Senator John Kerry on Connecticut's Iraq Debate
"Iraq has been a national security disaster and a terrible set-back in the war on terror. As Robert Kennedy said of Vietnam, there is enough blame to go around. We must all accept our responsibility to change course. We don't need misleading speeches. We don't need slogans. We need leaders who will tell it straight and stand up to this administration and say it's time to change course. Ned Lamont is providing that kind of leadership.
Senator Lieberman and I disagree deeply and profoundly on Iraq. No matter how much Senator Lieberman pretends otherwise, as we were debating a Senate resolution to change course on Iraq, our intelligence agencies were telling this Administration that America is less safe and more endangered by terrorists because of the failed stay-the-course policies in Iraq. There's just no excuse for continuing the old line that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror when in fact we know Iraq is a recruiting poster for terrorists while the real war on terror in Afghanistan spirals downwards.
The maxim that we'll stand down as Iraqis stand up is a myth. We need a deadline for the redeployment of American troops to force Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. Aimless talk of stay the course is making things worse. Every time the Administration says we'll stay as long as it takes is an excuse for Iraqis to take as long as they want. We are stuck in a growing civil war that sets us back in the war on terror. It does a disservice to our troops to stick with a broken policy over and over again and expect different results. We need leadership with the courage to change course."
Very good stuff. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
[via Kos. No original source cited. Crossposted at Kakistocrats]
UPDATE: Opening changed to incorporate link.
16 comments:
Kerry has no gun. It's amazing how you liberals think dividing this country is a positive development. It's amazing how you liberals think establishing a time line on a war somehow makes sense.
It's sheer idiocy what you spew.
And then there's the negative propaganda you folks perpetuate. Can you imagine if what you spew these days was done back in 1945?
In the Eye of the Beholder
Imagine if the press reported and opined on WWII the way the liberal leaning media does now.
The Present Debacle
May 21, 1945 — After the debacles of February and March at Iwo Jima, and now the ongoing quagmire on Okinawa, we are asked to accept recent losses that are reaching 20,000 dead brave American soldiers and yet another 50,000 wounded in these near criminally incompetent campaigns euphemistically dubbed “island hopping.”
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson051206.html
Go Kerry!
Sickofspin, Bush is no FDR, Cheney is no Truman, Abizaid is no MacArthur, the Congress of 1945 was not a rubber stamp operation and Okinawa was nothing like Iraq.
Furthermore, don't mistake media reports you find disagreeable with negative political propaganda. The corporate media prove daily how at pains they are to kowtow to and accommodate the Bush administration and the RNC. But there are apparently limits to how far they can go before they so damage their own credibility that they risk doing themselves in.
If you think what is happening in Iraq is in any way comparable to World War II there is no point engaging you.
I will throw this one out there since you brought up World War II... In the time we have been bogged down in Iraq, we defeated both Germany AND Japan across a global front.
--
By the way, sos, it wasn't Kerry and the Democrats who "divided the country" it was our "Uniter" President and his Party. Since they've cast Kerry and any critical voices as traitors, Kerry might as well articulate his actual opinion.
--
If Democrats don't present a plan, they are just whining and undermining the War. If they do present a plan, they are dividing the country and undermining the war.
Sorry, that shit doesn't fly.
Cutting and running....
Sorry, but that shit doesn't fly.
And never mind that both S.W. Anderson and Mr. Furious missed the point entirely (willfully neglecting the point?).... We were unified in WWII. You folks don't want any such thing today.
Had the mainstream media and minority party elected officials behaved back then as it does today with all the unfounded 'quagmire,' 'debacle', and 'incompetent' b.s., as was exemplified in my previous post, then no, WWII wouldn't have ended as it did.
Make no mistake, the left has decided to undermine support for the war in Iraq.
Liberals - party before country.
Funny enough, a Democrat President led us to war in WWII. And as you put it, there was unity. And a Democrat President's economic policies were pulling us out of a massive depression and giving jobs to people. A Democrat President's military appointees and top brass were doing an absolutely smashing job, except for the fuckup McCarthur who nearly screwed up the Pacific Campaign (and totally biffed Korea)...but we were on a roll and won in spite of that.
Plus, with WWII, there was an identiofyable end-point and enough of a coalition of sorts that the restructuring of Germany went pretty quickly by historic standards (we'll get into the politically-expedient remapping of the Middle east that has partially lent to the whole mess we see right now in a later post).
But it's not just us libruls. Seems that polls show that a majority of Americans don't support what's going on right now behind a criminally incompetent Administration. I feel awful for our troops and Generals, hamstrung as they are by the brain-dead Rumsfeld. I bet the top brass has some ideas about what to do over there, but it doesn't count because it certainly doesn't involve "staying the course."
Party before country? Laughable. The clearest adherence to that moniker lies specifically with this Administration in example after example. If Bush were truly concerned about victory in the Middle East and safety here at home, our course in Iraq would look a bit different. Not "gone," certainly, but different.
Cut and run is a dead phrase, man. Nobody buys it any more. If the message truly resonated among rational people, Bush's approval ratings would probably be a little higher than the 39 to 44% it is now. Both of those numbers, by the way, in case you missed statistics, shows that that the majority of Americans are pissed at the Prez. I'm just sayin'...
Oh yeah, and as for the notion that the left has decided to undermine support:
This is from John Negroponte. You may know him as a Bush appointee and, um, Director of National Intelligence.
--activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion
--threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.
