Kerry makes bold statement on Iraq

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by John Kerry

Kerry Pledges Iraq Troop Cut Within 4 Years

John Kerry is the most cautious Presidential candidate who has run in 50 years.

as reported by Command-post.org

Originally Posted by Kerry WPost interview

The Washington Post reports that Kerry pledged Sunday to substantially reduce U.S. troop strength in Iraq by the end of his first term in office. He declined to offer details, however. Reports the Post:

In interviews on television talk shows, the Democratic presidential nominee said that he saw no reason to send more troops to Iraq and that he would seek allied support to draw down U.S. forces there. “I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Kerry accused President Bush of misleading the country before the war in Iraq, burning bridges with U.S. allies and having no plan to win peace. But when questioned about saying Thursday in his acceptance speech, “I know what we have to do in Iraq,” he would not tip his hand.

“I’ve been involved in this for a long time, longer than George Bush,” he said. “I’ve spent 20 years negotiating, working, fighting for different kinds of treaties and different relationships around the world. I know that as president there’s huge leverage that will be available to me, enormous cards to play, and I’m not going to play them in public. I’m not going to play them before I’m president.”

There’s also this:

Reminded that he sounded like Richard M. Nixon, who campaigned in 1968 by saying he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam, Kerry responded: “I don’t care what it sounds like. The fact is that I’m not going to negotiate in public today without the presidency, without the power.”

“I don’t care what it sounds like. The fact is that I’m not going to negotiate in public today without the presidency, without the power.”

No way he actually said this. There's just no way.

[crawjo]

Ugh. Kerry's record as a Senator can be summed up with two words: jack and shit.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

No way he actually said this. There's just no way.

from the WPost

Kerry previously has discussed his desire to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq but declined to attach any timetable to that goal. He spoke more extensively about Iraq after his acceptance speech, suggesting he has an exit strategy.

So he went from open-ended withdrawal to "within four years." This is why Chris A and his friends want Kerry so badly?

If Kerry played tournament poker, he'd fold every hand unless he had the nuts, hoping to make the final table by being inconspicuous while other players went all-in and lost.


Kerry's strategy is to win by being not-Bush. The debates will be his last chance to show his leadership abilities. If he loses, he's toast.

Washington Post interview

[stonemonkts]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

If Kerry played tournament poker, he'd fold every hand unless he had the nuts, hoping to make the final table by being inconspicuous while other players went all-in and lost.

Who knows? Maybe he'd be a more tight aggressive player who takes very bold and well-calculated moves, maybe he would time his aggression better than Bush would; whatever the case, he certainly has the face for the game.

[crawjo]

Gordon,

I fear that Kerry may have already blown his chance to win this election. The Gallup poll that just came out shows no bounce for Kerry in the polls. None at all. Either this is a sign that we as a country are so deeply divided that no one can be dissuaded from their side and the only thing that will decide the election is which side gets its "base" to come out more, or it means that Kerry has blown his best opportunity. I fear that his speech may not have convinced the skeptical that he would put up a tough fight in the war on terrorism.

Going into the Dem. convention, I really felt that Kerry had the edge in the race. Now I feel that Bush has the edge again. With a strong convention speech and a few smart tactical moves between now and November, Bush will win. I highly doubt that Kerry will be able to sway many voters in a televised debate. He's going to come across as patrician and dull, Bush will come across as folksy and likeable. Whatever points Kerry may win on substance will be offset by the cosmetics of the thing.

[Uli]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Bush will come across as folksy and likeable.

Bwahahahah!

Originally Posted by Uli

Bwahahahah!

Actually, Uli, I think Crawjo has a good point there.

Middle America will likely decide this election.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

from the WPost


So he went from open-ended withdrawal to "within four years." This is why Chris A and his friends want Kerry so badly?




Kerry's strategy is to win by being not-Bush. The debates will be his last chance to show his leadership abilities. If he loses, he's toast.

Washington Post interview

Would you rather he set a date for withdrawal within a certain time limit, shorter than four years and then wasn't able to clean up the royal mess in that time??
OR that, after four years, the mess still exists, due to the hornet-agitating of the last four years, under Bush and he failed to "make it all better"?

As for the "bounce" that the newspeople speak of, the country IS divided down the middle, just as it was in 2000. Kerry's hope, I think, is to get that other 50% out to vote, who stayed home in 2000 and now are bitchin' and moanin' about how the government, particularly this administration has not lived up to expectations. If he can manage to lift even 20% of those non-voting citizens off their sofas and on to the polling stations, he will have won.
Also, if the polling stations iron out the problems with their voting machines, before Nov 2, as well as Florida not disenfranchizing thousands of their eligable voters, Kerry will have a better chance.
Remember that last election, Bush was given the Presidency, with a disputed vote of only a five hundred and change lead.
This is not about bounce or no bounce. This is about fair election practices.

