Iraq Policy a 'Tragedy of Errors,' Kerry Says

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/politics/campaign/18KERR.html?ex=1082865600&en=56bd676564b20fb4&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

MIAMI, April 17 — Senator John Kerry used the Democratic response to President Bush's radio address on Saturday to continue hammering the administration on its handling of the Iraq war.

"The president may not want to admit to mistakes, but his choices in Iraq have so far produced a tragedy of errors," Mr. Kerry said. "The failure of the administration to internationalize the conflict has lost us time, momentum and credibility — and made America less safe."

"Staying the course," he added, "does not mean stubbornly holding to the wrong course."

Mr. Kerry laid out an agenda starting with adding troops. He also proposes "an international mission authorized by the United Nations" to serve as the main civilian force to revive the Iraqi economy and government, and a NATO security force led by an American commander to keep peace.

more

[Dark]

1. Well, at least he's kind of got the right idea.

But where's the extra troops coming from?

[Submariner]

21. The U.N. (eom)

[mike_c]

2. when will Kerry admit his mistakes, e.g. the IWR...

...and his calls to escalate the conflict in Iraq?

[NNN0LHI]

3. Psst. Come here. Got something to tell you.The idea is to get rid of Bush

He is the one who started all this shit. Kerry could not have stopped anything. Did you forget that or something?

Don

[mike_c]

4. but he didn't have to help make it happen....

Or is that just too easy to ignore?

on edit: IMO, the "idea" is much larger than getting rid of Bush. The "idea" is to restore government based on Democratic values.

[davhill]

5. Lets get Kerry Elected First

We can impeach him later

[The Magistrate]

6. He Could Not Have Stopped It, Sir

The resolution was mere window dressing: the criminals of the '00 Coup would have had their war regardless of how that vote turned out.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[mike_c]

8. whether or not he could have stopped it isn't the issue....

Although I certainly wish it was. If his vote was immaterial to the outcome, than it remains all the more important that he cast it honestly, rather than in what another poster today has characterized as "a cynical attempt to disarm a potentially devastating campaign issue." (My apologies for any inaccuracies in the quote.) Tens of thousands of innocent people lost their lives because of that vote. Kerry voted to kill them.

[Skittles]

19. well then

that's all the more reason he should have voted against it.

[mike_c]

7. about your sig....

Don-- how will Kerry ask the last soldier that he helped send to Iraq die for the PNAC?

[NNN0LHI]

9. Don't agree with your suggestion for a minute

Helped send to Iraq die for the PNAC my ass? Because you say so don't make it true Mike. As hard as you try, I can still spot bullshit when I see it.

Don

[mike_c]

10. connect the dots....

1) Kerry voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

2) He advocates continuing the occupation, and sending more soldiers to conduct it.

3) hundreds of those soldiers are dying or have died, as have thousands of innocent Iraqis.

4) If not for neocon objectives like the PNAC, what point was (is) there to items 1-3?

5) What part of this is "bullshit?"

[NNN0LHI]

12. I have connected the dots already

Save this to your hard drive so I do not have to explain it to you again.

Bush did not need any vote at all to invade Iraq. He was going to invade no matter what Kerry or anyone else said. All Bush was doing was looking for cover in case everything turned to shit in Iraq as it has. If every Dem had voted against IWR all the Dem's would have gained was being blamed for not supporting their country and president during a time of war. All the death and destruction would have been the Dem's fault. The Dem's did not fall for Roves crap...as some people around here have obviously done. </cough> So now the blame goes to the rightful person who caused this fiasco. Bush. Perhaps you wish it were the Dem's who were blamed? Sorry if that was what you were hoping for. Because it didn't work.

Don

[mike_c]

15. condescension does little to bolster your argument....

'Bush did not need any vote at all to invade Iraq. He was going to invade no matter what Kerry or anyone else said."

I agree that you're correct, but that being the case, what did Kerry have to lose by establishing his oppostion to an immoral and illegal invasion? Nothing, except the perception that he was a loyal player when the president asks for the opposition to share the burden of responsibility for failed policies.


"If every Dem had voted against IWR all the Dem's would have gained was being blamed for not supporting their country and president during a time of war."

It was not yet "a time of war." That's what Kerry voted to authorize. Other democrats apparently disagreed-- they voted against the IWR and as far as I'm aware NOT ONE OF THEM has been criticized for voting against the IWR to nearly the extent that democrats who voted for it. Events simply do not support this particular piece of revisionist history.


"So now the blame goes to the rightful person who caused this fiasco. Bush. Perhaps you wish it were the Dem's who were blamed?"

