Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Kerry’s plan for Iraq

Here, as published today, is John Kerry’s plan for Iraq. It comes, probably, as a response to critics who say that he has not put forth a real, clear plan for what he intends to do there if elected. Is this all he’s got? If this is his response to the critics then the critics were more correct than they thought. He offers nothing here but more vacuous suggestions for more international involvement. But how is that going to happen? Why would that be good? No satisfying answer is given. Are we supposed to think the involvement would come because he is more popular than Bush? Because he’s "a better leader"? Because he knows what it’s like to carry an M-16? Kerry reminds me of every annoying pimple-faced would be student-body president I ever met in my life. He’s got nothing to offer but his smug little self and he really believes that that is enough.

Discussions - 24 Comments

As long as we are doing Seinfeld references....doesn’t Edwards look like the guy Elaine gave a box of Tic Tacs to so he couldn’t sneak up on her all the time.

All those things he talks about, are not happening now and they need to happen if we are going to come out on top of this mess.
We need to get out of the lead on Iraq, it is hurting America beyond anyones expatations.
You know, you can still look out for your intrests without being in the spotlight.
We all know that is not George Bush’s style, so where does that leave us?

I think most of the anger directed at Kerry from the right is in response to the overwhelming dislike of Bush from the left

If we are not in the lead in Iraq, who would be, or should be in the lead? I fail to see any other country, or organization, that is fit to lead or maintain peace in Iraq.

James Joyner performs an expert fisking of Mr. Kerry’s op-ed on Outside the Beltway.

The things Kerry talks about which are not happening are not going to happen - ever.

And it’s not because Bush screwed it up - it’s because those nations which chose to oppose us were acting in their own perceived self-interest when they did it.


France (a) had a trading partner in Saddam; (b) was dirty as all get out in "Oil for Food" (which should’ve been called "Oil for Graft") and (c) certainly suspected that relationship would lead any any non-Saddam-successor government to shut them out.


Russia was in largely the same boat.


As for Germany, their leadership found opposing Bush convenient politically.


Here’s the big question for Kerry - what’s his "Plan B" when his "Plan A" is rejected?


Bug out?

Whats George Bush’s "Plan B" ?

Unfortunately the "sensitive" liberal stance will only be shown for it’s irrelevance after Norm Minetta’s no profiling nonsense gets another few thousand Americans murdered. Then you America hating Democrats might finally wise up. Probably not, you’ll find a way to make it GW’s fault.

The good news is that Bush wins by a landslide in November in spite of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and the New York Times.

Yeah, If FOX has anything to say about it.

As a follow up, the UN refuses to protect its own mission in Baghdad. This would make a perfect opportunity for the UN to make it’s mark and start the removal of US forces (as we all would like). However, based upon UN decisions, it is very clear that the US MUST be the lead in this war as no one else has a spine.

UN Refuses to protect

I forgot to add the link.

That’s what you don’t understand about Kerry.


There’s nothing nuanced about war - you either win or you lose.


Bush has a Plan A - win the war. If strategy & tactics have to change to get it done, fine, but that’s the goal.


Kerry’s Plan A isn’t going to work & he knows it. When it doesn’t, knowing how much of his criticism is centered on Bush irritating our "allies", will he continue the fight & risk the disapproval of the French, Germans, Russians, etc. ... or will he quit the fight because the opinion of the French, et al. is more important to him?

Kerry’s Plan B is unspoken, but it’s there - if NATO won’t cooperate, etc., then he’ll see to our withdrawal from the region whether the job is done or not.

George Bush’s plan is to win the war.
If strategy & tactics dont work, change them.
Acording to BradDad this is the plan that the current administration is offering the American Public.
Please BradDad dont give our enemys our battle plan, its all so clear to me now, how could I have ever doubted G.W.

BradDad is right! " win the war. If strategy & tactics have to change to get it done, fine, but that’s the goal. " VOTE JOHN KERRY.

From what I’ve heard from Kerry, there doesn’t seem to be too much difference between him and Bush on foreign policy. Sure, Kerry talks about our "allies," but there’s no way he’s blind enough to think that he can get countries like France to change their tune. If Kerry wins, I predict he’ll make a token overture to the French and the Germans, and when that fails he’ll pursue a policy in Iraq that’s virtually indistinguishable from the current one.

Policy in washington is what is causing the insurgency in Iraq, (i’m not talking about terror groups, but insurgents)so we must change our policy now before we end up unquestionably defending the wrong side once again.
All you have to is be fair.
Eh, probley to late already, how many dads, brothers, sons, mothers, wifes and children do you have to kill before you are deemed evil in the eyes of the people you came to free?

Gross to head CIA, this is the man who wants to let the CIA run wild inside U.S. borders to round up terrorists.
Can you say secret police.
There’s a reason we have never let the CIA opperate inside our borders and against our citizens, it is a clandestine "spy" organization.
You neo cons won’t be happy till you subvert the whole system.
Look at some point you have to take a risk. Understand that a terrorst could kill you one day. As an American I am willing to take that risk to preserve the freedoms and liberties that so many have fought and died for over the history of our country.
STOP JUST GIVING THEM AWAY!

The federal government has been spying on its citizens for most of the 20th century--only it’s been the FBI doing it rather than the CIA. Why this should make a difference is beyond me. And in any case, what do the "neo cons" (a term which is of very little use) have to do with it? Wasn’t it the 9/11 commission that recommended the creation of a single intelligence organization with control over both foreign and domestic intelligence?

So let me ask you a few questions John, 1. If the FBI already spys on the America public, why do we need the CIA also doing it? 2. Can you say the CIA and the FBI conduct there investagations in the same mannor?
The FBI is bound by this countrys laws, it investigates and prosecutes crimes commited in the United States. The CIA works outside the United States and and so it is not subject to the same rules, sure they have guidelines but the fact is there agents are spys.
And my final question to you John is do you still see no difference?
P.S. the term "neo con" is of great use to us on the other side of the fence, it puts a face on the people who we feel are pushing way to hard for there agenda. If "Bleading Heart Librals" = way to much freedom than "Neo Con" = way to much control.

A sensitive war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 people and developed weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more," Cheney said while campaigning in the key midwestern state of Ohio.


"The people who beheaded (Wall Street Journal reporter) Daniel Pearl and (US contractor) Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity," he said.


Cheney said the United States was in a "fight to preserve our freedom and our way of life ... (and) those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed."

John I dont think I remember the 9/11 commission recomending anything in reguards to letting the CIA opperate inside the U.S.

Comment 17 mentions all the civilians that have died at our hands, thus deeming us "evil". But think about this logically, how many civilians do you think Saddam would have killed in the past year had we taken no action to oust him?

That’s like asking, how many civilians do you think Hitler would have killed in Poland the past year if the Soviet Union had taken no Action to oust him?

"He’s got nothing to offer but his smug little self and he really believes that that is enough"

It could be.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/4734