Liberal Oasis says dems should use Kerry's frame on Iraq

[whometense]

Today's Liberal Oasis post makes a great argument against Tom Friedman's assertion in his column from yesterday's NY Times that democrats "deep down don't want the Bush team to succeed." In doing so, he quotes John Kerry's words from the September 30, 2004 debate.

KERRY: And I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't have long-term designs on it.

As I understand it, we're building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they've got a rather permanent concept to them.

When you guard the oil ministry, but you don't guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, "Wow, maybe they're interested in our oil."

Now, the problem is that they didn't think these things through properly. And these are the things you have to think through.

What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders.

You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But you've also got to show that you are prepared to bring the rest of the world in and share the stakes.

I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.

Liberal Oasis notes that Bush would make no such statement. His point is that this is the critical sistinction the democrats should be making on Iraq: The Democrats of the United States of America have no long-term designs on staying in Iraq. The Repugs can make no such claim.

John Kerry was right; Bush is wrong.

[pstans]

1. I agree

After every story on this I hear, I end up yelling Bu$h doesn't want us out of Iraq he is building 14 military bases there.

There just needs to be some Democrats that will stand up and say that he Democrats of the United States of America have no long-term designs on staying in Iraq. The Repugs can make no such claim.

If they say it over and over, the American people will demand we get out.

[FreedomAngel82]

4. I agree

Definitley a plan! And he does make a good point about the oil and nuclear weapons. That should show people right there what this "war" is all about.

[MH1]

20. It's also about corporatism and owning the markets.

I've been reading Amy Goodman's "Exception to the Rulers" and it goes into some detail of incidents which show that the idea is to let American corporations (and perhaps those of our "coalition") take over the Iraqi markets. An example is what happened when a local entrepreneur came in and quickly set up basic cell phone service, right after the invasion. I don't remember the details and don't have the book handy to look it up, but suffice to say he was quickly shut down so one of ours (Qualcomm I believe) could take over. Qualcomm (?) not only bungled it and people were without the service that they'd had briefly, but also they used incompatible cell phone technology that is used nowhere else in the Middle East - kind of like an American cell phone not working in Europe, you know?

Some way to win hearts and minds, huh?

Back to Kerry, based on his history championing small business and entrepreneurship, I'm betting one way he would have done it better is to give more opportunity to the locals and reign in the corporate feeding frenzy a bit. Just doing that would improve the way we are seen over there, and (maybe) that would slow down recruiting for the insurgency, at least a little.

But he couldn't emphasize that point I don't think, because he would've just pissed off potential business donors without gaining any ground with the public, because it's over most of their heads. Kerry not saying it doesn't mean Kerry doesn't know it, though.

[politicasista]

2. Kick!

:kick:

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. deep down don't want the Bush team to succeed

Trying to pin the blame on us for the fact that they are so fucked up that nothing they do works.

[FreedomAngel82]

5. Of course

They're going to do like Poppy Bush did. Death and destruction and then hit and run and take the oil and insert a puppett government and call it "Democracy" and then if something happens again either blame it on the democrats or a surrounding country. It's also fair to point out another reason to show that this "war" is about oil and nothing else. They give more protection to Halliburton workers then the military and are very very very slow about it. Outside countries when they were in Iraq with our military were getting protection faster.

[blm]

11. It's BushInc that doesn't want to succeed, so they're asked to stay longer

for decades on end, till they have sucked up every drop of oil.

Amazing how the media repeatedly told the people that the Dems never say what THEY would do in Iraq, yet here it was said quite clearly in the debates and yet they fail to discuss the difference approaches. Yet, somehow the media claims the Dems don't want Iraq to succeed based on NOTHING that has been said.

[kenny blankenship]

6. Deep down I don't think you have to worry about Bush succeeding

All that helpful speculation about our inmost feeling is a mooter than moot question now, ain't it? Iraq is lost--whatever the plan was, it's dead.

We were right. They were wrong. Friedman has thick shit on his face and it came from Bush's asshole.

[applegrove]

7. I agree wholeheartedly! There should be UN procurement laws.

Just as soon as Haliburton has the Oil industry all locked up - the UN will be raised in our esteem as a wonderful and important organization. It was only during the Iraq war that the UN had to be branded "bad".

IMHO

[sandnsea]

8. The Bush Doctrine

Our National Security Strategy. It requires us to stay because reshaping ME politics is a stated goal. Expanding the American perimeter and footprint around the world is another stated goal. We can't hardly do that if we leave Iraq or work with other nations who might take the credit or make us look like we can't do this on our own. If you're trying to convince the world that you can do anything you want, unilaterally, you kind of have to stay on that path. That's what the real distinction between Dems and Pubs, we don't believe in the Bush Doctrine.

[MH1]

9. You left out the part about

lining the coffers of Haliburton et al.

Oh yeah, they don't say that one publicly.
:eyes:

[Mass]

10. I agree totally

[LizW]

12. Kerry is right, but he could go further

We have to start pointing out that the goals of the United States with regard to Iraq and the goals of Bush and the neocons are vastly different. Friedman accuses Democrats of wanting America to fail in Iraq without ever acknowledging that Bush and company are lying about their goals. They lied about the reasons for going in, and they are lying about the reasons for not leaving.

