John Kerry on Iraq
Now we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet.
Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren’t willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they’re probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.
As Gen. Zinni pointed out on Sunday, simply having an election does not a democracy make - especially when the people in question don’t have any sort of societal structures that would foster democracy in the first place. I would also argue that you cannot impose democracy at the tip of a spear.
I think it’s clear that Iraq is really not interested in a western-style democracy but rather a more traditional Sharia-based government like what we see in Iran. The Iraqi government we put up has no real power, with the decisions really being made by Islamic clerics like Sistani and Sadr. Those guys have more credibility with the Iraqis than the U.S. or our puppets over there do.
It’s time to stop the fairyland thinking that’s posing as strategy and get real about our current and future foreign policy. Sprinkling magical “democracy” dust is not going to cut it, especially when it neither furthers our goals - killing terrorists - and has unacceptable outcomes.
Hmm… if he’s finally getting around to doing stuff he should have done a long time ago, does this mean he’ll finally make public his full, uncensored military record?
J.
Brilliant idea, though I would give the government more time to build a unity government, end of June, say. It’s about time we started to see some return on our investment of blood and treasure. The Iraqis have to show a commitment to peace.
Not that it’s related to the issue at hand (Iraq) - conservatives can never deal with that, at least not honestly - but Kerry released everything. Certainly more than the absent one.
Really?!? We strengthen our hand by taking 150,000 of our boys and moving them FURTHER from Iran’s border?
Seriously, if you’re gonna make it May 15, you might as well make it April 13, so all the servicehumans can file income tax returns at home.
Kerry’s a joke — “Why doesn’t he just say, “I’m like Jack Murtha — the go - to decorated war hero for liberals.”
This should make you laugh:
http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1144044916.shtml
CONDI SAYS NUMBER OF U.S. MISTAKES CLOSER TO A BILLION
Forgot All The Mistakes Rumsfeld Made, Rice Says
Are you taslking about Bush JayTEa?
Farris remember none of these leftists have any military experience….the idea that they preach tactics to ANYONE is positively ludacris….
Its ok kids, the republicans will continue to do the heavy lifting&
Clearing brush isn’t heavy lifting…
pedro, no use claiming Kerry doesn’t have any military experience because he clearly does. How relevant that experience is is another matter all together. Being a stockboy at CompUSA doesn’t automatically qualify you to run Microsoft.
Farris remember none of these leftists have any military experience&
Clearly Pedro is a complete asshat:
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
oh, right, Kerry ran down a gut-shot 18 year and put a bullet in his head….sorry, I forgot that substitutes for War College experience.
The funny thing about this is it demostrates what I have been saying about the left all along. They are afraid to make definitive decisions, except after the fact. Once they are sure they know the answer, THEN all of a sudden they are these great leaders…forgetting that leaders LEAD.
Its ok kids, the republicans will continue to do the heavy lifting….
Yes, John Kerry has no military experience. Neither does John Murtha. Or Anthony Zinni. Or Wes Clark.
My original reference was to the posters here….OW etc, however you make my point about Kerry’s experience as well..
Oliver, go and read that story. Kerry released his records to a couple of Boston Globe reporters only — and they are long-time friends of his, one of whom wrote the obligatory thumb-sucker biography. They have NOT been made public, despite his repeated promises to do so.
I’m mainly interested in comparing his discharge date with the dates of the Paris conferences — because it looks a hell of a lot like a Navy Reserve Officer was meeting with representatives of the Viet Cong government during the war. There are laws against that sort of thing…
for attempting to kill the former President of the United States.
Can somebody back this up, please? I’ve been hearing it for years and I don’t remember anything about it.
Farris remember none of these leftists have any military experience& .the idea that they preach tactics to ANYONE is positively ludacris& .
Pedro, shut the fuck up! Who in the White House can you point ot that has any military experience? You are in a glass house.
And it’s ludicrous, not the rapper.
>>The funny thing about this is it demostrates what I have been saying about the left all along. They are afraid to make definitive decisions, except after the fact.
That is, unless you’re Bill Clinton launching a military strike on Iraq for attempting to kill the former President of the United States. Or interceding in Bosnia, to stop genocide.
Then, you’re just wagging the dog.