Sounding like the Intelligence community is ocnvinced we're on the right track? Sounds like resounding success? Wait...there's more.
--We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives
Hey. Sounds to me like it's the liberals who are undermining our success doesn't it?
There's plenty more. They support, among other things, a conmtention thhat maybe if we focus a little more on economic, infrastructure and social reforms and less on our present course, we'll start seeing some results. ANd that the current situation lends itself to a simple perception of success among jihadists, and that all they need, according to Negroponte, is a perception of success in Iraq. Not in U.S. "cutting-and-running" but in killing an average of 100 people a day and the fact that they are getting more "recruits," not less. THAT kind of success.
He goes on to point out some stuff that would be part of a new strategy in Iraq that includes moderate voices, an emphasis on economic and social reform and the like. Not exactly our present course, which again Negroponte is clear is contributing to the problem.
The king's own men, sickofspin. The king's own men.
sickofspin actually wrote:
"We were unified in WWII. You folks don't want any such thing today."
We were just as unified on Sept. 12, 2001. Most Democrats, many of them liberals, were trying to maintain that unity when they too trustingly voted George W. Bush authority to go to war "as a last resort."
The facts are very clear about who has promoted division and exploited the terror war for political gain, and it's not Democrats. It was and is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith — the whole sorry lot of neocon pols.
Yes, we brand them incompetent. We've got overwhelming evidence to support that charge and a stack of bills our great grandchildren will still be struggling to pay off.
Thanks for fighting the good (but futile) fight, Smitty and s.w.a.
In sos's world you have but one option. Blindly following along with whatever your vaunted leader wants or says.
Works for them I suppose. No need to think for yourself.
Good one swa, I was going to say something like that.
This country WAS united, and the Republicans chose to exploit the attacks for political gain and used dividing the country as an election issue.
You're all full of crap.
Your party as a whole has done NOTHING but spew negatives, defeatist tones, throw up obstructions, called Bush a rash of names, labelled him incompetent while offering no alternatives to his policy (except cut and run), you object to the Patriot Act, you object to terrorist surveillance, you object to tracking their finances....
Sure, you folks were 'united' on September 12th, because that was the political thing for you to do. But you worked as hard as you could to undermine that with your negativity, your party before country mentality and so here we are today..... Your hatred of Bush is what drives you, not love of country. If you truly loved your country you wouldn't spew the things you do. Your ray of hope is winning back the White House, a reasonable person's hope is defeating terrorism.
I'll leave you with the words of Tony Blair:
And of course, the new anxiety is the global struggle against terrorism without mercy or limit.
This is a struggle that will last a generation and more. But this I believe passionately: we will not win until we shake ourselves free of the wretched capitulation to the propaganda of the enemy, that somehow we are the ones responsible.
This terrorism isn't our fault. We didn't cause it.
It's not the consequence of foreign policy.
It's an attack on our way of life.
It's global.
It has an ideology.
It killed nearly 3,000 people including over 60 British on the streets of New York before war in Afghanistan or Iraq was even thought of.
It has been decades growing.
Its victims are in Egypt, Algeria, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Turkey.
Over 30 nations in the world.
It preys on every conflict.
It exploits every grievance.
And its victims are mainly Muslim.
This is not our war against Islam.
This is a war fought by extremists who pervert the true faith of Islam. And all of us, Western and Arab, Christian or Muslim, who put the value of tolerance, respect and peaceful co-existence above those of sectarian hatred, should join together to defeat them.
Interesting that you didn't leave us with the words of George W Bush.
Just sayin'...
Unencumbered by the facts, in reference to Democrats, President Bush and the Iraq war or terror war, sickofspin wrote:
"Your party as a whole . . . offering no alternatives to his policy"
Not so, sos. John Murtha has offered an alternative plan, as have House Democrats as a whole, Sens. Joe Biden and John Kerry, and the Democratic Party. Google and ye shall find.
I know it's hard when you're trying to recite GOP talking points and White House spin, but you really ought to keep this in mind:
You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
S.W., like I said, cutting and running is not an option. That's all Murtha and his ilk have 'offered.' Counting that as an alternate proposal to fighting terrorism is a fraud.
And being void of facts my friend, is something you're guilty of, not me.
We're in a war, like it or not.
There is an interesting distinction that the public is making between Iraq and the Waronterror.
Essentially, a majority of the public, in a recent Gallup poll, believes (60% to 23%) that Iraq could be better handled by the Dems.
Conversely, a majority believes (68% to 17%) that the Republicans do better on terror.
What is important here is the distinction between the two: Iraq, according to most of us, is unrelated to terror and is actually hurting our efforts a bit, a contention supported by the release of the NIE report two days ago.
I blogged about this distinction on my own blog, but won't be so disrespectful to Mr. F by linking it here, but needless to say, I fleshed the argument out a little mroe.
But again, the poll shows how wrong the Iraq war is.
You can rejoice, however, Sick of Spin, in the part of the poll that says Rs do better on terror. Counterterrorism is working, so says the NIE report. BUT: does that mean wiretapping and Gitmo are working? Or we're better at sharing information?
$50 on the public, if you poll them, don't like either of those, but agree that the functions between FBI, CIA and others are what's working, which the Rs did indeed set up.
You in?
Here's a link over to Smitty's post. Go check it out.
And to all regulars (even sos), please feel free to link in the comments, I do it at places I frequent. I don't consider in uncouth, I actually think it's considerate and convenient.
Post a Comment