Democrats who enabled Bush's rush to war do share responsibility for the bloodshed, including the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. Soldiers returning from Iraq are now beginning to speak out about the indiscriminate nature of that killing. I'm sorry if you want to pretend that Bush did this all himself, but he didn't. Remember that photo-op in the Rose Garden, with the democratic leadership standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the newly minted "war president?" Kerry wasn't there, but his vote helped stage the event. now he wants to send more troops to Iraq, in effect escalating the conflict. Seems like I remember hearing LBJ saying something similar after he took office....

Finally, if you've read this far, I'd appreciate it if you could make your points without adding condescending remarks. They do little to bolster your case.

[BeFree]

13. Reply to two questions of yours, mike

And let's be clear. I'd like the troops to leave, now.

1) Kerry voted for the UN A) to pass a new resolution and B) be involved in any action in Iraq. The resolution and action would be based on disarming Iraq of WMD. Well, *, instead of getting a UN resolution or fully and fairly investigating WMD, invaded anyway.

2) The only politically wise stance to take now, is for the troops who have been over there for far too long already to come home, new troops replace them, and have enough men on the ground to be as safe as possible. While we can say "Bring 'em home, now", Kerry can't.

The main question you must ask yourself is this: Would Kerry have had the Fallujah attack occur? IMO, no. What's your's?

It is wise to question Kerry's motives, but unwise to condemn him for being politically astute. Kerry must be very careful not to lose any votes, I like it no better than you... it's just the way things go.

[mike_c]

16. the IWR did NOT require a new U.N. resolution...

...or U.N. involvement in Iraq. Quite the contrary, it authorized the president to take essentially unilateral action after notifying Congress that Saddam Hussein had failed to meet his ultimatums (which were themselves thinly disguised as U.N. demands). Kerry knew that he was giving Bush the authority to bypass the U.N. Whether Bush would have done it anyway is in some ways beside the point, and in other ways a very central issue.

It's beside the point because Congress nonetheless had a resolution before them to either authorize or not. If they authorized it simply because they feared Bush would ignore their wishes otherwise..., well, that hardly seems justification for being complicit in killing thousands.

It's a central issue because if congress believed that Bush would act unilaterally anyway, then democrats had nothing to lose by registering their opposition unless they believed that doing so would hurt them politically, and that politics was more important than "doing the right thing."

[BeFree]

18. Our memories differ, mike

My memory says that there was a stated intent for * to get the UN as a partner in any action.

Also, I distictly remember that * did agree to get the UN onboard, just like poppy did in '91.

Given that Kerry knew he would be running for president, he could not have reacted to * in the way that you or i might, or other senators for that matter. If he had, we'd be seeing * ads claiming that Kerry was supporting terrorism. We don't see such ads, do we? Smart political move.

[mike_c]

20. those were "understandings..."

...which shrubya and cronies never had any intention of honoring, as events have demonstrated. The resolution itself did not actually compel Bush to do anything except notify Congress before initiating the invasion. It was a blank check with "certain restrictions," most notably the caveat that the authorization extended only to Iraq, not the rest of the region. I think Sharon wept over that part, but that's another discussion.

on edit: here is the relevant text from the IWR regarding authorization to use military force:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

[jumptheshadow]

17. We have a moral and ethical duty

Having started this horrible, corrupt and heart-rending war, we must remain in Iraq long enough to stabilize the country and prevent an even greater bloodbath. This entire situation sickens me, but we already have wretchedly destabilized Iraq. Now we have to move pragmatically to save lives by: 1) Keeping our forces there until world leaders can broker the transfer of power, and, 2) Getting rid of the Bush administration because only then will the situation have any chance for improvement.

Kerry is a consummate international politician whose ascendancy to the presidency will be welcomed by most of the world. It is essential that he be elected, because Bush has backed this country and the world into a corner with his arrogance and his sociopathic behavior.

Although I'd like to see Kerry mix some knockout punches with the jabs, it's quite probable that he has had inside information about Richard Clarke, the Valerie Plame investigation and a host of other Bush administration controversies and scandals.

It's very wise of him to let Bush hang himself. We're starting to see a jelly-spined media grow a backbone and they're starting to look critically at Bush. The web of disgraces perpetrated by this administration is being exposed. Kerry's wisest option is to let it play out for the time being, then go for the jugular when the time is right.

[Bdog]

11. I wish Kerry would...

just call bush incompetent & not up to the job...thats something the vast majority of Americans can agree with.

[yardwork]

14. I agree - and welcome to DU!