What’s your excuse for Kennedy’s response to Kruschev?
Pedro, you are as dumb, as the day is long. For that, you will always be a conservative.
JK
Our “perspective” changed after 9/11….remember?
and “fact”…leftists dissemble and lead ad hominem attacks when they can’t find an actual argument….
“That is, unless you re Bill Clinton launching a military strike on Iraq ”
HA….launching a dozen cruise missiles? Puh-lease…!
Yes, Bush has succeeded at protecting America from foreign terrorism…
IF YOU IGNORE THE FACT THAT HE PRESIDED OVER THE WORST TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Not to mention the attacks on Americans and our allies in Spain, London, Saudi Arabia, and our troops in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm
Here you go duros
Pee-dro you say Bush has been protecting us from terra’ for 4 years, but he has been in office 5 years. What happened the other year? Oh, yea 9 FREAKING 11. And your hero did nothing.
“Really?!? We strengthen our hand by taking 150,000 of our boys and moving them FURTHER from Iran s border?”
Well, it would mean they could actually do something to Iran, rather than just have them stuck in Iraq controlling the insurgency. Do you think that if Iran went nuclear all 150,000 troops in Iraq would just run across the border? What do you think would happen to Iraq if they did? Civil war? Oh wait…
Leaders lead, Trolls troll, Conservatives lie, Delay’s steal, what’s your point?
Saying “leaders LEAD” is like saying “singers SING” or painters “PAINT” or baseball pitchers “PITCH.” There are good and bad singers, painters, and pitchers…and leaders. What’re your criteria for defining a good leader?
No but protecting America from foreign terrorism is& ..
4 years and counting& .
We haven’t been hit by an asteroid lately either. What’s your point?
I am starting to think these Bushies deliberately fucked up the occupation of Iraq so they could pour $250 billion dollars into a hole that only they know where it goes. Someone said supporters of the war all have one thing in common: they are stupid. Except the ones getting the money.
It isn’t just that these idiots don’t want to hold anyone accountable, they don’t even want an accounting. On anything.
Pedro did this yesterday and it was laughable then, too–make blanket statements about “the American left,” get called on the wrongness of said statements, and then whimper “I meant only those on this website.”
I already know that it’s asking too much for Pedro to be original, but at least have the decency to wait a few days before you trot out the same boring tactics.
“No but protecting America from foreign terrorism is& ..
4 years and counting& .”
Tryouts for disciples of the Idiot Bastard Son ceased 11/2004
does this mean he ll finally make public his full, uncensored military record?
J.
Just as soon as GWB tells us the truth about why he went into Iraq, and
discloses the PDB’s.
I guess I should take this opportunity to say “bye” because this is usually the time when you disappear never to address any of the criticisms lodged against you.
“oh, right, Kerry ran down a gut-shot 18 year and put a bullet in his head& .sorry, I forgot that substitutes for War College experience.”
Pedro the liar,
Yes he did! While serving in the military when he didn’t have to. Is it a criticism to say someone fought admirably by killing an enemy? And don’t bring up the Swift Fraud allegations, they’ve been conclusively and repeatedly shown to be completely wrong. Shut up. You’re a parody of a winger at this point, diversify your information intake.
And apologize for lying about us finding WMD by citing an article which expressly stated that the WMD found were not from before the war and were not Saddam’s, in fact they were brought in by insurgents. Liar, fraud, hypocrite.
And while we’re at it, you should say that clinton is a great protector of america because after the first WTC bombing, there were zero foreign attacks for the next 7 years.
You idiots say the left is angry, well congrats, yes, I am angry at people like you who are completely without any sense of decency, perspective or truth. If you can’t get angry at that, there is something wrong with you.
Really? Germany and Japan seem pretty obvious examples.
Both Germany and Japan had some sort of semblance of a functioning society before they lost WWII. We also made a significant multi-decade investment in the infrastructure of both nations - which is why they are such significant economic partners 60 years later.
“I would also argue that you cannot impose democracy at the tip of a spear.”
Really? Germany and Japan seem pretty obvious examples.
bye mjb& .see ya real soon! Do you have a link to the swift vets being conclusively wrong anywhere?
GOD! You really are as stupid as they say. I don’t see why Oliver doesn’t just ban this asshole.
