Has the Kerry campaign been too slow to realize 'It's Iraq, Stupid'?

[JCMach1]

Come on, it's the 500lb gorilla sitting in the room. So far, all we have heard is let's get the U.N. involved.

I am sorry, but that's just not enough.

Or, is he biding his time???

[BostonTeaParty04]

1. Good question

2 or 3 months ago (heck, even 1 month ago), it made sense to focus on the economy, jobs, healthcare, education, DOMESTIC policies. That is due to the overhwelming love and support by most americans for this illegal war.

But the landscape has changed. The lies to get into this quagmire and the fact that it underscores why 9/11 happened (focus iraq since day one of this misadministration) are finally sinking into the minds of MOST people.

You are right, I think. Kerry should blaze a trail to hit the iraq issue hard as hell.

[IndianaGreen]

2. The Kerry that opposed the war in Vietnam is not the one running for Prez

The Kerry that addressed Congress in 1971 with the famous quote "How do you ask a man to die for a mistake?," can not even comment on the casualties and bloodshed in Iraq.

Today's Kerry is more like a parody of his old nemesis Richard Nixon, substituting "de-Americanize" as his version of the Nixonian "Vietnamize."

Iraqis will reject any occupation force, and Americans will continue to die in Iraq until the day our politicians admit they lost the war and bring all the troops home.

Kerry Says U.S. Must 'De-Americanize' Iraq Policy
Mon Apr 12, 2004 06:07 PM ET

DURHAM, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic challenger John Kerry said on Monday Washington needed to "de-Americanize" the transformation of Iraq by replacing U.S. administrator Paul Bremer with someone like top U.N. aide Lakhdar Brahimi.

Laying out an alternative to what he called President Bush's failed diplomacy, Kerry said: "If I were president today, right now today, I would be going very directly to the United Nations and I would summon the world to an effort that I think the world has a stake in."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4806433

[JCMach1]

5. The policy WONK stuff isn't going to work with this issue

At some point, people will want to know...

What are you going to do?

Or, at least, how do you feel about what is going on?


At some point, the electorate will demand something more than "NOT BUSH" as an excuse to vote for him.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Kerry has a symbiotic relationship with PPI

PPI is the neolib flip side of the PNAC neocon coin. Kerry voted for IWR because he had the same goals as Bush for Iraq.

Kerry parts company with Bush on tactics. Kerry would have done a Clintonian Balkan war to topple Saddam, but his goals would have been the same as Bush. Kerry would have opened the oil pipeline from Iraq to Haifa, Israel.

[JI7]

3. using war/death for political gain

people don't like it.

and most people are not informed about what is going on. they are easily fooled at times. if osama was caught the bush people will make up some false connection between osama and iraq and the people will fall for it. and they would play things kerry said condemning bush's actions. and the bush people will use that against him and the people will fall for it. the election is still over 6 months away and our lazy media does not stay focused on issues. just look at the valerie plame case, awol,.

kerry's vietnam war protests are still seen as a negative by many, even when you take into account he was right and nixon did lie. they still say things like, but the troops were still there and kerry protested "them".

[aquart]

4. He HAS to bide his time.

Also, there is simply no need for him to say anything. BushCo is imploding on its own, no help needed.

The vote will be AGAINST Bush. Kerry's strength is a strong international background, real language skills as opposed to PR fake ones, and years of negotiating in the Senate. The next President is going to have to triumph thru compromise, there's no other way to regain even some of our past power and position.

George W. Bush has degraded the United States. Undoing that is not going to be easy.

And sending in the UN is not a solution anymore. We keep thinking there's some way to get a do over. There isn't. We destabilized the nation and probably the region. WE can stay and kill enough of them to bring quiet. Or we can leave and let someone else kill enough of them to bring quiet. WE look like crap either way (thanks, George, you POS). So saving face is not our issue. Ain't happening.

Kerry's trap is Johnson's: if he can't bring himself to lose a war, we stay and die and kill. If he does get us out and the place explodes WHICH IT WILL, his enemies have lots of ammunition either way. I wish him luck. There is no luck for the Iraqis. Their destiny is horror. The only question is How long?

