Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I would like to add something …

We are being told that the insurgents are multiplying and growing stronger.
Kerry blames this on Bush and how he is doing everything wrong. Maybe he is, but Kerry is not helping.

I agree with the idea that Kerry is aiding the enemy.

People aren’t born terrorists. They don’t come into this world knowing they are going out by strapping on a bomb and blowing themselves up.

Someone has to convince them to do it. It doesn’t happen overnight. I’m sure their are plenty of people over there who are ‘on the fence’ between joining the terrorist groups and staying out of it.

Now they have clips of Kerry to play for those people telling them that they are growing stronger and the United States is losing the battle against insurgents and terrorism.

Is Kerry just trying to fool them into thinking we are losing and when he gets into office he is going to go in with force that they never imagined and wipe them out?

Or maybe he will have peace talks with the terrorists in Iran or North Korea and ask them nicely to stop.

Posted by: Bugcrazy at September 26, 2004 11:13 PM

How can you say ANYONE is aiding the enemy? that bonehead statement goes right up there with “liberals hate america”

Posted by: steamynachos at September 26, 2004 11:31 PM

I want to know why John Kerry thinks that US troops have failed.

If John Kerry actually thought that, I’d want to know why, too. Puh-leese.

You’re opening mischaracterization almost made me miss the LA Times article you quote from - it’s a pretty good pessimistic look by a conservative publication at one aspect of Kerry’s Iraq plan.

…But Allin added that if new troops were to be sent to Iraq “it’s unclear where they would come from.”

Always suspicious of ellipses, I looked up the complete paragraph,

Dana Allin of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London said, “I think there’s no question, in general, you’ll find it easier to get cooperation from allies if there is a new [U.S.] administration.” But Allin added that if new troops were to be sent to Iraq “it’s unclear where they would come from.”

That’s a pretty obvious statement.

First of all - and most importantly in the view of our allies - Kerry’s not a shoe-in. Although our allies have made it clear they’re ready to work more closely with a Kerry administration than with Bush, they’re not going to say anything specific until after November.

Second, Allin is not saying that Europe has no troops to send - France alone has 350,000 troops - she’s just pointing out that no one is committing troops to a Kerry administration that doesn’t even exist yet. And rightly so.

Also, Kerry has not mentioned any specific number of NATO and allied troops he expects,

“I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that’s my plan.”

Reduce, not completely replace or even mostly replace.

In any case, the article just confirms that Kerry will enjoy greater cooperation - for debt relief, as well as security - in Iraq from the rest of the world than Bush ever will. It all comes back to,

“Most people want to help Iraq but not in a way that rewards Bush,” says a senior EU diplomat.

Thanks Eric.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 26, 2004 11:38 PM

Eric, if you have a problem with Kerry seeking international troop replacements, where is your rail against Bush for proposing, almost begging for the same thing from the international community. Hell, he is even bribing other nations to join in, not very successfully anymore however.

As AP pointed out, the U.S. will get more support if Bush is not reelected. How much, and in what form, has yet to be seen. But, the issue before Americans is whether we want to go it mostly alone which will be the case if Bush is reelected or do we want to give the international community the real incentive they want to share our burden, by sending Bush packing. The international community no longer trusts nor likes Bush, whether justified or not. It is a reality.

The costs of going it largely alone in Iraq will seriously diminish our resources and damage our economy through ever increasing national debt which poses considerable threat to our future economy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2004 12:26 AM

Excellent retort AP,

I’m tempted to say “There you go again,” to Eric.
I guess in desperation, Eric now stoops to finding misquotes and non contextual tidbits to make his arguments.

Well, at leat I sympathize. God only knows that Bush hasn’t left himsef any record to run on. Now that the curtain is drawn back, the little Wizard from Texas has to face his own shortcomings, sort of like a drunk after binging on his narcissistic delusions and stout spirits.

Since even a yellow dog would do better than Bush has, creating a fictional image of Kerry to flail against is all Eric can muster as reasonable argument.

Posted by: Greg at September 27, 2004 12:33 AM

Well, before you force choke me for my disturbing lack of faith, let me ask you: have your quotes given you clairvoyance enough to conjure up Bush’s plan?

What is, it anyways? Kerry can be vague because he has no foreign policy apparatus at his disposal to give him a complete intelligence picture on what’s going on in Iraq. Bush though has the entire executive branch at his disposal, and I have yet to hear anything but his latest claim that we’ve turned the corner and that no change in plans is necessary. Why can’t the leader of the free world come up with some sort of plan?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 27, 2004 12:58 AM

Eric,
It’s funny that Kerry mentioned last week about using our troops to go into the No Go Zones to restore order for the elections in January. Bush and Rumfleds than stated that they would hold partical elections at least. Well, Mr. Powell must not have got the memo because he stated Sunday that our troops was about to do exactly what Kerry said. linktext

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 27, 2004 01:27 AM

Henry, excellent try with the link. You didn’t need to add the word “link” to the web address, and instead of “linktext” you can add your own description. If you pretend that the flat brackets are angle brackets, it should look like this:

[a href=”http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/26/iraq.main/index.html”]Bush attempts to implement Kerry’s plan[/a]

It will look like, Bush attempts to implement Kerry’s plan

Keep ‘em comin’ Henry!

I saw that story in my Reuters feed. The headline was something like, Bush proposes two-pronged offensive.

They’re going to send US troops into the “no-go” zones and then secure them with Iraqi troops. In the past Iraqi troops have deserted to the insurgents with their weapons the first chance they get. We’ll see what happens this time.

The second prong is to hand out voter registration cards in the welfare lines (50%+ unemployment). They’re trying to keep US troops, officials, and organizations out of the election process as much as possible.

It seems to me that both those tasks would be easier to accomplish using international troops and NGOs. But Bush never thought that far ahead, did he?

The Bush administration has abandoned the idea of giving the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq as sought by France, India and other countries as a condition for their participation in peacekeeping there, administration officials say.

“The administration is not willing to confront going to the Security Council and saying, ‘We really need to make Iraq an international operation,’” an administration official said. “You can make a case that it would be better to do that, but, right now, the situation in Iraq is not that dire.” - Friday, August 15, 2003

That was a turning point, BTW. Back in 2003, France, India, and most other countries were willing to send troops to Iraq. Bush said, “No thanks.”

Posted by: American Pundit at September 27, 2004 02:10 AM

AP-

…the LA Times article you quote from - it’s a pretty good pessimistic look by a conservative publication at one aspect of Kerry’s Iraq plan.

You’ll be happy to know that the LA Times is anything but a conservative paper. Quite the opposite in fact. One wonders how this article slipped by the editors.

…Reduce, not completely replace or even mostly replace.

Kerry is on record saying he wants the troops out in 4 years. Tommy Franks is on record saying that the occupation will probably last three to five years.

The fact remains that Kerry’s says that Iraq is a failure. He says his plan will bring victory. His plan is to replace US troops with European troops. That is quite an endorsement.

I started with quoting practically the whole article, and I always have a link to the whole article so that you can read it in context. I do wonder about your interpretation of the entire article in context because first you say it is a, “pretty good pessimistic look by a conservative publication at one aspect of Kerry’s Iraq plan.” Then you say it, “the article just confirms that Kerry will enjoy greater cooperation - for debt relief, as well as security - in Iraq from the rest of the world than Bush ever will.”

This one part of Kerry’s plan is the only thing that differentiates it from what the Bush Administration is already doing. Oh… except ‘more better’, and ‘smarter’. I almost forgot.

Stephen,

Three fourths of Kerry’s plan is what the Bush Administration is already doing. That’s because those are the things which must be done. The things that our US soldiers are currently doing. Kerry wants to take US soldiers out of the game and put in EU troops, “so we can win”. I don’t understand that.

Think of the logic that goes into this plan. Iraq is a failure. Our boys are dying. We are paying too much of the cost. Let’s send other countries sons to die for our war. Hmm.

Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 27, 2004 02:23 AM

Doesn’t it bother you that anyone who questions Iraq is called a traitor, defeatist and/or endangering us? If we are to accept this, we would in effect be giving Bush a carte blanche not just in the past but in the future too. Remember, it was the PICTURES of Abu Graib that gave it the power it had. If those guards had not taken those photos, Bush almost certainly would have shrugged off the torture as “anti-american”. Remember what Fox News and Rush Limburgh called the rumors before hard evidence got out? We are already near the point where Germany was in 1939. I shudder to think what Bush will justify next.

Aldous.

Posted by: Aldous at September 27, 2004 02:47 AM

You’ll be happy to know that the LA Times is anything but a conservative paper. Quite the opposite in fact.

Haha! Ok, Eric. I think I know where you’re coming from. The LA Times is definitely right of center, but not to the same extent as most of your news sources. :)

Kerry is on record saying he wants the troops out in 4 years. Tommy Franks is on record saying that the occupation will probably last three to five years.

It’s good to know that President Kerry will actually listen to his military advisors, unlike Bush.

The fact remains that Kerry’s says that Iraq is a failure.

No, Kerry says that Bush’s bungling is leading to failure in Iraq. It’s not too late for Bush to make it right, but he won’t even admit there’s a problem.