It’s the SAME THING, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER with Pedro. He’s the worst of trolls; too stupid to even attempt to alter his methodology. He’s worse than a GOP spambot, spewing the same stupid arguments that have been debunked a thousand times over.
ahhh…so if a country doesn’t have a “functioning society” we don’t bother?
Are you then argueing we should make a “significant multi-decade investment” in Iraq? If not, why not? It really worked well in Japan and Europe…
bye mjb….see ya real soon! Do you have a link to the swift vets being “conclusively” wrong anywhere?
Check this pedro:
http://www.thinkprogress.org/
The graph here seems to say we’re already paying Iraq as much as we did Germany…
And btw Pedro,
If you can’t find “conclusive” evidence that the Swift Vets are as full of shit as you are, then I’d hazard a guess that it’s because you’ve got your head lodged so far up Rove’s ass you can’t be bothered to do your own research. You toad.
Farris: I spent more time in Viet Nam, and I was wounded.
I wanna be President!
It’s not fair…
Duros: It’s like watching a pack of hyenas on a carcass.
* * *
Yeah, but at least we have a sense of humor…
well curmudgeon, since your cranium is as loaded down as mine is with rectal residue, why don’t you sling a couple of non-partisan links showing how the swifties are “conclusively wrong”.
Or, alternatively, you could just shut up….as in “put up, or shut up”.
Well, he waited too long for it to actually matter much, but it is nice to hear him actually give an opinion on something.
Pedro,
Try this:
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
Factcheck is non-partisan, but you’d really be better off taking a look at the extensive work done by MMFA on this. But you won’t.
Now, since you won’t address why mentioning Kerry’s killing of an enemy in service to his country is a negative, or really any other issue, just apologize for lying when you claimed we found Saddam’s WMD and when you cited some stats but left out the very next part which directly contradicted your point (http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/03/30/the-media-sandbags-the-dems/#comment-29057), then never addressed it when you were caught. Don’t you catch your kids in lies like this? Doesn’t it frustrate you when they don’t admit they were wrong or dishonest? You are a child shit heat.
What the right seems to not understand is that their perspective changed after 9-11. The Democrat’s perspective and policy goals changed after the first WTC bombing. Anti-terrorism efforts were a top priority in the Clinton administration. They even tried to emphasize the importance of that priority to incoming Bush administration people, but alas, they had other goals. Condi Rice, expert on Soviet Russia as NS Advisor pushing missile shields, Ashcroft shifting efforts from terrorism to fighting prostitutes (I’m sure hookers caused him much terror), Rumsfeld wanting to be big chief decision maker, Dick Cheney (the terrorism task force chief) spending all his time on Corporate energy task force, George Bush wanting his vacation play time when all signs pointed to danger, George Bush hiding behind a children’s book while decisions needed to be made. Hell, just after 9-11, we know Bush wanted to use the attacks to leverage a war with Iraq. Iraq instead of bin Laden. Failure.
4 Years with no terror attacks on US soil? Thanks Democrats! Maybe that Department of Homeland Security you guys came up with is working even under Republican leadership. At least at terrorism prevention. Response is now woeful though.
“The Democrat s perspective and policy goals changed after the first WTC bombing.”
I sure as hell hope that isn’t true…cause after 8 years of clinton, the twin towers happened 6 months after he left office, and as I recall the leftist here al crooning about how long an operation like 9/11 takes to plan, that means that even after the demo’s (appropriate moniker) “perspective” changed they were STILL ineffective at stopping terrorists…..Now the republicans on the other hand……4 years, no domestic terrorism…
cause after 8 years of clinton, the twin towers happened 6 months after he left office,
And didn’t they tell the incoming Bush team that there was a real threat there? Didn’t they get a PDB in August saying there was a plan afoot?
What was the response.
yeah, yeah, yeah. Where are the W’s for the keyboards?
Oh DrPedro! Al Qaeda had to wait for Clinton to leave the watch tower before they could strike in the US.