[IndianaGreen]

6. While he is "bidding his time" people are dying!

Kerry forgot Bob Dylan's words:

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

-- Bob Dylan

The Shias have spoken!

Iraqi clerics say coalition 'must pay' for crisis
U.S. general wants 10,000 more troops
Tuesday, April 13, 2004 Posted: 3:37 AM EDT (0737 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- As Iraq's most powerful Shiite clerics warned the U.S.-led coalition that it "must pay" for instigating the current crisis in the country, the head of U.S. Central Command asked the Pentagon for roughly 10,000 more soldiers.

In a statement issued Monday after a meeting with radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, the clerics and members of the country's religious authority also cautioned the coalition against doing battle in the holy city of Najaf -- and warned against any attempt to kill al-Sadr.

"The current crisis in Iraq has risen to a level that is beyond any political groups, including the Governing Council, and it is now an issue that is between the religious authority and the coalition forces," the statement said.

"Those who have brought on this crisis must pay for what they have done."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/13/iraq.main/index.html

[JCMach1]

7. Precisely the dilemma

:(

[sangha]

30. If Kerry speaks out, more Iraqis die

If Kerry were to speak out, it would send the message that the insurgents can influence US elections, and that would only encourage further bloodshed. While you may think that the Iraqi resistance to our occupation is justified, and it is, I don't see how you could look forward to more violence. If you truly care about those lives, and you're not just saying that because it's politically expedient, then you wouldn't envourage Kerry to say things that would encourage violence.

[mike_c]

34. the "insurgents" damn well SHOULD influence American...

...elections!! And Kerry should have the courage to speak truth to power!

[sangh0]

36. Why do you want more bloodshed?

Don't you care?

[sangh0]

42. Here's a nice piece on the MURDERER you support

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/oneworld/20040413/wl_oneworld/4536835611081857906&cid=655&ncid=1478

...In Hurriya, a working-class Shiite slum with a sizable Sunni minority, most of the schools have been either closed or moribund since Monday, April 5. That morning, 17-year-old Ali Mohammed was on his way to school when he ran into five men, dressed all in black, blocking the road with a car and some razor wire. "Go back home," they told him. "There is no studying today--this is a day of denunciation."

"It reminded me of the old regime," says Mohammed, glumly slumped in an armchair. "They used to do the same thing."...

[JCMach1]

49. My student's uncle was SHOT yesterday in Fallujah...

:(

His is currently in the hospital.

No, he was not fighting....

[sangh0]

50. I'm sorry to hear that

How do you feel about those who call for more violence in Iraq in order to hurt Bush*'s chances to re-steal the Presidency?

[IndianaGreen]

60. Stop repeating Paul Bremer and Krazy Kimmit's lies! Shame on you!

The US charges of murder against Al-Sadr are FALSE, and the judge that signed the "arrest warrant" was a member of Saddam's much-feared Mukhabarat intelligence service. The charges are trumpeted up and they are based on confessions obtained through torture in true Gestapo fashion!

I remember the incident, and it was posted in DU last year. Al-Khoei was not the target, but another other cleric who had been a Saddam supporter.

There was no murder here! It was a crowd that was outraged at seeing a cleric that had worked for Saddam's Ministry of Religious Affairs.

The judge that signed the arrest warrant against Al-Sadr was a member of Saddam's much feared secret police. The US is lying as usual.

Here are the two stories, one from the BBC dated April 10, 2003, about the incident in question. The other story is from The Guardian dated October 22, 2003, about Habboush, the former Mukhabarat officer that is working for Chalabi.

Shia leader murdered in Najaf
Thursday, 10 April, 2003

A senior Shia cleric working with coalition forces has been killed inside a mosque in the Iraqi holy city of Najaf.
Abdul Majid al-Khoei returned to Iraq from exile in London only last week.

He was one of two Muslim leaders hacked to death outside the Ali Mosque, one of the holiest sites for Shia Muslims.

