September 07, 2004

More Nuance
Posted by Dale Franks

A few weeks ago, Senator Kerry made news by admitting that he would've voted to go to war against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, even knowing everything he knows now. OK, that's fair.

But, apparently, that made his position too clear, so he's revised it again, giving it the appropriate amount of nuance.

Asked his timetable for pulling troops out of Iraq, Mr. Kerry told a few hundred people in Canonsburg, Pa.: "My goal would be to get them home in my first term. And I believe that can be done." He said he would make it clear that "we do not have long-term designs to maintain bases and troops in Iraq."

Mr. Kerry has said he could replace most, but not all, American troops with foreign forces within four years by offering new inducements to other countries...

"It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," he said.

But, he would've voted for it anyway, right? So, what's his point? I mean, assuming he actually has one.

But, I tell you, he's a master of international diplomacy.

"When they talk about a coalition - that's the phoniest thing I ever heard," Mr. Kerry said of the current array of foreign soldiers deployed in Iraq. "You've got 500 troops here, 500 troops there, and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties, and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war.

And, why should we expect things to be any different, considering that those troops all come from "bribed, bought and coerced" countries of little importance?

I bet the PM can't wait to have Mr. Kerry visit him at Number 10. Indeed, I hear they're already getting the parades ready for Mr. Kerry's arrival in Warsaw. No doubt it's because he's such an understanding uniter.

Yes, complaining that our allies haven't been dying enough. That'll endear him to so many people abroad.

So, apparently, his plan is to replace American troops with heathen foreigners, so that they can die in appropriate amounts. Presumably, this is just another sign of his deep comittment to defending America.

The essence of Mr. Kerry's argument - one he has had a difficult time making - is that Mr. Bush obtained the authority to go to war on false intelligence, and then prosecuted the war in a way that alienated allies and prolonged the insurgency.

At day's end on Monday, Mr. Kerry told thousands at a rally that Mr. Bush "wishes I have the same position he does, but as we've learned from this president, just wishing something, and saying something, doesn't make it so."

"When it comes to Iraq, I would not have done just one thing differently, I would have done everything differently from this president," he added.

So, as near as I can figure it, his position is that the war in Iraq was a mistake, it was conducted incompetently, the intelligence was bad, and "everything" should've been done differently--whatever that means, Mr. Kerry's not saying, by the way--but he would've voted to go to war anyway.

And Democrats wonder why people think they're unclear on their committment to National Security. Hint to Dems: When it comes to the safety of the electorate and their families, nuance isn't what they're looking for. I'd've thought you guys would've been able to figure that out over the last 30 years or so, but I guess not.

TrackBack

Comments

On the contrary, I think Kerry is being very clear what his intentions for Iraq are: he doesn't really care what happens in that part of the world, and he'll take whatever position on Iraq is most politically expident at the moment. Thus, he'll keep the troops there so long as things are easy, but as soon as things become difficult (and start driving his approval ratings down), he'll declare the situation "intractable," bring the troops home (no matter what that does to the Iraqis or our credibility) and blame the whole thing on Bush.

I get the feeling that should Kerry be elected, he's going to continue the same "blame Bush" strategy for everything that goes wrong in his administration that got him the office in the first place.

Posted by: Tom Ault at September 7, 2004 12:32 PM

(paraphrasing) How do you ask a country to send the last soldiers to die for a mistake?

Kerry says it's the wrong war, in fact a complete mistake (that he would vote for again). Yet somehow, he believes it right enough that our would-be allies should fight it. What a bizarre worldview.

Posted by: Joe Maller at September 7, 2004 01:28 PM

So, apparently, his plan is to replace American troops with heathen foreigners, so that they can die in appropriate amounts. Presumably, this is just another sign of his deep comittment to defending America.

Actually, It comes closer to a form of international affermitive action. We can't let the americans do all the dying, if we do that, the other nations of the world won't have the same opportunity to become despised. We need to stop giving preference to all these white, anglo-saxon soldiers.

Posted by: Curt Mitchell at September 7, 2004 01:30 PM

Curt I think that's exactly how he sees it. His website talks about getting more foriegn troops in Iraq to "take the target off the backs of American troops". I can only assume he wants the target transferred...

Posted by: Chris B at September 7, 2004 01:59 PM

Kerry seems to believe that American troops are being killed simply because everyone hates Americans, and that somehow, internationalizing the whole affair and placing it under the aegis of the UN will somehow transform it from an "occupying" force to a "peacekeeping" one in the minds of the insurgents. In his view, what's driving the insurgents isn't hatred of democracy but hatred of America. In other words, the problem the problem the insurgents have with the current situation isn't the establishment of a democratic Iraq as it is that the US is the one doing it, and once the project is no longer an American one, the insurgents will simply go "well, that's all right then" and start cooperating with the new government. That the insurgents won't treat French or German troops or UN blue helmets any differently than the forces of the current coalition seems lost on him.

Or maybe Kerry and his advisors don't believe this at all, but instead believe that the entire Iraq war is illegitimate and is, in essence, a second Vietnam from which American troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible before more lives are lost in a hopeless cause. By talking up internationalization now and turning things over to the UN as soon as possible after he is elected, Kerry creates cover for himself to cut and run in Iraq after the UN makes an inevitable mess of things. That this will destroy the credibility of the US and make future attempts to uproot terrorism without slaughtering large numbers of people much more difficult is again lost on him.

Or maybe Kerry doesn't believe anything like that at all, and is in fact running for President simply so he can be President, with no thought as to what he will do in the Oval Office once he gets there. In this case, he's just repeating the calls for internationalization because it sounds good, is palatable to both the hard left and new Democrats that make up the two sides of his base, and keeps him from having to articulate a workable Iraq policy.

Posted by: Tom Ault at September 7, 2004 04:43 PM

By everything does he mean he would have taken contol of attacks and progress of the fighting from the military commanders as was done so infamously in Vietnam. Bush gave the go ahead for the war, but left the strategy and tactics to the military, where it belongs.

Posted by: D. Woolwine at September 7, 2004 08:10 PM

I will make this simple. Kerry, as a Senator, voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. He did not make the decision to go to war himself.

He is now saying he would have voted the same way again. Does that mean that it was not the wrong war? No. Just because I may do something does not make it the "right" decision.

I know that what I have just said is over most of your heads. But if you actually think about, instead of acting like your coke sniffin' prez, you might get it.

Posted by: mkultra at September 8, 2004 12:16 AM

Yeah, that went over my head because, like Kerry, it says two things at once.

"He is now saying he would have voted the same way again. Does that mean that it was not the wrong war? No. Just because I may do something does not make it the "right" decision."

First where's his principled stand to make the right decisions? We need a president who understands how principles matter when you need to make a decision that might very well be unpopular.
As a voting Senator - are you saying he should vote YES to things he disagrees with?

So, it's the wrong war, but Kerry should have gone along? No? Yes? He'll have ask his handler to see what the polls say and get back to us on it?

Our first line of defense against a president who's trying to 'subvert democracy' and drag us into an unjust foreign war is the Congress.
That is why the President cannot declare war on his own. Hello?????

Kerry failed at that job too obviously.

Posted by: looker at September 8, 2004 08:36 AM