The anti-terrorism czar confirms this. Bush was lax, unconcerned, not on the ball. Clinton was concerned, on top of the situation and facilitated the fight against terrorism, holding each department head responsible both within their departments and for working together when the situation called for it. Such a situation arose during the summer of 2001 with unprecedented levels of intelligence chatter indicating a major threat. If Clinton (or Gore I assume) had been in office there would have been an excellent chance the 9-11 attack could have been foiled. Hell, given Bush’s performance and Rumsfeld’s bad policy changes, there was every chance that even if the first plane struck, the subsequent planes could have been intercepted and shot down if necessary. Under Bush, the Capitol lay open for over an hour after the first attack.
You show a real lack of understanding of how Al Qaeda operates. They search, find a weakness and attack. They take their time. They have ample targets in Iraq right now. Furthermore, they have managed a few major attacks on Western powers. Note they are at war with the West, not just America. Hence things like the USS Cole bombing, the embassy attacks, the consul attack in Afghanistan, various attacks in Saudi Arabia, the Spain attacks, the two WTC bombings, the foiled millenium attack, and the shoe bomber (which although it ultimately failed, that was by luck more than by any effort at defense on our part).
You’re a little unclear, midderpidge.
If Clinton was “concerned, on top of the situation…”, while Al Qaeda was searching looking for a weakness before the attack… because “they take their time,” why in the hell wasn’t there any “intelligence to indicate there was a threat”?
Are you saying that they planned this thing for years, but there was no clue in the Clinton administration that anything was being planned?
That’s hardly being “on top of the situation.”
{I’m not blaming them, but everyone loves blaming Bush}
Wow, Frank, where have you been. I swore the knowledge of the unprecedented level of intelligence chatter during the summer of 2001 was common knowledge. It was similar to the intelligence chatter before the millenium attack. Clarke describes how Clinton handled that superbly, and compares Bush’s lack of engagement in the summer of 2001.
I am sure Al Qaeda has plans and ideas for dozens of attacks in the US and other targets worldwide, some being kicked around for years, and is in the process of setting some up and abandoning others. Some may even advance to the point where they may be attempted.
Well pidge, having been privy to some of that chatter in the summer of 2001 when I was shipping out for an overseas deployment, let me fill you in.
The “chatter” suggested an attack at an overseas base. In fact, in the weeks prior to 9/11 the asian bases were on significantly elevated threat levels….Bravo and Charlie.
Unfortunately, Clinton and company did nothing to stop the “years of planning” (according to leftists at this site), leading to the eventuality of 9/11. Yet here, 4 years later, no US attacks….Even though, according to more of the leftists here, OBL has just been “running free” planning away.
Hmm, maybe the war on terror is going better than we thoug
midderpidge: Are you saying that the plans for 9/11 were made in the summer of 2001?
Wow Frank, are you intentionally obtuse? I said the intelligence chatter rose dramatically in the summer of 2001, to the such a high level that many intelligence experts knew an attack was imminent. Hence a degree in desperation in Bush’s PDBs including kindergarten level material to try to get him to understand the seriousness of the situation. I am saying the plans came to fruitition during the summer of 2001, and advanced to a point where they could have been detected and stopped. I am saying Bush’s terrorism czar of the time said Bush was indifferent to the possibility of attack and was an impediment and he said Clinton’s methods might have prevented 9-11.
I also said the main Bush movers had shifted priorities away from stopping terrorism to other things. FBI to prostitution, Rice to Missile Defense, Rumsfeld to “I Have the Power”, Cheney to helping his energy company buddies rape the country, Bush to White House Cafeteria salad bar. Bush even threw out the Hart-Rudman report because it had Clinton’s name on it. In other words they (Bush&Co) completely ignored the lessons that Clinton learned as AL Qaeda’s threat developed during his presidency and essentially they turned the clock back to 1992.
mitterpidge
Nobody ‘knew’ an attack was imminent. You are naive if you think so. There is intelligence chatter all the time. There are possible ‘attacks’ on paper and in the minds and plans of our enemies all the time. The intelligence process involves ‘intelligent’ analysis and downright guessing as to which time it is that a variance in the ‘chatter’ actually means something and when its just a meaningless hiccup. Don’t let your Bush hate blind you to the realities. Our humint has gone down hill since the 1970’s and thats the real problem.
Dugger
Dukker,
I guess all those presidential PDBs and things were just wasted paper then.
Easy question, midderpidge: Was 9/11 being planned prior to Nov 2000?