Here’s my unaddressed rant from a previous thread,

Even Bush’s vague admissions of things being “tough” in Iraq aren’t helpful. He needs to acknowlege specific problems and act on them.

There’s a lack of security, even in Baghdad. US troops can clear out the insurgents, but how do you keep them from coming back? Bush’s plan is to use Iraqi troops and police to maintain security, but they’re only hastily trained and they tend to desert with their weapons to the insurgents.

There’s discontent among Iraqis because reconstruction of utilities, hospitals, schools, etc. are not happening fast enough. Only $1 billion of the $18 billion authorized for reconstruction last year has been spent. The Halliburton no-bid contracts were supposed to get reconstruction zooming along. What happened? Why isn’t it being fixed?

There’s discontent over high (50%+) unemployment, unless you want to count part-time insurgency as a job. Even Bush can do better than that. What’s his plan? If he’s got one, why isn’t it working?

To just vaguely wave your hand and say “everythings fine, but nothing’s perfect” does not solve the problem.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 27, 2004 03:45 AM

Aldous, what we are apparently missing is the mind set and logic that would state that any Germans who spoke against Hitler’s invasion of Austria or Poland, were unpatriotic and deserved to be branded as enemy sympathizers or worse, traitors to their fatherland.

Many on the right demand blind obedience to authority - translated, that means don’t question it. It amazes me sometimes that the right find the word democracy slipping off their tongue so easily and freely. I would think it would be a more difficult word than say, authoritarian or dictator, for them to utter and purport.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2004 04:48 AM

AP said,
“No, Kerry says that Bush’s bungling is leading to failure in Iraq. It’s not too late for Bush to make it right, but he won’t even admit there’s a problem.” and, “Even Bush’s vague admissions of things being “tough” in Iraq aren’t helpful. He needs to acknowlege specific problems and act on them.”

First he won’t admit anything, then he doesn’t say enough, he needs to be more specific - acknowledge problems and be more specific - To who? you AP? are you helping make the decisions? Or should he just go ahead and let the enemy know his step by step so they can get prepared because you have to have all the details?

Kerry will go to the UN and Bush wants to go it alone ?
David said,
“…..Bush for proposing, almost begging for the same thing from the international community. Hell, he is even bribing other nations to join in, not very successfully anymore however.”

You can’t tell me Kerry won’t have to ‘bribe’ countries and that he won’t have to kiss butt. Countries don’t join anything if they aren’t going to get something out of it. Even before Bush hurt everybody’s feelings.

Some of those countries said they don’t care who wins. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO HELP IN THE FIGHT. They won’t send their troops into a warzone. Why would anybody in their right mind send troops anywhere that they would get shot at?

If Kerry is so great why did Carville feel the need to say this …”Frankly, I’m sick of Democratic whiners out there.”

Most of the bloggers for Kerry would vote for him no matter what he said. Who are the ‘whiners’? The Democrats who aren’t so sure Kerry is the right man for the job?
He finished with this ….”Hey, Democrats, we have got 40 days until the election. Let’s get together and help John Kerry get the job done.”

Tells me that Carville is worried. All Democrats are not standing behind their candidate.

That was from friday’s Crossfire.

Posted by: Bugcrazy at September 27, 2004 09:08 AM

That’s because Democrats are thinkers. It is hard to be frothing at the mouth with Kerry as your Leader. Kerry makes you think and thinking makes you hesitate. That’s why some Democrats will try to see if Bush is a viable Leader. Republicans do not have this problem. Like Monty Phyton’s movie said, “Think for Yourselves!!!”. Republicans respond,”Yes Master!!! We will think for Ourselves!!!”.

See the difference?

Aldous.

Posted by: Aldous at September 27, 2004 11:43 AM

David:

I’m sure you would agree that simple words can and do change the course of history. Statements made in certain ways can and do undermine negotiating stances. And as such, words are so very powerful.

I wonder at what point simple dissent becomes poisonous, and at what point it is relevant. We know that Jane Fonda’s words were used against POW’s in Viet Nam—I’d take the position that those words were not a good thing for her to have said.

But to eliminate her freedom of speech, knowing her dissenting position, would be anti-American.

Our enemies do take comfort in seeing dissension, yet dissension is not necessarily bad. If our country is truly engaging in poor strategy, then dissension can be the height of patriotism. So the question I have is where you draw the line.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 27, 2004 11:55 AM

We are being told that the insurgents are multiplying and growing stronger. Kerry blames this on Bush and how he is doing everything wrong. Maybe he is, but Kerry is not helping.

I agree with the idea that Kerry is aiding the enemy.

I don’t think I’ve ever read a statement I disagree with more.

It sounds like you’re saying that even if Bush is doing everything wrong, then Kerry should support what he’s doing? You think that in wartime all of us should go along with whatever our government says or does, because admitting to mistakes, setbacks, or difficulties is encouraging the enemy?

An essential point of democracy - maybe *the* essential point - is that the government is always accountable to its citizens. Always, always, accountable to its citizens, and we are always responsible for seeing that the people we elect uphold their responsibilities. And there can be no accountability if any dissent from the government’s point of view is dismissed as “aiding the enemy.”

And right now, with our country at war and terrorists having recently struck at the US, is the very worst time to not exercise our rights, our responsibilities, to make and keep the government accountable - to make sure that our government does it’s very best to defend us.

Anything less than that is not just aiding the enemy, it’s abandoning the very core of what we’re fighting for.

Posted by: William Cohen at September 27, 2004 12:36 PM

Hanoi Jane was simply seen as a vapid, faddish actress, which she was and is.

I don’t think her statements were anymore consequential than Ford’s declaration that the Poles weren’t oppressed by the Soviets.

You say her words were used against the POW’s. If I beat your wife because you said you didn’t like my red underwear, is it your fault that I beat her?

In a Democracy open and unfettered debate is absolutely necessary. I think most people thought Jane looked like an ass, and she received plenty of abuse for it.

It was Johnson’s and Nixon’s denial of reality (not to mention Nixon’s illegal activities including making deals as a candidate with Hanoi) that led to more bodybags and longer POW captivity. Let’s not rewrite history here.

Posted by: Greg at September 27, 2004 12:40 PM

David,

…where is your rail against Bush for proposing, almost begging for the same thing from the international community.

…the U.S. will get more support if Bush is not reelected. How much, and in what form, has yet to be seen. But, the issue before Americans is whether we want to go it mostly alone…

You mean Bush actually did try to pursuade the UN and EU nations to help us create a democracy in Iraq? But since they hate Bush they refused? Isn’t that a little petty? What do you think of people who refuse to do the right thing because those they politically disagree with want to do the same thing?

Greg,

I guess in desperation, Eric now stoops to finding misquotes and non contextual tidbits to make his arguments.

I’m not sure what misquotes and non-contextual tidbits you are referring to. The link is there so that you can read the whole article. I took nothing out of context. If anything, the one sentence AP chose to say the rest of the article was wrong was out of context. If I could, I would have quoted the entire article as bolstering my argument. For space reasons, as well as copyright issues it’s not wise to do so except on my personal blog, (perhaps).

Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 27, 2004 12:59 PM

David,

Aldous, what we are apparently missing is the mind set and logic that would state that any Germans who spoke against Hitler’s invasion of Austria or Poland, were unpatriotic and deserved to be branded as enemy sympathizers or worse, traitors to their fatherland.

Many on the right demand blind obedience to authority - translated, that means don’t question it. It amazes me sometimes that the right find the word democracy slipping off their tongue so easily and freely. I would think it would be a more difficult word than say, authoritarian or dictator, for them to utter and purport.

Your argument fails for lack of truth. It’s sad that the left has to keep returning to “Bush is Hitler”. It tends to give one the idea that the left has no real argument to make. What the left is missing, or ignoring, is that Bush is not Hitler. The US is not an Imperialist power, and criticism of Iraq is not akin to resistance of totalitarian dictatorship. It is precisely such characterization of political opponents that I am calling unhelpful, demoralizing, and defeatist.

Specifically who on the right is demanding blind obedience to authority just like the Nazi’s? If you cannot come up with specific examples I will assume you have none and we can all safely disregard this ridiculous assertion.

Aldous,

That’s because Democrats are thinkers. It is hard to be frothing at the mouth with Kerry as your Leader. Kerry makes you think and thinking makes you hesitate. That’s why some Democrats will try to see if Bush is a viable Leader. Republicans do not have this problem. Like Monty Phyton’s movie said, “Think for Yourselves!!!”. Republicans respond,”Yes Master!!! We will think for Ourselves!!!”.

See the difference?

Obviously I do not see the difference. This kind of comment does get under my skin a bit though. You need to do better than saying Republicans don’t think.

I will gladly debate your points and argue that you are wrong, and you can do the same, but don’t dismiss my thoughts as unthinking and frothing at the mouth simply because you do not have the time to mount an argument to back it up. ie— call me unthinking and then give me some evidence of that fact so I can refute it.

Back to your original comment…

Doesn’t it bother you that anyone who questions Iraq is called a traitor, defeatist and/or endangering us?

