constitution, to his later refusal to condemn Bush's misuse of that autonomy, and finally with his attempts to capitalize on the mood immediately following Saddam's capture to score points against a Democratic opponent with a far more ethical and forthright position on the war than he had himself.

- bill

[ACK]

25. Later refusal to condemn Bush's misuse of that autonomy?

So much crack so little time.

How much clearer can you get than yeah I voted to give him the authority but "I had no idea he would fuck it up like this." Which is a paraphrase of a quote he made in a Rolling Stones article.

Sounds like strong condemnation to me.

Iraq is better off without Hussein but the ends do not justify the means. If you become mass murderer to kill a mass murderer you have not accomplished much good. Bush f*cked it up.

He should have let the inspectors do their jobs. Kerry has said that.

In the middle of the war he was evenly widely ridiculed and criticized for saying that regime change begins at home.

Yes, he made a mistake that is true but mouthing the flip flop waffling propaganda of the repukes is not the answer.

+

[Bill Todd]

30. Too bad he had to wait until it was politically convenient

rather than speak out as he had promised to when it might actually have made a difference.

Why Kerry apologists are so utterly unwilling to remember him cowering in his spider hole in the month leading up to the invasion while only a few Democratic stalwarts like Byrd, Conyers, and Kucinich in Congress and of course Dean were willing to stand up and call Bush on this (as, yet again, I'll remind you that Kerry had explicitly promised to do) is rather astounding.

And even now, Kerry refused to condemn the fact that the war occurred: he just whines about how it occurred, without confronting the essential illegality and lack of any necessity for it.

A pathetic performance for one who would be president. And a pathetic performance from his supporters as well.

- bill

[ACK]

32. That is not what you said

You condemned him as if he had said nothing at all.

You complain about the logically challenged while simply revealing yourself as what seems to be a single-issue voter.

He did complain about the fact it occurred saying a number of times that the UN and the weapons inspectors should have been giving the chance to do their jobs.

A pathetic performance for one so insulting.

+

[sangh0]

45. Todd made a wild claim and then backed away from it when challenged

and instead of acknowledging his bizarre exagerrations, he pretends he never changed positions.

Sound familiar?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Your post is one falsehood and misrepresentation after another.

The title is pure bullshit.


But the real bankruptcy of your argument is revealed with this statement:

And I tend to agree by and large with his position on the appropriate course to take now that we're there. But his positions on the war itself were reprehensible

In other words you supposedly agree with Kerry about what to do -- but hate him for it. And the reason? Because the voters chose him instead of "a Democratic opponent with a far more ethical and forthright position on the war than he had himself." -- by which you supposedly are referring to Dean, a politician who, at the start of the Iraq war, with his finger firmly moistened and in the wind, said he had:
"never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction." http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. So instead of discussing the issue, you insult me? Persuasive.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. You posted misrepresentations and falsehoods,

and when challenged, you respond with insults.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. Surely you can do better than that.

Please show us that 'Bullshit' is not the limit of your rhetorical abilities.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. The topic is the misrepresentations and falsehoods you posted earlier

If you want to show that I'm mischaracterizing your comments, this is your chance. If you manage to get through the whole post without insult ing me, you won't have to worry about the moderators.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

46. Based on all the deleted posts

I'd say Bill Todd CAN'T do any better than "Bullshit"

[Bill Todd]

49. It has more to do with incompetent moderation

For example, the post that simply replied 'bullshit' was itself eventually removed, despite the fact that the same observation was advanced earlier by whats-his-name (and of course is hardly an unusual occurrence here in any event).

For that matter, one of the removed posts actually did explain one of his more glaring mischaracterizations. But apparently the reader did not manage to assimilate it before requesting its removal - an injudicious act for someone purportedly requesting enlightenment.

As for you, you're kind of late to this party, wouldn't you say?

- bill

[sangha]

50. Yes, blame someone else

It's not like we've never seen *that* in politics

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[hippywife]

42. Turning the authority over to the UN

with regard to the economic and political re-development of Iraq is fine but without turning the security piece of this over to the UN, as well, we are still an occupying force in the region which will undermine the credibility of both us and the UN on the other two pieces.

Kerry will not turn over the security portion to the UN. He specifically said so in an NPR interview before the primaries and is apparently now specifically leaving it out of his "alternative" plans for Iraq.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Maybe he'll come around to adopting

the rest of Kucinich's plan eventually. :-)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

47. Could you please specify how Kucinich's plan differs from Kerry's?

Thank you in advance.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

44. FWIW, Raed Jarrar ("Salem Pax"'s friend) on Kerry's plan

Does Kerry read My blog? :*)

I mean… we really share the same ideas in criticizing the policy of Bush in Iraq. He believes that military alone cannot win the peace in Iraq. “We need a political strategy that will work”.

Habeebi! Yes! Exactly…

Let me quote some of his critiques and suggestions about Iraq:

To be successful in Iraq, and in any war for that matter, our use of force must be tied to a political objective more complete than the ouster of a regime. To date, that has not happened in Iraq. It is time it did.

Yes! This is completely right… the use of force in Iraq was very well designed during the war, it destroyed the Iraqi Government in no time, but in the aftermath… ahhhh…

contd:
http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_raedinthemiddle_archive.html#108197862731734902

[CabalBuster]

48. Positioning American military basis in Iraq is an strategic objective

and Kerry is not going to alter that part of the "plan". If the US geopolitical agenda is to control militarily the ME, those military basis will remain indefinitely. Kerry is only trying to shift the burden (economic and political) to other countries for the long term benefit of the U.S. Military domination is still Kerry's goal. If you believe there will be substantial change with a Kerry administration, keep hoping and prepare for a rude awakening.