The other was cleric Haider Kelidar, whom according to Arabic satellite channel al-Jazeera, had worked for Saddam Hussein's ministry of religious affairs.

<snip>

He (Khoei) had noticed Mr Kelidar coming under attack by a crowd and gone to help him - but was himself knifed. Both men died.

Other reports said crowds shouted abuse at the clerics, causing Mr Khoei to produce a gun and fire shots.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2936887.stm

Plan to arrest maverick Iraqi cleric for murder

Michael Howard in Baghdad
Wednesday October 22, 2003
The Guardian

Coalition and Iraqi officials are preparing an arrest warrant for the firebrand Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr over his alleged involvement with the brutal murder of a rival cleric last spring, sources close to the Iraqi governing council told the Guardian yesterday.

The warrant, which has yet to be finalised, cites Mr Sadr for instigating a deadly attack on Abdel Majid al-Khoei, who was stabbed to death by a mob in the Shia holy city of Najaf on April 10.

It is said to be signed by Tahir Jalil Habboush - a senior mukhabarat officer under the former regime who now works with the coalition authorities - and is based on the confessions of 23 men who were involved in the killing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1068114,00.html

[sangha]

62. "The US charges of murder against Al-Sadr are FALSE"

Of course they are, but that doesn't mean he isn't a murderer.

[IndianaGreen]

65. Circular logic

""The US charges of murder against Al-Sadr are FALSE""
Posted by sangha
Of course they are, but that doesn't mean he isn't a murderer.

circularity

Reasoning that improperly assumes the truth of what is at issue. A circular argument implicitly employs its own conclusion as a premise. A circular definition defines an expression in terms of itself. The problem is that circular reasoning—however accurate—is bound to be uninformative.

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/c2.htm

Since a circular definition uses the term being defined as part of its own definition, it can't provide any useful information; either the audience already understands the meaning of the term, or it cannot understand the explanation that includes that term. Thus, for example, there isn't much point in defining "cordless 'phone" as "a telephone that has no cord."

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e05.htm#genus

[liberalnurse]

9. This election is about *bush as a failure.......

It's about *bush, not Kerry.......focusing on the *bush incompetence is the way.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Election Day plus One!

Now it is about Kerry!

As much as the DLC hates to have their noses rubbed in the shit they helped create, Iraq is today's Vietnam!

[mike_c]

35. yes, if Kerry ignores the war now, it will become his war...

...after the election. Remember what happened to LBJ?

[bklyncowgirl]

24. Competence matters

[w13rd0]

11. Ah, and we'll land smack up against a realization...

...of how monumentally stupid an abbreviated primary was. Furthermore, since the DLC seems bound and determined to lose as they give away issue after issue, is it any wonder they seem to be in search of a message? Hey guys, being anti-Bush ISN'T ENOUGH if you aren't going to BE ANTI-BUSH?!?!

[IndianaGreen]

12. "How do you ask a man to die for a mistake?"

What about it, John? Are you going to ask our troops to die for a mistake, or are you going to do the gutsy and righteous thing and withdraw from Iraq immediately and unconditionally?

[Lexingtonian]

13. what's the hurry?

Let that 800 lb gorilla have its way with W first. The chances are small, but he just might wrestle it down by September. Or it makes him its butt-buddy. Best not to interfere while it has W bent over a table..

Secondly, John Kerry is not Howard Dean. And over here Iraq is still regarded as something of a foster child in a tantrum by the foolish majority.

Thirdly, the issue in October is not "has George W Bush f-cked up?" but "hasn't the Right f-cked up the country for long enough already?" (The first can always be blamed on Al Qaeda.)

And most directly- who the hell knows what Iraq is going to be like in six months? A Chalabi minion state? A tripartitioned set of mini-states variously allied with Iran and Syria? A civil war? All of the above? None of the above? Proposing a specific solution, given all these loose cannons and desperados, is only an opportunity to look foolish.