My criticism is of the idea that Iraq is a failure #1, and #2 that Kerry has a plan that will suceed which is in any way different from what is already being done. Kerry can’t say he will change course if what he will do isn’t any different from what is being done.

It isn’t any different because what is being done is what needs to be done, and what will have to be done regardless of who is the President. The US military is the right tool for the job and Kerry’s only differentiation is that we need to lessen their role in Iraq.

Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 27, 2004 01:29 PM

My criticism is of the idea that Iraq is a failure #1, and #2 that Kerry has a plan that will suceed which is in any way different from what is already being done. Kerry can’t say he will change course if what he will do isn’t any different from what is being done.

I just finished reading a nice, detailed, well-balanced piece about the problems that the US has had in Iraq. The short story is that most of them were caused by mistakes: going in, without enough force, in spite of advice to the contrary; and ignoring problems, like the insurgency, until they were out of control.

I personally think the phrase “train wreck” is probably a better term than “failure”. It’s not a train wreck, yet, but the guy that’s at the controls now is certainly taking us there.

Posted by: William Cohen at September 27, 2004 02:07 PM

I still say that the idea of “Anybody but Bush” is wrong and dangerous. With an attitude like that we will end up with a ‘Hitler’ running this country and those who used that will have noone to blame but themselves.
Though I suppose some will still argue that he is better than Bush simply because he said he was of a certain political party..

Posted by: Dawn at September 27, 2004 02:42 PM

Don’t jump on that and start saying I called Kerry a ‘Hitler Type’. I didn’t
It was a general statement.

Posted by: Dawn at September 27, 2004 02:45 PM

I think the right better accept the fact that Bush is part of the problem where Iraq is concerned. People in that part of the country make deals based on a mans’ word. Therefore, Bush lost his sword and shield once no WMD’s were found.

Additionally, Bush has been made a recuiting tool for Al Qaeda. Degraded America’s role in the world. But most of all, Bushs’ policies has lead to our troops being charged with prisoner abuse, 1st degree murder, and other major crimes.

What is the plan for victory? Simple, Get Bush out of the role of Commander and Chief. Wait! Congress is telling the Adminstration what, when and how they are going to do things. Check out all the committee hearings going on and you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 27, 2004 03:23 PM

Misleading Republican Propaganda Alert:
> Kerry has essentually called them illegitimate
> and phony coalition partners, part of the,
> ‘bribed, the coerced, the bought and the
> extorted’.

Wrong. He wasn’t referring to our coalition partners at all. This is a common misperception, so I won’t accuse you of doing it deliberately. You were merely quoting somebody else who was taking the words out of context in order to paint Kerry in a negative light.

The words you quote were actually a direct reference to Bush’s March 2003 offer to Turkey of $30 billion dollars - as a flat payment - to convince them to allow us to use it as a military staging ground. That, my friend, was an attempted bribe, and it was the best Bush could do to get Turkey as an ally, given that they didn’t actually approve of the war. And the Turks, to their credit, refused it.

Kerry said:

“The greatest position of strength is by exercising the best judgment in the pursuit of diplomacy,” he said, “not in some trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted, but in a genuine coalition.”

Yes. Our allies must get on board because they see their participation as having a stake in the future of America’s vision for peace and democracy in the world. Not solely because we paid them money, or threatened to veto their NATO membership (which Bush also did with regards to coalition allies who were up for NATO membership).

Eric quoted from LATimes:
> the Massachusetts senator has repeatedly declined
> to say how he would find the added support..

Yes he has. By allowing them to compete for reconstruction contracts. By giving them an economic stake in Iraq’s future. Is that a bribe? Well, all diplomacy has trade-offs, but at least he’s not proposing to just give them billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

Also, and this is not to be underestimated, he will secure new partnerships by being an honest, trustworthy, non-arrogant negotiating partner. Nobody wants to deal with America because nobody trusts George W. Bush. He got other nations to sign 1441, then he used it as the excuse to invade Iraq prematurely and recklessly. Many countries around the world feel betrayed, tricked by Bush. Once he’s gone, things will be different. I have no illusions that things will be 180 degrees different, but even if France only sends 10 troops to Iraq, that will make a world of difference in the perception of the war - the perception of Americans, Iraqis, and everyone around the world.

You also left this part of the article out:

Allies say they are ready to consider further financial aid and other help for the fragile new Iraqi government.

Hm, that would be nice, wouldn’t it?

More of Eric’s quotes from various sources:

…”Some Europeans are rather concerned that Mr. Kerry might have expectations for relief [from abroad] that are going to be hard to meet,”

…The French and German governments have made clear that sending troops is out of the question.

…Senior Iraqi officials told U.S. officials this summer that they opposed the idea of bringing in additional troops from any foreign country.

… But America’s allies are just not willing to help much, certainly not by sending troops. Mr Kerry is unlikely to change their minds.

The thing that I find so hilarious is that your argument is, in a nutshell: “Bush has been totally incapable of keeping the current coalition together, much less adding new forces to it, therefore John Kerry can’t do any better.”

Eric, since you’ve obviously given up all hope of the rest of the world ever helping America out with the situation in Iraq, then which of the following is your true hope for the next couple of years:
1) Bush pulls our troops out out unilaterally in 2005 and allows the out-of-control Iraq firestorm explode without us.
2) Bush escalates our troop committment dramatically in 2005 in order to quell the out-of-control Iraq firestorm
3) What out-of-control Iraq firestorm? We’re on track to certain victory under the current strategy!

Which is it?

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 27, 2004 03:28 PM

The liberal Washington Post ran an article that decrying the plight of Iraqi police recruits, but (I believe) inadvertently showed that all is not lost and not all Iraqis are against the U.S. You can find the whole article on the Washington Post webpage. The following paragraph is worth highlighting.

Sabah Kadim, a spokesman for the Iraqi Interior Ministry, which oversees the police, said that despite the attacks, young Iraqis continue to apply at a furious rate. “Word spreads through the community; you don’t need any publicity at all,” Kadim said. “If we want 100 in an area, 3,000 show up. This is the amazing thing: Without any recruitment drive at all, the numbers are not only doubling but tripling.”

Sure, you could say that they are doing it for the money (a couple hundred dollars), but they are doing it despite the danger that terrorists, former Baathists and foreign fighters will kill them. And they are doing despite the fact that they are “joining the U.S.”.

Posted by: jack at September 27, 2004 05:43 PM

Christopher,

“He wasn’t referring to our coalition partners at all.” You stretch the bounds of credulity. Kerry wasn’t referring to our allies? If he said that only one time with that context, you might be able to stretch and spin this point. But he didn’t just say it that one time, Chris. He has been consistent in this at least. He has repeated this phrase over and over outside of that context.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of calling it bribery to offer an ally compensation for using their facilities and then turning right around and saying we must offer contracts for their support? What’s the difference?

It’s #3 Chris. Do you really believe Iraq is as bad as Kerry and Kennedy are saying it is?

Which of those three is Kerry’s real plan?

Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 27, 2004 05:51 PM

Does it ever occur to the left that the insurgents goal is to increase attacks before the election?

Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 27, 2004 05:57 PM

I keep hearing how the insurgents are only trying to disrupt the election, so what happens after the election? Are they all going to drop their weapons go home and bow to their new leader?

Posted by: monkeywerks at September 27, 2004 07:00 PM

Christopher,

> Kerry wasn’t referring to our allies?

Nope.

> If he said that only one time with that
> context, you might be able to stretch
> and spin this point. But he didn’t just
> say it that one time, Chris. He has been
> consistent in this at least. He has
> repeated this phrase over and over
> outside of that context.

I found only one other place where he mentioned it, and I couldn’t tell the context. Bush tried to bribe Turkey and he tried to coerce the Baltic states, those are facts.

Perhaps you are conflating John Kerry with George Bush and Dick Cheney, who repeat the quote ad nauseum like taunting schoolchildren?

> Do you not see the hypocrisy of calling
> it bribery to offer an ally compensation
> for using their facilities and then turning
> right around and saying we must offer
> contracts for their support? What’s the
> difference?

I already anticipated this question and explained the answer in my last post. But I’ll repeat the rationale: A bribe is where you only get money in return, with no incentive to help make sure the job is done right. A contract is a direct stake in the success of the venture of rebuilding Iraq. Not to mention the fact that Kerry has made such forward-looking contracts contingent on erasing past Iraqi debt. It’s a good plan. It also has the added benefit of helping the Iraqi and American people get the best deal for the buck.

> It’s #3 Chris. Do you really believe Iraq
> is as bad as Kerry and Kennedy are saying
> it is?

Yes. It might even be as bad as countless Republicans suggest it is. I think it’s probably a little worse than what Bush supporters and insiders say it is, such as Rumsfeld, Powell, Senator Hagel, Senator McCain, Senator Lugar, Senator Graham, and Representative Kolbe say it is. I think it might even be as bad as the CIA says it is.

It might be as bad as Robert Novak says it is, or as bad as David Gergen says it is, or Andrew Sullivan, or Pat Buchanan.

It might be as bad as Allawi sometimes lets slip, or as bad as Musharraf will admit to.

It may be as bad as Brad Knickerbocker (reporter for Christian Science Monitor), and Richard Beeston (diplomatic editor of the Times of London), and Phillip Robertson (who spent 5 recent months in Baghdad), and Joe Galloway (senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder), and , and Rajiv Chandrasekaran (the Washington Post’s Baghdad bureau cheif), and Peter W. Galbraith (the man who first uncovered Saddam’s Anfal massaacres) say it is.

It may be as bad as Reuters, and Knight Ridder, and The Associated Press say it is.

See where I’m going here? I go by the preponderance of the evidence (and opinion) from a variety of reliable and thoughtful sources, sometimes even from the words of those who I often disagree with.

> Which of those three is Kerry’s real plan?

It’s none of them, although I’ll bet it’ll be an increase first, then a decrease as foreigners start to appear and as the violence subdues.

> Does it ever occur to the left that the
> insurgents goal is to increase attacks
> before the election?

Ah, and then they’ll just retire knowing that they’ve made a difference in the world? Dream on.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 27, 2004 07:23 PM

Chris,

Iraq is not as bad as democrats want it to be. How many stories about rebuilt schools have you read? Practically none. If it bleeds it leads. Leadership is not about proclaiming defeat and embracing the worst case scenario in order to get elected.

There are terrorists in Iraq, or minutemen, as Michael Moore calls them. Counterinsurgency is not like fighting a standing army. It’s more difficult and takes longer to accomplish. No matter who is president the tactics will be the same and the troops will have to do exactly what they are doing now and it will take the same amount of time.

Besides, the left’s position is that Iraq is unwinnable because it is a Imperialist colonial adventure.

Kerry’s position is unworkable. What’s more because of his history and ideology he will most likely prefer ‘peace’ with defeat rather than victory and democracy in Iraq. That is what is wrong with Kerry’s position and his party. The template of Vietnam is too imprinted on democratic minds.

There is no evidence whatsoever that a Kerry administration will get more european troops in Iraq, unless you believe in Kerry’s super secret plans and all the International leaders he can’t talk about who he talks to who say they must have him win the election.

Kerry is the wrong man, at the wrong time, for the wrong office.

Posted by: eric simonson at September 27, 2004 08:09 PM

eric. You make a big deal about rebuilt schools but as usual make no comment about the students or the quality of education in said school. From what my Iraqi Bloggers write, going to school is a major military operation for most families with the kidnappings and other criminal behavior. I should also mention that to the Bush Administration, a fresh coat of paint and some tables/chairs is enough for a school to be “rebuilt”.

Aldous.

Posted by: Aldous at September 27, 2004 08:26 PM

Leadership is not about proclaiming defeat and embracing the worst case scenario in order to get elected.

Leadership is also not about proclaiming “Mission Accomplished” in the most expensive photo-op in history, and then dismissing the subsequent deaths of 800+ Americans a “miscalculation”, because one has failed to plan for anything but a best-case scenario.

Posted by: William Cohen at September 27, 2004 08:40 PM

I think it’s about time Bush and his people stop putting words in Kerry’s mouth. You guys call him a defeatist when he has never called this war unwinnable, tell us he has no plan when he’s already offered one. You tell us Kerry is insulting Allawi, because he’s denigrating the Iraqi leader’s vast experience of Iraq. Never mind that Allawi has spent most of the last thirty years in London.

You defend a president that whipped this country into a frenzy over WMDs being handed to al-Qaeda, only to find nothing there. So it all becomes about deposing Saddam Hussein, which wasn’t a good enough reason to invade Iraq all these years since the Gulf War.

You defend a president’s lack of planning, and lack of initiative on new planning by saying he’s staying the course, and that all the escalations are merely evidence of the desperation of our opponents in the face of some arbitrary deadline. This time, it’s elections. Last time, it was Sovereignty. Before that, the capture of Saddam Hussein. Each time the escalation of violence has not ceased, but in fact continued. I fully expect that the Bush administration will set another date for the insurgents to quake in fear at, one that they will almost certainly ignore like all the rest.

In the meantime, all the problems that Bush has ignored to this point will fester, and things will get worse.

I am sick of waiting for Bush to to turn this situation around and get Iraq pacified. It is manifestly stupid to try to do the kind of intensive nation Building Bush is trying to do while an insurgency rages across the country. Bush has let nothing stand in his way to getting Iraq on it’s own, not even Iraq’s own needs for successful return to statehood.

I am tired of a strategy that is nothing more than the stubborn refusal to admit to his mistakes. And I am very tired of Bush supporters acting like Kerry’s a wimp when every damn thing Kerry’s done in his life has required ten times the courage Bush ever demonstrated. When we talk about Kerry’s dangerous SEALORDS missions all your people can do is cast aspersions and tell people that flying a jet is somehow equally dangerous. When we talk about Kerry’s stand at home against the war, all you guys can talk about is How Bush got an honorable discharged, despite the evidence he himself provides showing he didn’t show up for enough drills at his cushy National Guard position.

Good God, all you have is flip-flops and the resentment of veterans who can’t get their facts straight. I mean, let’s be honest about flip flops- George Bush and John Kerry are both freaking politians, which means they have promised things they’ve gone back on and tried to take both sides of certain issues to satisfy constituents. All politicians, given enough time flip-flop. We’ve just invented a childish new word to describe being inconsistent, lying or being diplomatic.

So the question is, whose inconsistencies are based in bad priniciples, rather than political strategy. Bush’s qualify. He has been perpetually indecisive. Is he going to be a nation builder or not? Well, he certainly wants to sound like it now. Want to hear the figure he set down for reconstruction?

One billion dollars. Iraqi oil profits were supposed to pay for the rest. Did they? Let’s look at one of Kerry’s supposed flip-flops: the budget supplemental. How much was devoted to reconstruction? 27 billion dollars of the almost 90 billion dollar supplementals

Was Bush prepared for war when it counted? look at the approximately 60 billion added to that, and ask yourself why he was paying for body armor, vehicle armor and other costs months after the invasion rather than month’s before it. Oh, should we mention the other Budget Supplemental?

When we had strong evidence that Osama Bin Laden was behind 9/11, we went in light on the ground, and didn’t even capture the guy. When the evidence was weak as hell in Iraq, Bush sent over a hundred thousand troops and searched out the leader of the course of nine months.

Is it just me or has the War on Terrorism become a footnote to Bush’s war on Iraq? I mean, Bush has already declared that it is the main theatre in the War on Terrorism, despite the fact that al-Qaeda only has penetrated Iraq to the extent it has today because of our invasion.

And what kind of harebrained crap is it to suggest that Iraq is supposed to solve our terrorism problems by acting like a geopolitical bugzapper? I challenge any of you to read the 9/11 report and come away with the idea that the terrorists are that stupid. They aren’t targeting our bases, our interests, they’re targeting unarmed foreign workers, UN HQs, police recruitment lines, infrastructure, and all the other elements that could otherwise guarantee Iraq’s stability. We they leave to the insurgents.

And Bush leaves the insurgents to brood in the areas they control. A year and a half after we’ve invaded, and we’ve still got areas of the country we don’t control. One would think we’d actually try and secure full control of the Capital City at least. I mean this is the Bush we know who was supposed to get tought with terrorist havens. Well, those insurgent controlled areas fit the bill. Is Bush simply waiting until he gets re-elected to sustain the heavy casualities such reconquest would take? Or does he simply plan on leaving them in enemy hands and somehow hope that after the elections, they’ll be nice enough to admit defeat?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 27, 2004 08:46 PM

> How many stories about rebuilt schools
> have you read? Practically none.

I’ve read a few. They don’t matter. You could re-open all of the schools, and even open a hundred brand new ones, too. They don’t mean a damn if dozens of civilians and soldiers are being killed every single day, if American and Iraqi peacekeeping forces are being attacked 80 times a day, if a dozen bombs are going off in major cities every day.

You’re living in a dream world. A partisan dream world.

> Besides, the left’s position is that Iraq is
> unwinnable because it is a Imperialist
> colonial adventure.

Nope.

> he will most likely prefer ‘peace’ with defeat
> rather than victory and democracy in Iraq

I think the above sentence is more likely to describe Bush’s strategy than Kerry’s.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 27, 2004 09:05 PM

Eric,
If Bush wants to tie Iraq to the real war on terror than by the view of the World America is getting it’s collective butt kicked. You quote that we have rebuilt schools and that shows progress in Iraq. No, this rebuilding of schools does not show progress.

In Iraq we have a government that does not have control of any area, a society that has well over 30% unemployment, and 18 million dollars that has not been touched to make conditions better.

And to make things worse, Bush is allowing our troops to be put on trail for every little violation. Yes, at least 5 of our troops have been charged with murder in the last month. I thought Bush was against having our troops face criminal charges while carrying out their duty. Just another Flip-Flop or does Bush secertly want to extend the war by tieing the hands of our troops.

Yes, if Kerry is elected in November he will need a plan to win in Iraq. The only problem with he will have is to figure out how bad Bush will screw it up before he takes office in January. I just hope he does better than Bush did when he took office crying the “Economy is Falling” and offered not one constructive idea to offset any down turn in the market.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 27, 2004 09:44 PM

Aldous,

eric. You make a big deal about rebuilt schools but as usual make no comment about the students or the quality of education in said school.

You call that a big deal? I barely mentioned it in passing as an example of a news story you will never see on the evening news. If it bleeds, it leads. There’s two reasons you agree with Kerry that Iraq is a failure. One is that bad news is more predominent in the news on any subject. Check out your local news coverage. Man shot. Car accident. Domestic violence. Etc. etc. Charitably the news is composed of 80% negative, 20% positive. News about Iraq is 95-98% negative. Couple that with the natural filters we all apply to incoming information and you have liberals who only focus on the negative news in Iraq. Thus nothing is going right in Iraq in the Left’s opinion. There is such strong ideological and political reasons for the left to want Iraq to be a failure that I think you should do some counterbalancing questioning in order to make sure your bias isn’t clouding your view on this.

William,

Leadership is also not about proclaiming “Mission Accomplished” in the most expensive photo-op in history, and then dismissing the subsequent deaths of 800+ Americans a “miscalculation”, because one has failed to plan for anything but a best-case scenario.

Of course not. We should never tell the troops that they’ve done a good job should we? We should never tell the American people that the invasion and defeat of Saddam’s army was swift and victorious.

It turns out that Tommy Franks asked the President to do that.

Can you tell me where Bush has ‘dismissed’ the deaths of our soldiers? Give me a quote.

Stephen,

You guys call him a defeatist when he has never called this war unwinnable, tell us he has no plan when he’s already offered one.

He has called Iraq a failure and the Prime Minister a puppet. He makes speeches in the most strident tones about how the sky is falling and all is lost… unless HE is elected of course. The all important ingredient for success in John Kerry’s mind is, guess what, John Kerry! It is laughable that a man of such self importance begins this kind of desperate flailing when the going gets tough. I’m not sure Kerry can withstand the kind of pressure of dealing with a war on terror.

So it all becomes about deposing Saddam Hussein, which wasn’t a good enough reason to invade Iraq all these years since the Gulf War.

Perhaps that’s because we had Bill Clinton in office. If George Bush had had a second term Saddam may have been dealt with the way you wanted with rigorous weapons inspections and enough pressure applied to even topple him. You’re also disregarding the fact that Clinton signed a bill making regime change a national security policy priority.

You defend a president’s lack of planning, and lack of initiative on new planning by saying he’s staying the course, and that all the escalations are merely evidence of the desperation of our opponents in the face of some arbitrary deadline. This time, it’s elections. Last time, it was Sovereignty. Before that, the capture of Saddam Hussein. Each time the escalation of violence has not ceased, but in fact continued. I fully expect that the Bush administration will set another date for the insurgents to quake in fear at, one that they will almost certainly ignore like all the rest.

What escalation? You give me the impression that you believe the insurgents are fighting and taking ground like an army. They’re not. They are killing Iraqi civilians in a terrorist effort to stop democracy. They are committed to making sure the US leaves Iraq. Guess what, that’s what Kerry says we should do. Kerry says we should have never been there. Kerry says we were wrong to depose Saddam and try to help the Iraqi’s create a consenual government.

I am sick of waiting for Bush to to turn this situation around and get Iraq pacified.

And you think having Kerry in the White House will make that process go faster? Don’t delude yourself. For the last year Kerry has called for delaying every progressive step of the Iraqi government. He said we should delay handing over the authority to the transitional government. Now he says we should delay the elections because the country is controlled by insurgents (I’m sorry, I meant to say minutemen.) and unless everyone gets to vote it won’t be a valid election. Why would we want anyone to vote in the areas where the terrorist support is? That’s ludicrous.

Do you see the flaw in that logic? The terrorists are desparate because they know that they do not have sufficient public support to win with elections. The baathists are a minority, as the Al Sadr militia is a minority of the shia. Notice that Sistani is willing to have elections because he knows he has the numbers and the support to win.

Was Bush prepared for war when it counted? look at the approximately 60 billion added to that, and ask yourself why he was paying for body armor, vehicle armor and other costs months after the invasion rather than month’s before it. Oh, should we mention the other Budget Supplemental?

The military was in the process of upgrading vehicles and body armor regardless of the war Stephen. The supplemental was what needed to be done to speed up the process. Which Kerry apparently thought was a good bill to make a political statement on. Is that a failure of ideology or political machination?

And Bush leaves the insurgents to brood in the areas they control. A year and a half after we’ve invaded, and we’ve still got areas of the country we don’t control. One would think we’d actually try and secure full control of the Capital City at least.

A whole year and a half? How long do you think it should take? Should it have taken a month? Two months? Give me a timeline of how long it takes to put down an insurgency.

Posted by: eric simonson at September 27, 2004 11:19 PM

One good thing is that if Kerry’s elected, we can get rid of our fraudlent coalition (so called by Kerry, no doubt, because of his superior intellect and diplomacy).

Once we get England, Poland, Japan, Australia, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Netherlands, Romania, Denmark, Hungary, and the rest out of the picture, then our TRULY important allies, the French can send their fierce inconquerable warriors into Iraq!

Or read this article. My favorite part is France’s demand that any talks on Iraq include the insurgents groups. After all, if the beheaders aren’t at the negotiating table, how can you surrender to them?

Posted by: Martin at September 27, 2004 11:37 PM

cf-

You could re-open all of the schools, and even open a hundred brand new ones, too. They don’t mean a damn if dozens of civilians and soldiers are being killed every single day, if American and Iraqi peacekeeping forces are being attacked 80 times a day, if a dozen bombs are going off in major cities every day.

I couldn’t disagree more. Chris, this is fundamental. Counterinsurgency is not merely military battles, it is political. Probably more political than military. The armed forces doctrine on fighting insurgents in foreign countries, (yes there is one), makes it an imperative that such public works and development must go on at the same time in order to be effective.

The doctrine provides principles to guide the actions of US forces conducting counterguerrilla operations. In applying these principles, the commander must be aware that the situation in each counterguerrilla operation is unique. Techniques and tactics applied successfully in one situation may not be suitable if applied in the same manner in another situation. The principles in this manual are guides to be adapted to each counterguerrilla situation.

…There is a difference in the terms counterinsurgency and counterguerrilla. The internal defense and development (IDAD) program is geared to counter the whole insurgency. It does this through alleviating conditions which may cause insurgency. This program, which addresses both the populace and the insurgent, can be termed counterinsurgency. Counterguerrilla operations are geared to the active military element of the insurgent movement only. To this end, counterguerrilla operations are viewed as a supporting component of the counterinsurgency effort.

…The response of US forces in any given situation must meet the following requirements:

(1) Be appropriate — response is appropriate to the level of threat and activity.

(2) Be justifiable – actions taken are justifiable in the eyes of the host country’s population and the US public.

(3) Use minimum force — the goal is to restrict the use of force and the level of commitment to the minimum feasible to accomplish the mission. However, the principle of minimum necessary force does not always imply minimum necessary troops. A large number of men deployed at the right time may enable a commander to use less force than he might otherwise have done, or even to avoid using any force at all. Commanders must, however, keep in mind that a peaceful situation could become hostile because of the provocative display of an overlarge force. Doing too much may be a greater danger than doing too little.

(4) Do maximum benefit – US forces should select operations so they accomplish positive benefit for the population. If this
is not possible then the operational concept is wrong and should not be executed.

(5) Do minimum damage – US forces ensure that operations preclude unnecessary damage to facilities, activities, and resources. Since this is almost an impossibility, compensation for any damage to property must be made and the property restored, as much as possible, to its original state. In any
case, a major consideration is to plan activities to limit damage.

US Marine Corps Publication MCRP 3-33A,
Counterguerilla Operations

The idea that we should stop building schools or improving the lives of Iraqis, or that it doesn’t matter whether we do or not while they are getting attacked by terrorists is flatly wrong.

You’re living in a dream world. A partisan dream world.

Right back at ya.

It is taking so long because counterinsurgency is not what we are good at. It is not something that is easy. It is not something that you can judge the effectiveness of success or failure immediately. Results take time because of the nature of counterinsurgency. No matter what you think Kerry’s capabilities are he cannot change that with ‘the power of his diplomacy’.

If Kerry’s magic hat is any indication, Kerry is comfortable spinning his own make believe world.

Posted by: eric simonson at September 28, 2004 12:01 AM

Eric,
You asked how long should it take to stabilize Iraq. Lets see, America took over Iraq in about 3 weeks. With the additional 160,000 troops stated in the report to secure the borders and outlining towns as well as an international team to respond to the problems that faced the nation so that real changes could of been seen by all within a few weeks. I’d say about 3 months.

Martin,
And how would you call for the end of violence in Iraq. A Nuke!

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 28, 2004 12:01 AM

Is that why the Bush administration has not spent the 18 million dollars earmarked for reconstruction in Iraq?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 28, 2004 12:05 AM

I was never that much of a “law and order/lock up all the bad guys and throw away the key” conservative, but isn’t it funny how the roles have completely reversed here?

How often have Democrats told us that the root causes of violence are that we just don’t have enough public services—schools, social programs and the like? Now we’re told they mean nothing. Remember that the next time Democrats propose raising the education budget for urban schools.

Posted by: Martin at September 28, 2004 12:06 AM

We’re not spending enough money in Iraq? And here I thought Democrats were saying we spending too much.

For a fuller taste of this kind of thinking, straight from the fearless leader himself, check out the ultimate John Kerry ad. I truly love it.

Posted by: Martin at September 28, 2004 12:11 AM

Martin,
The 18 million dollar reconstruction fund was establish back when Bush didn’t want to pay for the 87 billion bill to support our troops. Remember the debate over a loan not a grant?

Can you explain why less than 5% of those funds have been spent? Also, please tell us why some of those funds have come up missing when Bush was directly in charge of Iraq?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 28, 2004 12:17 AM

I give up, Henry. Why?

It’s either because the money is being budgeted and spent when needed instead all of once—or, gasp, Cheney and Bush put it all in their private Texas bank accounts.

Posted by: Martin at September 28, 2004 12:21 AM

Martin,

I just fell off my chair! The ultimate Kerry ad!

The only candidate with the courage to take a position on both sides of every issue! Priceless.

Also, that International Herald Tribune story is exactly the reason why Kerry is the wrong man, at the wrong time, for the wrong office.

France said Monday that it would take part in a proposed international conference on Iraq only if the agenda included a possible U.S. troop withdrawal, thus complicating the planning for a meeting that has drawn mixed reactions.

Paris also wants representatives of Iraq’s insurgent groups to be invited to a conference in October or November, a call that would seem difficult for the Bush administration to accept.

Posted by: eric simonson at September 28, 2004 12:29 AM

Martin,
I can not link to the actual web site right now, but go to C-Span and search for the Committee meeting hearing on the issue of funds fir Iraq. The administration spokesperson answers alot of these questions.

Eric,
See the French will get involved for a price. Now, lets see if Bush can work out a comprimise before the election. I know what I would do.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 28, 2004 12:46 AM

Eric and Martin, which side do you wish to take? Both of them?

Martin, you have stated that the situation in Iraq will be resovled in six months and that is why Kerry will follow exactly the sam course as Bush.

Eric, you state that minimal force should be used. Is that why we are conducting air raids? Is 20,000 civilian casualties so far minimal force?

Also, you tout the coalition as broad and deep, yet you denigrate diplomacy. Which stand do you take? Or is it that Bush has the only correct nuance?

Posted by: Greg at September 28, 2004 05:01 AM

> The idea that we should stop building schools
> or improving the lives of Iraqis, or that it
> doesn’t matter whether we do or not while
> they are getting attacked by terrorists is
> flatly wrong.

Nice straw man Eric. I would never say such a thing. We should continue reconstruction efforts aggressively, for humanitarian and public relations purposes, but one simply cannot logically use such reconstruction as rhetorical evidence of how great things are in Iraq when the piles of corpses and the pounding of explosions are the real first lessons of the day in Iraq.

> Give me a timeline of how long it takes
> to put down an insurgency.

That’s the President’s job. He should have said, before the war, before the October congressional vote, “Daily violence in Iraq will become America’s primary focus for the next 5-10 years.”

Before the war, Eric, honestly, how long did you think we’d be there? Did you buy into the “flowers and kisses” scenario? Sometimes I imagine spending a few hours sometime compiling what Bush-supporting WatchBloggers were writing about the prospect of insurgency and occupation before the war. My guess is that I’d find that almost every one of the most pessimistic anti-war predictions have come true, while almost every one of the optimistic pro-war predictions has not.

> The baathists are a minority, as the Al
> Sadr militia is a minority of the shia.

Ah, so if the enemy fighters are a minority we have nothing to worry about? Nice logic. The US Army is a minority too. Your point?

I once read that the IRA at its peak had maybe a hundred or so soldiers. The Red Brigade in Italy was maybe a couple of dozen. The Baader-Meinhoff gang was less than a dozen. And yet these groups crippled their nations. The most candy-coated estimate of the size of the insurgency is about 5,000. The least candy-coated estimate is ten times that. Either way, Iraq will continue to be crippled until the insurgencies either get what they want when Bush pulls the troops out, or until they are totally defeated by President Kerry.

> Notice that Sistani is willing to have
> elections because he knows he has the
> numbers and the support to win.

Oh, great!

Big picture, Eric: If the January Elections occur, and if the people select a bunch of former Baathists, Communists, anti-American warlords, and Sunni and Shiite fundamentalitsts (the kind of creepy partisan breakdown that Iraqis have already chosen in Iraqi National Council voting), and then Bush pulls us out, will you consider the war a success?

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 28, 2004 08:00 AM

How long it takes? How long di dit tak ethe United Sates to become stable? How long di dit take for us to receive all of our freedoms and liberties? How long where we unstabble? I remember 2 more wars on our soil after our “independence”. The liberal media wants us to belive that since we are in an age where we can order a product online and have it delivered th enext day that the same thing can happen with freedom. It takes years, hundreds of years. Lets not forget that. We cant expect Iraq to be in tip top shape already no matter who is in office. Its unrealistic.

Posted by: Chris at September 28, 2004 09:12 AM

> How often have Democrats told us that the root
> causes of violence are that we just don’t have
> enough public services—schools, social
> programs and the like? Now we’re told they
> mean nothing.

It looks like both Martin and Eric thought I didn’t think the reconstruction efforts were important, and I can see from my post (“They don’t matter.”) how they might get that impression. I didn’t mean to imply that at all.

Again, I think the reconstruction efforts, education, health care, employment, etc are critical to Iraq’s future peace. I was simply trying to point out to Eric that evidence of success in the area of public/social improvements is not proof that Iraq is now safe, nor is it proof that the insurgencies aren’t growing worse. Some of the articles I’ve linked to above, in fact, speak of such programs coming to a standstill under the weight of frequent insurgent violence. Many of the foreign investors who had such high hopes only a year ago have scaled back, stalled, or entirely pulled out because of the insurgencies. In fact, that’s the point of the kidnappings and beheadings: to cripple the reconstruction process and to drive out foreign capitalists.

Despite having been granted the first license for a foreign bank to operate in Iraq in forty years, HSBC still hasn’t opened any branches, a decision that may mean losing the coveted license altogether. Procter & Gamble has put its joint venture on hold, and so has General Motors. The U.S. financial backers of the Starwood luxury hotel and multiplex have gotten cold feet, and Siemens AG has pulled most staff from Iraq. The bell hasn’t rung yet at the Baghdad Stock Exchange – in fact you can’t even use credit cards in Iraq’s cash-only economy. New Bridge Strategies, the company that had gushed back in October about how “a Wal-Mart could take over the country,” is sounding distinctly humbled. “McDonald’s is not opening anytime soon,” company partner Ed Rogers told the Washington Post. Neither is Wal-Mart. The Financial Times has declared Iraq “the most dangerous place in the world in which to do business.” It’s quite an accomplishment: in trying to design the best place in the world to do business, the neocons have managed to create the worst, the most eloquent indictment yet of the guiding logic behind deregulated free markets.

It’s all part of a single picture: We have to rebuild Iraq, we have to defeat the insurgents, and we have to get broader international support, in the form of money, material, manpower, and most importantly (and most lacking) international goodwill.

Eric, I also want to say that I agree with you that the insurgents’ goals are political in nature. Maybe you should tell the President that, since he keeps painting the insurgents’ efforts as simple acts of comic-book style “evil”, as if there were no underlying political motivations.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 28, 2004 09:26 AM

> The liberal media wants us to belive that
> since we are in an age where we can order
> a product online and have it delivered the
> next day that the same thing can happen
> with freedom.

A year and a half ago (back when all the Republicans were talking about a rapid American victory and a fast installation of a INC-based democratic government in Iraq), whenever a liberal accused the Bush administration of being impatient and having unrealistic expectations, we were accused of being defeatist. When we said that we weren’t sending enough troops, we were called unsupportive. When we said “we’ll be there for years” we were called pessimists. WE WERE RIGHT.

Bush is the one who started the war recklessly in the first place. And today, Bush is the one who is actually contemplating an equally reckless withdrawal, not Kerry.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 28, 2004 09:34 AM

“Most Europeans are not anti-American, but they are anti-Bush,” says Fraser Cameron of the Brussels-based European Policy Centre. As such a Kerry victory and an end to the influence of neo-conservative policy-setting in Washington “will have chancelleries across Europe, including in London, heaving a collective sigh of relief,” he says. “If George W. Bush had a master plan to upset Europeans… he could not have been more successful,” adds Cameron.

EU policymakers, who view almost all current American initiatives with suspicion, will be ready to give “more credit” to the future actions of a Democratic presidency even if the policies are not too different from current ones, says a senior EU diplomat. For one, Kerry’s language of alliances and partners is music to EU ears after four years of being bullied and treated like “kitchen boys” by the Bush administration. “The collective build-up of transatlantic insults and bad faith under the Bush administration can only be swept away if there is a change in government in Washington,” says the diplomat, adding, “The slate has to be wiped clean.”