As for the debate, Kerry can speak much more eloquently than Bush can and can actually think on his feet.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

No way he actually said this. There's just no way.

Yeah, it's funny that a lot of people who vent and fume about Bush are from New York and California, which aren't even contested states in this election. This one is going to be decided in Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Arkansas, and yes, Florida. What New Yorkers (or Vermonters or Marylanders or Californians etc. etc.) think about Bush is not going to mean squat in November.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by patricia

As for the debate, Kerry can speak much more eloquently than Bush can and can actually think on his feet.

The same was true for Gore and if he hadn't hurt himself in the first two debates with Bush, he'd be President.

Originally Posted by Patricia

Would you rather he set a date for withdrawal within a certain time limit, shorter than four years and then wasn't able to clean up the royal mess in that time??

Funny stuff, Patricia.

Now, take your question, apply it to Bush instead of Kerry. How would you answer it?

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Funny stuff, Patricia.

Now, take your question, apply it to Bush instead of Kerry. How would you answer it?

Since we wouldn't be in this situation, were it not for Mr Bush's misinterpretation of the "intelligence", whether deliberate or not, it would seem almost poetic justice if he, and he alone were made to clean up the mess. In retail parlance, "You broke it. You own it".

If real justice were to be sought, both by the victims of 9/11 and by the thousands of Iraqis, not to mention the hundreds of coalition soldiers, now dead, Bush's gang should have to hang around, repairing the damage, nigh unto however many years it will take. But, that's not going to happen. Even if the present administration gets a second term, whoever takes over in '08 will be lucky if the problem hasn't worsened. More likely, they will have have an even bigger terrorist problem than the one which exists now.

[Slurpy]

Originally Posted by crawjo

I highly doubt that Kerry will be able to sway many voters in a televised debate. He's going to come across as patrician and dull, Bush will come across as folksy and likeable. Whatever points Kerry may win on substance will be offset by the cosmetics of the thing.

I might have to agree with this re: the Middle America electorate. After
downing a dozen or so Budweisers, I too would be pulled into karmic, harmonious understanding of whatever Bush would we bumbling about. Then, once the patriotic ferver kicks in...Katie, hide the guns!

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Actually, Uli, I think Crawjo has a good point there.

Middle America will likely decide this election.

Yep, I understand that the GOP is working feverishly to ink an agreement with Wal-Mart for space for voting booths in November. They'll have a shooting gallery and bass fishin' pond for the kiddies, too.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Ron Thorne

Yep, I understand that the GOP is working feverishly to ink an agreement with Wal-Mart for space for voting booths in November. They'll have a shooting gallery and bass fishin' pond for the kiddies, too.

Unfortunately, they'll all get mercury poisoning if they eat those bass fish, thanks to Bush's relaxed pollution rules. Maybe then they'll wise up.

[RBS]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

The same was true for Gore and if he hadn't hurt himself in the first two debates with Bush, he'd be President.

Kerry comes off better than Gore, in my opinion.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by RBS

Kerry comes off better than Gore, in my opinion.

I do hope that too much importance is not being given to the upcoming debates between Bush and Kerry. If you recall, the debate between Gore and Bush was so meticulously stage-managed, with canned questions and carefully crafted responses, that there was little left of either one's real ability to think on their feet.
Some of you may have been involved in debating groups, in highschool or in college, as I was. During those times, the procedure was that we were given outlines of the subject and drew sides, by lots. We were then pitted against each other and had to think on our feet. The subject was always one in which we were assumed to have enough knowledge of the facts and the issues relating to them to argue either side. Interesting exchanges come out of not knowing just what the other side will use to argue their side of the issue at hand.
During the last Presidential debate, there was so little spontenaity, that I couldn't help thinking that the entire event, including the debate itself, was meticulously rehearsed.
Since then, it's been shown that Mr Bush can't speak effectively, if he doesn't have prepared text. That would lead me to believe that his knowledge of the subject matter and it's attendant nuances is scant. Not a good thing for the person who holds that much power, IMO.

[stonemonkts]

Originally Posted by RBS

Kerry comes off better than Gore, in my opinion.

The old shovel in my garage comes off better than Gore.

[tristano's ghost]

How about a blast from the past? A quaint stroll down memory lane?

From the New York Times, May 3, 2003.

The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today.

The United States currently has more than five divisions in Iraq, troops that fought their way into the country and units that were added in an attempt to stabilize it. But the Bush administration is trying to establish a new military structure in which American troops would continue to secure Baghdad while the majority of the forces in Iraq would be from other nations.

Under current planning, there would be three sectors in postwar Iraq. The Americans would keep a division in and around Baghdad; Britain would command a multinational division in the south near Basra; and Poland would command a third division of troops from a variety of nations.