[IndianaGreen]

14. To the families of the fallen and wounded, Iraq is not a "tantrum"!

This is a replay of Vietnam. The American people did not care about 58,000 dead in Vietnam until they got tired of seeing Vietnam rubbed in their noses by TV coverage and endless demonstrations. Polls taken at the height of Nixon's Vietnamization showed that a majority of the public hated the antiwar people and hated being reminded of the war. They supported Vietnamization despite the fact that it costs more lives!

[Lexingtonian]

17. And your point is....?

I don't see where we disagree about the massive state of denial. You just think that something substantive can be done about it by talking. I'm of the unhappier certainty that it will take some amount of material disaster before people question the substance enough to reject it.

[sangh0]

37. Some don't care about "doing something" to stop the killing

They just want to use it to attack Kerry. That's why they don't talk about how Kerry's saying something will help save lives (because it wouldn't. It would end up killing Iraqis and Americans) and instead, talk about "leadership", "standing up", etc

[zoeyfong]

67. Kerry "said something;" he said "Start dropping the bombs,W"

Kerry is not in a position to do anything constructive now; he had that chance when the IWR was up for a vote, and he supported setting into motion the present course of events in Iraq, a course which could only lead to certain disaster and destruction for all involved. I think that criticism of that decision (or 'attacking' as you call it) is quite appropriate.

[w13rd0]

15. Rather than wait six months for the polls to come in...

...when applying for the job of "Leader of the Free World", how abouts actually doing some leading? And frankly, the idea of "waiting for the 800# gorilla" to maul Bush, along with the hundreds of soldiers, and thousands of Iraqis, that will be mauled as well waiting for that event...that's a fairly offensive proposition. Any of us can look back at the road Bush has already taken us and say, "Wow, you've been merrily leading us down the wrong path." And there are many out there that refuse to do anything other than look at the boots of their fuhrer and follow along. And then there are the few...the road which Bush is walking this nation will NOT END WELL for US citizens. Someone who proposes to take us down the same damn path, but 'stepping more carefully' is still the friggin blind leading the stupid.

[Lexingtonian]

16. talk is cheap

And, talk is not actually leadership.

So some of us know better. And on the other side of the issue the fervent believe in magic that will change it all to their liking- and save their emotional investment.

But that's always the way it is. And by experience the latter party doesn't actually let go until reality gets born in and strikes them directly. In fact, they're fine with opposition as long as it seems merely a subjective difference in interpretation.

The shouting simply does no good. After a point it's orthopraxis, too.

[sangh0]

38. "Speaking out" is all some people know

They always have the EXACT same prescription..."speaking out" and "leadership". No matter what the occassion, they want to see another Howard Dean-like flame-out. They have no concern for the people who are being killed, but they will use/exploit the lives of Iraqis to argue that Kerry should entertain DUers with a speech.

[JCMach1]

18. I think Kerry could be waiting until the transfer of power

to begin more pressure on Iraq.

However, that's a pretty technical and policy wonkish point to do so...

I, like many of you, have the feeling write now he is going with the polling rather than his heart.

The pollsters are telling him "keep you mouth shut.."

All of this, of course, is when he should be molding opinion rather than being molded by it.

[JCMach1]

19. My central idea is that Iraq is 'the issue' that will mover the electorate

this year. Dean understood this and lost, in large part, to a shift in his focus.

Fast forward to this week and we are getting

THE MISERY INDEX...

Wasn't that first created under Carter?

You can score points with the economy, but that's not what will win or lose the election this year.

Within the next few weeks, the Kerry people better get on this... AND FAST.

[Lexingtonian]

21. It would be great if there were a silver bullet issue

but if there's a lesson to be taken from the Dean campaign, isn't the correct one: there isn't such an issue?

The Right has enough political capital that they can get away with a great deal in the way of excuses with the present electorate. Expenditure of it shows up in the form of being given the benefit of the doubt.

The route to winning in November is partly to run them out of political capital in some areas, but mostly to make the case that they have gone wrong comprehensively- in almost everything ideological they have done and tried for. The net has to go wide, around everything. When it tightens is when it begins to prove itself.