If so, what did the Clintonistas do, if anything?
If they didn’t do anything why is it all on Bush?
And please don’t bring up Richard “does my ass look big in this testimony” Clarke. His best idea was to freeze OBL’s funds. They’re still looking for them.
They should try the First National Bank of Tora Bora, on the corner of Achmed and Abdullah.
They should try the First National Bank of Tora Bora, on the corner of Achmed and Abdullah.
Not there anymore. We blew it up.
Easier question FrankD, what should have Clinton doen about it? He tripled counter terrorism funds, started several security initiatives and procedures and had his people constantly alert, particularly when intelligence chatter indicated the risk of attack was high. He initiated the Hart-Rudman report with Newt Gingrich which was subsequently thrown out by the incoming Bushies. Did you want him to sit in on Al Qaeda planning sessions? USe his mind powers to intuit what Al Qaeda had planned? Of course the 9-11 attacks were planned before 2001. Just as the first WTC attack was planned before Clinton came into office.
midderpidge: Whay are you asking me? It was your idea that “Clinton was concerned, on top of the situation and facilitated the fight against terrorism.” The second part of my question was, “If they didn t do anything why is it all on Bush?”
Meaning, if Clinton (blessed be his name) couldn’t do anything about it (what should Clinton have done about it?),What should Bush have done about it?
I love the smell of left - wing Clinton adoration in the morning. It smells like… a double standard.
What information came to light during the Clinton presidency, FrankD? What red flags were raised that would have alerted anyone that an attack was coming 1 year down the line? If Clinton had been in office through, say, August, he could have and would have done something. As it is, what state of alertness could Clinton have placed upon the Government that would have lasted 8 months after the changeover Frank? It wasn’t until 2001 that the information started coming in, and in the summer alarms started ringing that something major was coming. Clinton was gone then, and there was no one commanding the wall.
The smell of your Bush-Worship is a little sickening in its stench Frank.
If you’re gonna try and steal my material, you’re going to have to do a much better job.
And, midderpidge, whether you realize it or not, you’re backpedalling on your previous statement. I’ve already demonstrated that you’ve applied a double standard to the situation.
You don’t think so? So what?
Really Frank? How was that? Because Clinton didn’t sit in on AlQaeda planning sessions.
Let’s recap Frank’s position:
Al Qaeda planned the 9-11 attacks while Clinton was president.
Early ground work was done while Clinton was president.
That information was unknown to the government.
-Must be Clinton’s fault.
Let’s recap my position:
-Unprecedented levels of intelligence chatter indicated a high risk of threat in the summer of 2001 after Clinton was gone.
-Bush was unengaged on terrorism matters and went on vacation ignoring this high risk of threat.
-Clinton had a system of daily and weekly meetings where department heads were held responsible for sharing information and working together when threat levels elevated. This put pressure on them to pressure lower levels to pass information up the chain until it could all be put together. Bush had no system.
-Many details of the 9-11 plans were gathered in 2001.
-Bush Administration personnel shifted priority away from anti-terrorism efforts after assuming duties.
Your idiocy Frank is that there was no situation as pertained to the 9-11 plans while Clinton was in office. There was no indication of an imminent attack as there was in the summer of 2001. They weren’t sending “Al Qaeda determined to strike in the US” pdbs to Clinton that were ignored.
Clinton couldn’t alert the airlines that hijackings may occur. Clinton couldn’t increase security or put people on alert. Clinton couldn’t pressure the FBI, CIA and NSA to work together in the summer of 2001 when indications were attacks were coming. Clinton couldn’t tell Rumsfeld he couldn’t take intercept authorization away from NORAD. Clinton couldn’t tell Ashcroft that anti-terrorism was job one instead of anti-prostitution. Clinton couldn’t tell Condi Rice that anti-terrorism was job one, not missile defense, Clinton couldn’t tell Cheney that his terrorism task force took priority over his energy task force. He tried, his people stressed the importance of anti-terrorism efforts during changeover, but Bush’s people thought they knew better.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to a cure FrankD.
“My idiocy”? Thanks for ending this conversation.
If there are any thinking people on this thread, who don’t wanto talk about how Clinton was better than Bush, this from Democracy Now! may indicate a change is coming to the situation in Iraq: