In his remarks, Kerry laid out the steps we must now take. First, the president must secure international support. Second, we must commit to a serious effort to train Iraqi security forces. Third, we must carry out a reconstruction plan that brings benefits to the Iraqi people, and fourth, we must take the necessary steps to hold elections next year.
I honestly was hoping Kerry had some real solutions. Instead, he would probably repeat his post-Vietnam behavior and cut and run. Kerry keeps trying to have it both ways by trying to explain his vote in 2002 to authorize the Iraq policies in force today. We all know his only reason for his vote in 2002 was to try and be on the right side of history. Then Dean came, and the switch occurred. I still wonder what view of the Iraqi war Kerry will have on November 2?
Posted by Tim at September 20, 2004 08:37 AM" 'president must secure international support.' - [Kerry] keeps beating this drum and it's a dog that won't hunt. The international community could have helped a long time ago with proper support in 2002 and 2003. They chose a path of least resistance. Why would they change now?" (trogers)
A funny line in one of the old Star Trek movies: Spock says something like, "We have an old Vulcan saying, 'Only Nixon could go to China.' "
The world hates President Bush. He thinks that's a badge of honor. We Dems think it's a shame. President Kerry can do things that President Bush can't---because Kerry's not the American President who mooned world leaders who wanted the nuclear test ban treaty, or the tiresome frat boy that gave the finger to the Kyoto global warming treaty, or who laughed at world leaders who wanted to keep the antiballistic missle treaty. Kerry isn't the guy who misled us to believe there were WMD factories and Al Qaeda agents all over Iraq.
You're asking why if we switch managers of a losing baseball team that the team might be able to play better than they previously did. Simple. It's because we're switching managers.
Posted by: Tom at September 20, 2004 08:32 PMAre you aware that President Bush threatened to veto the $87 billion, if it included an amendment that would have paid for it by rolling back the tax cuts on the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers?
If that version of the bill had passed and Bush had vetoed it, what are the odds that you would have been criticizing Bush?
Kerry also wanted some accountability on the $20 billion portion set aside for rebuilding Iraq. We didn't get it, and as a result only five percent of it has been allocated, more than a year later. And there is little oversight on how it is spent.
Just because you need to do something does NOT make it wrong to reject a stupid approach to doing it. Funding reconstruction by inflating the deficit and without accountability is not a smart idea.
Oh, and as for cutting and running? According to Bob Novak, that's what Bush plans to do. http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html
Posted by: Flash at September 21, 2004 10:12 AM