I suppose I'm looking at it as a Northern Democrat: go wide, be patient, let the other guy's screwups add up, then grab and push him or let him run over the edge when he's gotten himself close enough to it. You seem to me to be looking at it as a Southern Democrat: focussing narrowly on some aspects in which you have advantage and doggedly trying to keep attention fixed on those.

Bush is going to have to let go of his emphasis on 'national security' fairly soon, it proving such a scandal magnet. He's going to have to roll out everything left in the standard Republican arsenal- the domestic social agenda and the economic stuff. That's why Kerry is doing preparation for that. He's farther ahead of the game than folks around here, of course.

[JCMach1]

22. That's the same strategy that lost in 2002

Don't criticize the President and let him hang himself...

Didn't work then and won't work now...

[Lexingtonian]

28. No, it isn't.

Don't criticize the President and let him hang himself...

I said no such thing. I said to make the argument, and make it in a comprehensive way, not to focus on too narrow a scope and resort to screaming. Not being vocal enough was a problem in '02, but the real problem was not style but substance.

So I hate to say this, but reading your posts leads me to believe that you don't even notice that Kerry's run has disproven a good bit of the macroscopic interpretations you have drawn from your '02 run and involvement with the Dean campaign. Maybe the lessons you've drawn would now win in Palatka, but Kerry seems to be doing well doing something like the opposite.

[JCMach1]

33. At some point it has to go beyond... "I'm not George"

I just wanted to point out that Kerry's campaign seems to be in flux right now... (unfocused and off-message).

Kerry won the primaries because he began to take Bush head on. By doing so, not only did he seem
'electable,' but also a strong and decisive leader.

Fast forward to April-- WHERE DID THAT KERRY GO?

Will he shift to DLC Kerry for the General Election? That doesn't bode well for the Nader factor.

[sangh0]

40. At some point, you should go beyond

"Kerry, Kerry, Kerry"

[JCMach1]

44. Me? I voted DK in the primary by default...

Nader???

Give me a real third alternative and we'll talk...

[sangh0]

48. WHat are you talking about?

I suggested you do something more than criticize, and all you have is blather about "real alternative", "real policy", "leadership", "speak out", blah, blah, blah.

How about something specific?

[slor]

20. Actually, he needs to keep a low profile...

on Iraq. The chimp is doing a fantastic job screwing up all on his own. And I believe it may be too late for the U.N. other than humanitarian aid. Everyone that is not Iraqi is hostage material, and they are in the midst of a unified, populist battle against occupation. I opposed this war, even drove to Feb. 15th rally in N.Y. from Cinti. As little as a few weeks ago, I believed that since the idiot got us into the war anyway, that we needed to make the best of it by improving security, and getting some legitimacy with U.N. involvement. Not anymore.
This was a foreign policy blunder of epic proportions, and I honestly believe the only choice at this time is withdrawal.

[JCMach1]

23. see post 22

:)

[BostonTeaParty04]

25. You asked... and you will receive. Kerry has weighed in....

See thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x482802

I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I wanted to get the link in this thread.

ON EDIT: I read the snips... will get the full article from kerry's website later. but my overall feeling is: I guess it doesn't fucking matter WHO wins the next election. We are all damned to hell no matter what. And THIS is coming from an AVID kerry supporter and volunteer. But this makes me want to give up. The sheer mention of using f'ing NATO????? Does Kerry have a problem with the UN???? /end of rant for now.

[JCMach1]

26. I just read it... Substantively how is it different from the current

policy?

I found very little.

It's magical thinking that just bringing in the U.N. or NATO will solve the outstanding issues.

The U.S. would still have major troop commitments to Iraq.

Stylistically would Kerry have a different policy-- no doubt.

However, try selling that to the American people...

Good Luck!


Sheesh, I sound like a NADERITE... but look at the darn thing before anyone flames me.

[BostonTeaParty04]

27. I am with you on that... I just added to my post on edit.

but guess what? This WILL go over pretty well with a lot of americans. Probably not very many here. And not ANY in my household, thankyouverymuch.

I am very, very discouraged.

[Lexingtonian]

29. So what do you suggest?

Help me see how he could possibly be more specific, absent knowing whether Iraq will be in a state of civil war or insurrection or oil corporation fiefdom by Election Day.

[dkf]

31. That's right it doesn't matter who wins the election.

IMO, going into Iraq was destined for failure no matter how we approached it. Doesn't matter if it was international or unilateral, Iraqi's have a centuries old history of expelling occupiers.

Which is why I doubt the judgement of anyone who voted for this war. Sheer foolishness, I say.

The only person with even half a brain on Iraq was Dean. Kucinich gets part credit, but not full credit because Kucinich is against war for wars sake. Only Dean recognized how Iraq specifically is pretty much a Vietnam waiting to happen.

And yes, I never anticipated that the American public would recognize this reality until we were in disaster territory (no farsightedness in our population), but I went on the basis of the candidates judgement and Kerry's has not impressed me to date.

As I see it, Kerry is a good politician, but not a good decision maker, which gives me no confidence.

Of course, anyone is a better decision maker than Bush, but I can't get over my general feeling of impending doom seeing as how I don't feel that Bush nor Kerry has the judgement needed to get us out of a various array of huge messes coming down the pike.

[JCMach1]

32. I would argue there is a significant difference-- Kerry needs to fully

articulate it.

Today's effort WILL NOT WORK as a political tool.

[yelladawg]

39. Kerry needs to work

Kerry needs to work like he did during the primary.

[sangh0]

41. What are you suggesting? Be specific

Aside from complaining about how Kerry, who has been breaking out in the polls, is going to fail, what would you like to see happen? Exactly what should Kerry do, in your opinion, and why?

[JCMach1]

45. Break out? Add in Nader and it's within the MOE of most polls

I think he would BE MUCH further ahead if he could articulate a real policy alternative and give some straight talk to people about war, conflict, and admitting military/policy failure.

He could talk about how that realization alone takes real leadership. Then, it takes brains to decide what to do about it!

Picture Kerry delivering those last two comments in a speech...

[sangh0]

47. What are you talking about?

There is nothing specific in your response. All I see are "glittering generalities" like "break out", "articulate a real policy alternative" (without explaining what's unreal about his current policy, or what you would consider "real"), "straight talk", "real leadership".....

Picture Kerry delivering those last two comments in a speech...

What two comments? You haven't even made one specific suggestion

[yelladawg]

66. Here are a few of my suggestions

I would like to see him do more homey events. Get into the homes of middle class Americans. Go and eat lunch with someone who works at WalMart in Atlanta, a coalminer in West Virgina, a working mother in Los Angles, a homeless Veteran in Houston. Get into the basic blue collar American.

Let the Veterans (like The Band of Brothers) organize and develop on their own. His staff is trying to micro manage the Veterans who have been praying for a Nam Vet to run, thus slowing down everyone's efforts.

This is just for starters.

What will I do?

I will bleed until my veins run dry to put Kerry, a Nam Vet, in the White House.

71. I suggest...

I suppose your question was asking what Kerry should do, but frankly none of us really has too much influence over that especially as atomized individuals on the internet. I suggest that what WE should do is demand that the establishment create a policy of total and immediate withdrawal of all US troops in Iraq, along with immediate open and free elections. We should demand that the US extradite Chalabi to Jordan to serve his 22yr sentence and demand that the Iraqis determine what happens to the contracts for the reconstruction. And the way we go about demanding these things is by protesting at both the Boston and New York conventions. If they don't give us a reasonable choice we must demand it. This is how real democracy works, not this voting thing we got going on in the US.

Anything short of total withdrawal is simply an extension of the war. A war built on lies and racism ala white man's burden.