The good news for many Europeans is that the Democratic presidential contenders are making an effort to get to know the EU. Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards has made two trips to meet top EU and NATO policymakers in the last two years, showing what Drozdiak calls an impressive readiness to listen to Europeans’ views on a range of issues. “People found it refreshing to meet a US politician who to wanted to hear them out rather than tell them what to do,” he says. (emphasis added)

Europeans for Kerry

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 28, 2004 11:13 AM

Is this a plan for victory? I want to know why John Kerry thinks that US troops have failed. So much so, that they need to be replaced by European troops in order for there to be ‘victory’ in Iraq.

This is a contortion of what Kerry has stated. No where at anytime has he denegrated our troops. Apparently you wish to foster this idea. I suppose if you can create this myth, you feel it will benefit Bush. Don’t you feel even a little queasy creating the false impression among our troops that their next president thinks so little of them? Why do you want to demoralize our troops, Eric?

Posted by: Greg at September 28, 2004 11:49 AM

These quotes out of context are very clever, but they ain’t fooling me.

We should increase funding [for the war in Iraq] by whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win.”
August 31, 2003

I don’t think I can argue with that. You probably can’t argue with it, either. Bush, however, doesn’t seem to agree, at least not publicly. He is perpetually unable to ask for the right amount of money for our troops. He is continuously hampered by ludicrously optimistic fantasies and cynical political concerns, always delaying his funding requests until it’s too late. Mark my words, on November 3rd, Congress will get yet another bill for tens of billions of dollars, dollars that probably should be spent right now. You should read the full interview to see how committed Kerry actually has been all along.

“We should not send more American troops. That would be the worst thing.”
September 4, 2003

This was said during a Democratic debate. He was explaining that the President failed to put together an international coalition, and that he should try that before sending more American troops. I’ll admit that Kerry was probably also trying to not sound too hawkish here, contrasting himself with Lieberman, but hey that’s politics.

The full quote:

And I and others warned him not to rush to war, to take the time to build the coalition to do what’s necessary. Why? Because not only do you gain more support for your country, but that’s the way that you best protect the troops in the field. The next level of failure of leadership is in actually not doing what’s necessary now to protect the troops. I disagree with Joe Lieberman on this. We should not send more American troops. That would be the worst thing. We do not want to have more Americanization. We do not want a greater sense of American occupation. We need to minimize that. And the way to do that is do everything possible, including sharing the power, to bring other countries in to take the burden.

That was a year ago, back when the Administration was lying and saying that the insurgency was dying out, that they were just cleaning up some disorganized rabble. Kerry was saying that the Iraqi people were beginning to sense, and resent, an “American occupation”. Prophetic words, eh?

“If it requires more troops … that’s what you have to do.”
April 18, 2004

I think you’d agree with this statement, as do I. Strangely, just like with the money, Bush doesn’t seem to want to admit this possibility. The troop level was way too low to begin with, and in the face of a rapidly-growing insurgency, a shrinking coalition, and a stalled reconstrcution, Bush still has yet to even entertain the prospect of sending more troops. Even as commanders on the ground in Iraq express a need for more troops, Bush brushes it off.

Also, your selective quoting out of context removes the wisdom of the full quote:

MR. RUSSERT: So if Iraq is not secure, how can you possibly say the U.N. and NATO are going to come to our rescue when they don’t have the troops or the interest of going in there?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, that is the dilemma. That is exactly the quandary that President Bush and this administration have put the United States of America in. And the tragedy is that there were three great opportunities for this administration to make it otherwise. Opportunity number one was when we voted and when the president broke his promise to build a legitimate coalition by being patient with the U.N. inspection process. Opportunity number two was when the statue fell in Baghdad and Kofi Annan invited the United States to come to the table and offered help and we rejected it. And opportunity number three was when this president went to the U.N. last fall and once again did not invite people, didn’t even acknowledge the kind of difficulties we were in that might have elicited some sympathy from other people.

Now, here we are. I believe the following very deeply. Number one, we cannot fail. I’ve said that many times. And if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos, that can provide the groundwork for other countries, that’s what you have to do.

Damn right.

“I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops.”
August 1, 2004

He’s talking about four years from now. Isn’t that what you want, too?

The full quote:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Can you promise that American troops will be home [from Iraq] by the end of your first term?KERRY: I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops. We will probably have a continued presence of some kind, certainly in the [Middle East] region. If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there [Iraq] but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us.

See, he’s not talking about doing this overnight, you know.

“We’re going to get our troops home where they belong.”
August 6, 2004

Are you against this? Do you want them there forever? I think it’s safe to say that all Americans want the troops to come home someday, right?

The quote above was delivered in a campaign speech in Kansas city. Here’s the context of the speech.

“And I know that I can run a more effective, smarter, more productive war on terror that actually makes America safer,” he said, “and I will do it by bringing to our side the allies that we used to have which should have been with us in the first place, I’ll take the target off American troops, I’ll share the burden with other nations, and we’re going to get our troops home where they belong.”

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 28, 2004 12:27 PM

> Why do you want to demoralize our troops, Eric?

His side will say anything to get elected, including laying whatever groundwork they can to ensure that if Kerry wins he will have as hard a time as possible.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 28, 2004 12:31 PM

The ugly truth is that Democrats have staked their campaign hopes on bad news for America. The closer to apocalypse we are, the better Kerry’s chances are for achieving the apex of his life.

Flirting With Disaster The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan. By Christopher Hitchens

…What will it take to convince these people that this is not a year, or a time, to be dicking around? Americans are patrolling a front line in Afghanistan, where it would be impossible with 10 times the troop strength to protect all potential voters on Oct. 9 from Taliban/al-Qaida murder and sabotage. We are invited to believe that these hard-pressed soldiers of ours take time off to keep Osama Bin Laden in a secret cave, ready to uncork him when they get a call from Karl Rove? For shame. slate.com

Chris,

The picture of Iraq that Kerry and the DNC want to paint right now is not the whole picture. And I can tell you that the troops in Iraq don’t feel as though they are failing. You can’t look at one single aspect of Iraq, throw up your hands and say it’s all going to hell. Kerry is doing a grave disservice by using this as a wedge in his bid for the White House. It crosses the line.

No one is really saying that everything is roses and lollipops. Adminstrations officials have admitted the insurgents are attempting to disrupt more and kill more Iraqis and US soldiers. That does not equate to defeat as Kerry is insisting.

Al Sadr’s militia for instance. When I quoted the Counterinsurgency manual about appropriate and minimum force used it’s essential to be targeted and to gather the intelligence necessary to kill the right people. We could do what the Russians would and level Fallujah and Sammara and Tikrit and Sadr city and take care of the immediate threat, but in the long run we would fail the goal of counterinsurgency. Al Sadr’s militia keeps rising up because we constrain ourselves to play out the insurgency so that it is defeated politically as well as tactically. Every time they rise up what they are really doing is proving they are thugs #1 to the people around them, and two they solidy and present themselves as targets. They have been literally massacred every time. #3 we defeat them over and over. Showing that they can be beaten and discrediting their cause. Without a standing army to defeat decisively in a major battle, like Germany or Japan, you may have to continue defeating them over a longer period of time in order to instill the same sense of defeat.

That’s why I am not frantic about the supposed apocalypse going on in Iraq. It is not as good as anyone would hope. One always hopes for and wants success and peace, but there is still a job to do. Democrats are unhappy that we are even there. Fine. But we are there, and defeating Bush is not going to change that.

Give me a timeline of how long it takes to put down an insurgency.

That’s the President’s job. He should have said, before the war, before the October congressional vote, “Daily violence in Iraq will become America’s primary focus for the next 5-10 years.”

The point is that you can’t put a timeline on it. It’s ridiculous to expect one. I think it’s an invalid argument to say after one year we still have insurgents and that’s why Bush is a failure. You can argue that it was a mistake to go in at all, if that is your perogotive. That is the real argument behind such statements. Make it.

As for elections, what is the goal of the insurgents? Main goal: drive out the US. Secondary goal take back control of Iraq. Part of defeating the insurgents is strengthening the Iraqi government. First you have to have a government to strengthen it. Without the transfer of power to an Iraqi government half of our job isn’t even started. Sistani is a moderate voice. They will have power one way or the other because they are a majority. Better that they work within a democratic framework and see the benefits of such rather than making them an enemy to be fought. Then there really would be failure.

The goal is an Iraqi state that embraces democratic principles and is built on the consent of the governed. Iraq for Iraqis. This is our mission. Not just to get ourselves out of there ASAP. Although we do want to get out—when our job is reasonably finished.

I am extremely excited about the reconstruction of Iraq. For one, I want my city to adopt an Iraqi sister city.

The reason this is part of the war on terror is because, as Thomas Barnett puts it, all the destabiliation comes from the nations not integrated into the global economy. The war on terror is a global counterinsurgency.

Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 28, 2004 01:12 PM

Eric-
However long the timeline, the insurgency should have been put down long before we handed over control. We undermined the new Iraqi government by handing it a country neither we or it fully controlled, simple as that.

Bush undermined our troops by not having them be prepared for the contingency that the period after the invasion might not be as peaceful as predicted, by rushing to war without having the supplies firmly in place, and the number of soldiers needed to do the job right. Simple as that.

Bush took what could have been a humble thank you to the troops, and glorified himself, donning a flightsuit now when thirty years ago he could have cared less about even keeping his flight status because they didn’t have his favorite planes. He declares in his typical doubletalk that major combat operations are over, a declaration he will repeat with FOX’s Bill O’Reilly a year and a half and eight hundred deaths later. Fact is, the majority of our fighting in Iraq has been the insurgency, and Bush is perpetually pushing back the deadline on when that insurgency has ended.

He has to push it back because time and again, he’s finding that the insurgents don’t fight for Saddam, they don’t care about a piece of paper that says Iraq governs itself, they care about power, and they care about taking it from us and a government they see as one imposed by us. Democracy doesn’t matter to them. It’s doesn’t scare them except in how it gives power to the Shiites. in Iraq.

It is important to make clear how much this is about our occupation and not their democracy, because it is the heart of why Bush’s approach is so flawed. You say they hate democracy. I think they only care to the extent it makes our lives difficult.

And boy have they ever. You question whether there’s escalation, I say that you should look at the casualty figures and tell me something’s not escalating there. Also, according to newsweek, counter-insurgency experts are saying that the increase in bullet woundes among our casualties should be troubling. It means they’re standing and fighting, as opposed to merely harrassing or setting off roadside bombs. The authoritative NIE on this issue, recently leaked says things have gotten worse. The Bush administration admits things are getting worse, though it offers the rationale that things will eventually turn in our direction. Eventually.

That’s why I’m sick of waiting, because given the last few times he’s said we’re turning the corner, my experience is that his version of turning the corner is to wait until some important event to say that the next important event will be the end of opposition. I don’t want to be jerked around for the next four years on this crap. I want Kerry in office because that’s the easiest way to get improvement on this issue. Even if his immediate plans aren’t correct, I am convinced that Kerry is far more likely to correct his policy mistakes rather than persist in them.

Calling Bush’s policies failed is simply telling it like it is. Bush’s policies have not beaten back the insurgents, they have not made the region more secure. That is failure. Bush has had over a year to make some kind of progress. He has not done so. You can say the senior Bush would have done something, but it took Clinton to enforce no-fly zones, when Bush Senior wouldn’t support the Shiites and Kurds he promised to aid if they rebelled against Saddam.

In the end, his appearance on that aircraft carrier was an apotheosis of his disingenous character concerning the war. This man, who couldn’t be bothered thirty years ago to show for drills or maintain flight status, Is landed on an aircraft carrier by another pilot, walks out in a flightsuit, then makes a speech, in front of a huge banner saying mission accomplished, in which he declares major combat operations over, a double speak way of saying the war is over.

It could have been a simple thank you speech, but instead it becomes an exercise in self-aggrandizement. The soldiers deserve all the credit in the world for doing their duty. They do not deserve a commander in chief who puts them in harms way to suit his politics and his ego.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2004 01:17 PM

My building just shook, I think the coast may have just got hit with a pretty big earthquake like the last Pismo quake.

10:25 am Pacific Time.

Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 28, 2004 01:19 PM

Here’s another article. I’ve quoted more of it so that you can read it ‘in context’. No need to thank me. Just doing my job. Be sure to click on the link and read the whole thing yourself to see if there’s any statements that could possibly contradict the truth of the article.

French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.

Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush for failing to broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq, has pledged to improve relations with European allies and increase international military assistance in Iraq.

“I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president,” Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany’s ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview.

“That said, Mr Kerry seems genuinely committed to multilateralism and as president he would find it easier than Mr Bush to secure the German government’s backing in other matters.”

Even though Nato last week overcame members’ long-running reservations about a training mission to Iraq and agreed to set up an academy there for 300 soldiers, neither Paris nor Berlin will participate.

Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops “either now or later”.

That view reflects the concerns of many EU and Nato officials, who say the dangers in Iraq and the difficulty of extricating troops already there could make European governments reluctant to send personnel, regardless of the outcome of the US election.

A French government official said: “People don’t expect that much would change under a Kerry administration, even if things can only get better. We do not anticipate a sudden honeymoon in the event Kerry replaces Bush.

“A lot depends on who is in power in both Washington and Baghdad. If there’s change in both countries then it’s possible we would re-examine our position, but I don’t expect a massive change either way.” ft.com

Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 28, 2004 01:27 PM

Eric-
Let’s see how they are after four years of Kerry! I mean, good grief, it couldn’t be any less a radical change than our relations between 9/11 and now.

I have never seen a more diplomatically challenged White House in my entire life. If the George W. of today ran the White House of the Reagan Era the way he runs it now, The old Europe would have become a part of the New Europe.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2004 01:54 PM

Eric, if France sends 10 troops, it’ll be a big deal to me. Bush can’t even get them to send 10 troops.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 28, 2004 01:55 PM

Comment deleted for failing to observe our Critique the Message policy. —Watchblog Manager

Posted by: FUDavidRemer at September 28, 2004 02:18 PM

Eric, It’s God warning you. LOL

No one is trying to be the Bad News Bear, it’s called truthfulness and reality check.

I realize you don’t have a way to argue for the successes of Mr Bush. They are far to few. But stooping to the contortions of Kerry’s positions just seems below your intelligence to me.

Even those that know GW the best are endorsing Kerry Bush loses Hometown support

Jeb needs to watch his step in Florida, there are 2 months of Hurricane season left.:)

Posted by: Greg at September 28, 2004 03:58 PM

To the poster named FUDavidRemer:

I’ve been consistently on the other side of the coin from Mr. Remer, yet I have found him to be fair and impartial. He has, I think, called me on the carpet when my sarcastic tone has become overly caustic, yet when I re-read my words, I tend to agree with his chastisement.

I would advise you to look inward and seek a greater understanding of why Mr. Remer felt the need to delete or alter your posts. When I have done so, I’ve typically found a relatively good reason.

While I often disagree with him, I would never go so far as to call him the kind of name that you have just done. That is wholely and entirely uncalled for. If that kind of rhetoric is consistent with your other posts, then I support the censoring of your posts.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 28, 2004 04:56 PM

Leadership is also not about proclaiming “Mission Accomplished” in the most expensive photo-op in history, and then dismissing the subsequent deaths of 800+ Americans a “miscalculation”, because one has failed to plan for anything but a best-case scenario.

Of course not. We should never tell the troops that they’ve done a good job should we?

Oh, you think all that was for the troops? Don’t you think he could have told them they’d done a good job wearing a suit and tie? No, Eric, the whole flyboy outfit was so that he, Bush, would look like a soldier hero to the voters at home. He wasn’t patting the troops on the back, he was standing on their shoulders.

And do you honestly think that Bush would have staged all that if knew what was coming up in Iraq? that there were another 850 body bags that were going to be sent home? would Karl Rove have recommended that, Eric? No, “Mission Accomplished” and “Bring it on” are two really good clues that Bush has flying without a clue. He wasn’t prepared for anything after the invasion except parades and roses - in spite of advice from the Pentagon and the State Dept.

And that mistake, which has cost hundreds of American servicemen and women their lives, seems to ol’ W to be only a “miscalculation”.

And don’t go on about “who does he need to apologize to” - I don’t care if he calls it a mistake or a pomegranite. But to keep the same team in place without change, because he’s afraid to take the political heat for admitting a mistake - well, let’s just say that in my mind, that’s a lot closer to giving aid to the enemy than to supporting our troops.

Posted by: William W. Cohen at September 28, 2004 05:35 PM

FUDR-
You’re arguing with the officer for issuing you the ticket for running a stop sign when the thing is in plain view. You may think name calling is a legitimate part of discourse, but most of the rest of us here think it’s a waste of our time. There are sites were you can vent whatever dark feelings you have about liberals, including your own. Then there is Watchblog. Watchblog is, in essence, a debate oriented site. Facts, quotations, moderated language and citations. You chafe at that. Understandable. But you shouldn’t curse us because you didn’t understand the rules coming in, especially the one way up at the top of each column.

I mean, you’ve likely read my rather contentious debates with Martin, Eric and Sebastian. We don’t exactly keep the gloves on. We are ruthless in calling each other out on what we see as the other person’s errors. But that’s the thing. We aren’t lacking in testicular fortitude like you declare on your sight. We have the guts to argue things on the facts and theories and not just trade insults ad nauseum.

Eric-
An issue of style: could you quote the highlights and salient points, and not just cut and paste the bulk of it? I’m interested in what you think more about these articles as much as the content, and I find myself skimming more than I’d prefer to.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2004 07:34 PM

Eric,

Kerry says we were wrong to depose Saddam and try to help the Iraqi’s create a consenual government.

Kerry says we were wrong to depose Saddam the way we did. It’s the d