The British are organizing a "force generation" conference next week in London to solicit troops for the effort, and another conference is likely to be held later this month in Warsaw.

The Bush administration's aim is to bring most of the American troops here back to their bases in the United States and Europe so they can prepare for potential crises.

The administration does not want substantial numbers of American forces to be tied down in Iraq. It is eager to avoid the specter of American occupation, and it is hoping to shift much of the peacekeeping burden of stabilizing Iraq to other governments.

If the administration plan is carried out, the effect would be to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq from over 130,000 soldiers and marines at present to 30,000 troops or fewer by the fall.

More flip-flopping from our steadfast CIC!

I see.

So, changing ones mind when they become more familiar with the situation is only acceptable if you have a D. after your name?

[tristano's ghost]

Nope, just skewering the hypocrisy of the opposition.

Name of the game, I suppose.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by RBS

Kerry comes off better than Gore, in my opinion.

Every Democrat I knew and many Republicans as well expected Gore to clean Bush's clock in the 2000 debates. It didn't happen. If you asked people in early 2000 who would do better in a debate with Bush, Gore or Kerry, I think more people would have said Gore. The former VP destroyed Ross Perot in their NAFTA debate on the Larry King Show.

I don't know who will win the debate but Kerry has got to shake his reputation and come off as a commander in chief and defender of the U.S. against those who want to destroy us.


Kerry supporters, do you deny that he's perceived as a guy who hates to stick his neck out? For better or worse, Dean, Kucinich, Clark, McCain and Bush do not share this hesitant quality of Kerry's. It might work but only if there are enough "anybody but Bush" voters.

[Tom Storer]

Originally Posted by crawjo

I highly doubt that Kerry will be able to sway many voters in a televised debate. He's going to come across as patrician and dull, Bush will come across as folksy and likeable. Whatever points Kerry may win on substance will be offset by the cosmetics of the thing.

Now see, that's what kills me. How could anyone perceive George Bush as "likeable"? If the great American electorate elects Bush on greater perceived "likability" then I agree with whoever it was who said that in a democracy, the voters get what they deserve.

And what's with patrician and dull? I guess it's fine to be wealthy and privileged as long as you're folksy and shallow, but show a little seriousness and you're some kind of elitist. And it's not like Bush is witty or exciting, even in comparison with Kerry.

Please forgive this brief rant.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

Now see, that's what kills me. How could anyone perceive George Bush as "likeable"? If the great American electorate elects Bush on greater perceived "likability" then I agree with whoever it was who said that in a democracy, the voters get what they deserve.

And what's with patrician and dull? I guess it's fine to be wealthy and privileged as long as you're folksy and shallow, but show a little seriousness and you're some kind of elitist. And it's not like Bush is witty or exciting, even in comparison with Kerry.

Please forgive this brief rant.

Just back from vacation, Tom? Good to see you again. I agree with a lot of your rant. It IS stupid, but I think there is something to it. I don't care if Bush comes across as "folksy and likeable" but I think he does to a lot of Americans. Why? I think the average American identifies with his values: God, family and country and so forth; and I think his, shall we say, difficulties in articulation make him seem more real, more like one of "us" to many people.

Yes, it is stupid, but I do think it is going to matter a great deal in the debates. The consensus is really that, overall, Bush did better than Gore in the 2000 debates, but when I watched them I felt that Gore cleaned Bush's clock, especially in the first one. But after it people focused in on Gore's perceived dullness or arrogance, and it completely erased the actual content of the debate. TV debates are all about image. Like the '60 debates between Nixon and Kennedy. Those who saw it on TV thought Kennedy won (he looked better), those who heard it over the radio thought Nixon won.

As for voters getting what they deserve, it reminds me of one of the "man on the street" quotes from the Onion a while back. "They say that in a democracy people get the government they deserve, but I don't recall knife-raping any retarded nuns."

[Tom Storer]

Yes, just back! Had a great time in Thailand and Cambodia. By pure chance I turned on the tube in the hotel room one day just in time to catch Edwards' speech. The next day I saw Kerry's speech, or most of it. The whole convention thing is pretty startling to a European resident--my wife said, "Why is he having his daughters introduce him? What do they have to do with anything?" I had to explain that issues are secondary, what the voters demand is a lot of air-brushed spin on "who the candidate really is."

But anyway, despite the rather thin content of the speeches, I thought Kerry seemed likeable enough. Certainly there was no forbidding depth in what he was saying, nor did he seem to project a frosty, snobbish reserve. I don't know what the problem is with his personality. Edwards, on the other hand, was almost Bush-like with his self-satisfied air and his smirking. Maybe that's why he seems to get better marks for "likeability" and "contact."