I suspect that Kerry will at some point attempt to make himself the antiwar candidate, but as one can see from his policy statements his probable line will not actually be against the war, but against its particular prosecution under Bush. In fact I could see him very much replicating the Nixon plan of promising peace and not going through with it. Those that think Kerry is simply biding his time before he comes out with the only humane line on the issue of the war are giving him too much credit.

[zoeyfong]

68. Ditto.

[Scoopie]

43. Some of us

have been saying this for months.

That's why we supported who we did. ;)

[JCMach1]

46. Kerry had his greatest success and won when he focused

on this issue and Bush's failure with the economy.

Please don't roll out the DLC BS...

[sangh0]

51. Kerry never focused on this issue

so your claim that Kerry did best when he focused on this issue in nothing more than blather.

[jpgray]

52. Why not? It worked so well in the primaries

Oh wait. :D

Kerry has made statements on Iraq, and outlined the failures of Bush. He is not going after Bush with everything he's got, and I think separating politics from the events will do a lot of good. The events hurt Bush far more than anything Kerry could say--Kerry using the event could actually remove some of the effect, as a voter could rationalize it then as a Kerry talking point rather than an objective fact.

[sangh0]

53. It just goes to show

that you CAN argue with success

[doubles]

54. Maybe he needs a kick in de ass from Howard Dean to wake up....

Dean woke up all Democrats to realize we will not win being Bush-lite. Kerry might be falling asleep since the primaries are over.

[Jacobin]

55. What's Kerry gonna say? "I didn't vote for the war?"

:eyes:

Major blunder of epic proportions with millions of people (like me) screaming faxes, emails, letters and marching BEGGING him to vote against the IWR.

(I know I know all the 'explanations'.............they don't cut it.)

Now he's left with, what? "I woulda bombed 'em nicer?"

If Kerry can win, he's got a real pile of shit on his hands to deal with, that's for sure. Maybe that'll be his come-uppance for voting for this insanity.

[sangh0]

56. Kerry demands 'explanation' from Bush

Kerry demands 'explanation' from Bush
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x483897

April 13, 2004 | PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Tuesday demanded a "specific explanation" from President Bush about how his prosecution of the war will lead to a shared goal of a stable Iraq.

"The last several weeks have made it even clearer to Americans than it was before that this mission is not only not accomplished, it is more challenged than perhaps at any time," Kerry said.

Speaking during a fund-raising lunch, Kerry toughened his criticism of Bush, pointing to the president's scheduled news conference Tuesday night against a backdrop of rising violence in Iraq. He said Bush likely will deal with "the instability in Iraq" in the rare prime-time televised meeting with reporters and pressed Bush for specifics.

"I believe it is important for the president to not just share with all Americans what we all believe. We know we must succeed, we know we are committed to having a stable Iraq," he said. "The president owes Americans a specific explanation of exactly how we are going to achieve that."

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/04/13/kerry/index.html

[sangh0]

57. Kerry Says U.S. Must 'De-Americanize' Iraq Policy

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=480...

Kerry Says U.S. Must 'De-Americanize' Iraq Policy

DURHAM, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic challenger John Kerry said on Monday Washington needed to "de-Americanize" the transformation of Iraq by replacing U.S. administrator Paul Bremer with someone like top U.N. aide Lakhdar Brahimi.

Laying out an alternative to what he called President Bush's failed diplomacy, Kerry said: "If I were president today, right now today, I would be going very directly to the United Nations and I would summon the world to an effort that I think the world has a stake in."

Republicans have criticized Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, for failing to tell Americans what he would do differently in Iraq.

The Massachusetts senator, who is walking a fine political line between supporting U.S. troops and criticizing Bush's conduct of the war and its aftermath, has tried to focus on his economic agenda on the campaign trail.

<snip>

Kerry acknowledged he could not guarantee that would happen automatically because the Bush administration had "pushed people further and further away."

DIFFERENT DIPLOMACY

He recalled that after the statue of Saddam Hussein fell in Baghdad a year ago, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan had offered help but had been "basically rebuffed" by Bush.

[IndianaGreen]

61. Another name for "Vietnamization"!

:puke:

[sangha]

63. The UN fought in Viet Nam?

In which dimension?

[madfloridian]

64. Or Balkanization....a rose by any other name.

I don't like us very much right now.
:puke:

[ACK]

72. Picking wrong hate -- Iraqization of security under Bush

More like Vietnam silly.

Internationalizing the push to help the Iraqis put together a semblence of infrastructure and government before we get out would be the best thing.

Probably will not happen but its pure crack to not try. If it all falls apart and the radical cleric that gets into power orders jihad on America then Kerry would get blamed. He has to try and if it does not work then get the hell out of dodge.

I do not see what is so bad about this.

Picking the wrong policy to hate.

[sangh0]

58. Kerry riding a wave of Democratic unity | boston.com news

CHICAGO -- Since John F. Kerry virtually locked up the Democratic presidential nomination last month, he has been welcomed by cheering crowds -- many bigger than expected -- and volunteers signing up and opening their wallets with unprecedented generosity.

"People are working together as never before," said Jim Jordan, who was fired as Kerry's campaign manager last fall but now works as spokesman for several pro-Democrat groups supporting his campaign.

And last month, Kerry raised $38 million -- more than Al Gore raised for his entire primary campaign in 2000. At one Kerry fund-raiser in Beverly Hills, Calif., about 2,300 people turned up; 1,800 had been expected. If one thing is different about the current campaign compared with its recent predecessors, it is that the famously fractious Democrats are showing an almost-Republican unity of purpose. The singular goal: to defeat George W. Bush.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/04/1... /

In case you had any doubt.

[sangh0]

59. WP op-ed: John F. Kerry, "A Strategy for Iraq"

A Strategy for Iraq

By John F. Kerry
Tuesday, April 13, 2004; Page A19


....In the past week the situation in Iraq has taken a dramatic turn for the worse. While we may have differed on how we went to war, Americans of all political persuasions are united in our determination to succeed. The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops. Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission.

But to maximize our chances for success, and to minimize the risk of failure, we must make full use of the assets we have. If our military commanders request more troops, we should deploy them. Progress is not possible in Iraq if people lack the security to go about the business of daily life. Yet the military alone cannot win the peace in Iraq. We need a political strategy that will work....

***

In recent weeks the administration -- in effect acknowledging the failure of its own efforts -- has turned to U.N. representative Lakhdar Brahimi to develop a formula for an interim Iraqi government that each of the major Iraqi factions can accept. It is vital that Brahimi accomplish this mission, but the odds are long, because tensions have been allowed to build and distrust among the various Iraqi groups runs deep. The United States can bolster Brahimi's limited leverage by saying in advance that we will support any plan he proposes that gains the support of Iraqi leaders. Moving forward, the administration must make the United Nations a full partner responsible for developing Iraq's transition to a new constitution and government. We also need to renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq. We need more troops and more people who can train Iraqi troops and assist Iraqi police.

We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers. The events of the past week will make foreign governments extremely reluctant to put their citizens at risk. That is why international acceptance of responsibility for stabilizing Iraq must be matched by international authority for managing the remainder of the Iraqi transition. The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people. The primary responsibility for security must remain with the U.S. military, preferably helped by NATO until we have an Iraqi security force fully prepared to take responsibility....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6753-2004Apr12.html

[zoeyfong]

70. "Resolve" is only a virtue when the course of action is wise and just.

Kerry says "No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission." This man is a disgrace to the democratic party, and if any President is going to "persevere" in the present criminal blunder in Iraq, i would just as soon it be a republican president. Right now we are stuck in the classic vietnam-type quagmire; there is no realistic hope of accomplishing the mission, but pig-headed determination not to 'give in' or admit a mistake will keep the killing and dying going on for the foreseable future.

[Piperay]

69. No...

every picture shown from Iraq speaks against the chimp and for Kerry. Kerry has to be careful, he doesn't want to look like he is using the dead to promote himself politically. It is the repukes who use the dead (in their commercials)to promote themselves, we don't want to be as tasteless and disrespectful as they are.