Bush, Cheney and the neocons overran the U.S. Congress and used the American military to conquer a weak but rich sovereign country and loot it. Their goal is to enrich their crony contractor corporations and themselves, with Iraqi money and American taxpayer money. The U.S. military is now being used as a security force to protect the looting entities. The neocons plan on staying as long as there's a dime left or a drop of oil.

If we could come out and make this statement and show the distinction between the GOALS of the neocons and those of the rest of us, it would not be so easy for goons like Friedman to paint us as "wishing for failure" in Iraq.

[blm]

14. The problem has always been that the media won't have the discussion

about the different approaches and plans. You can take any of our top spokespeople releasing statements and put them on a news show outlining the plan and after the segment is over the broadcast media will not discuss it, let alone examine the details.

When the reports first came out that Bush was cooking the intel books in Oct 2002, did ONE show cover the charges by over a dozen CIA analysts? No. Did they invite the reporters onto to the shows to discuss their article and how they interviewed these analysts? No.

It's amazing how the spin is directed right from who gets booked on the news shows.

[LizW]

15. Amazing and frightening

The circular spin is very distressing. The MSM and the pundits refused to cover Bush's lies when it mattered and could actually make a difference and save lives, and now, when there is documentary proof, they claim it's "old" news that "everyone" already knew.

There was a good piece on this in the last week or so explaining how the right learned the lesson from Watergate: if you can control the press, you can get away with anything. They honed the skill with Iran Contra in the 80's and they have it down now.

[MH1]

17. How much MSM coverage of Conyers hearing?

(last night)?

Just curious. I rarely watch MSM news. But I'm betting it didn't get much. And that hearing was some kick-ass stuff.

[LizW]

18. I don't think it was covered at all on the networks. n/t

[welshTerrier2]

13. Liberal Oasis is dead wrong !!

Kerry's words way back on September 30 MAY have been reasonable under a Kerry administration ... they MAY serve as some kind of political argument to distinguish a Democratic position from the republican position ...

but, as things stand NOW, it is hardly the mark of bold, visionary leadership to say that Democrats have no long-term designs ... "Anything but long-term" is not an adequate timetable for when we should remove our troops from Iraq ...

Democrats need to be far more specific than that ... what bothers me the most about the position espoused by Liberal Oasis is that it "plays political games" rather than calling for an end to the insanity over there ... it is too late for Democrats or anyone else to convince Iraqis that the US doesn't have long-term designs ... and frankly, what difference does it make? such calls would be seen as nothing but playing politics ... bush has stated many times that the US has no long-term designs on Iraq ... and every time Democrats have an opportunity to vote against funding that allows him to continue the occupation, Democrats have given bush whatever he wanted ...

so, Kerry's strategy for Iraq MAY have worked ... it's fine for Democrats to emphasize, as Liberal Oasis has called for, that Democrats have no long-term designs on Iraq ... but what's needed is leadership ... what's needed is vision ... Democrats will not succeed if they don't oppose what bush is doing in Iraq ... they will not succeed if they don't get behind the strong trend among the American people to see the "war" as a dismal failure ... the American people are far ahead of Senate Democrats on this critical issue ... if the Democrats can't even follow, how can they lead?

[MH1]

16. Kerry: 4 point plan; start drawing down troops in June.

Yes, that would have been THIS June. Like now. Of course contingent on the achievement of the four points in his plan. Which we know the rethugs woud have been blocking at every turn, just to try to keep Kerry from succeeding (never mind the troops getting shot at in Iraq).

So, I doubt President Kerry would have been able to start withdrawing troops yet. But we'd be on a damn sight better path for it.

[MH1]

19. Very important...

Not just "no long-term designs on staying in Iraq" but also tying the withdrawal of troops to achievement of certain objectives, with the Iraqis help. Like Kerry defined in his 4-point plan.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. what?

We f*d over Iraq. Now we are lying on top of our rape victim saying that we will 'pull out' if they behave? Huh?

Out now.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

21. If every American voter had watched those debates

Kerry would have won by 10 points EASY.

I for one have never regretted supporting Kerry as our best possible hope in unseating Bush.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. We are faced with the same dilemma we had with vietnam

They won't stop the crap in Iraq until the domestic cost at home becomes unacceptable. Then they will indeed stop, and they will blame them damn hippy commie faggot demonstrators and their librul supporters for stabbing them in the back. Oh well... once again it is the price we will have to pay for stopping the Cabal. We should just make sure that we are clear about not blaming the troops, not being 'anti american', not chanting ho ho ho chi minh nfl is gonna win. Lets make sure that their bullshit looks exactly like what it is: bullshit.

And this time, once we have stopped the Cabal (again) can we not go to sleep for 25 years thinking everything is ok? I'm too old for this shit.

[Zhade]

24. Yeah, and considering his experience, Kerry should fucking know better.

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

(Or, in this case, pack of lies.)

[realFedUp]

25. Hey, just go shopping!

Didn't you hear George tell us little wimmens to
not bother our beautiful little minds on all
the war stuff over there and just go shopping?!

Those manly men in DC will take care of everything,
trust them. Testosterone & viagra will solve
any problem facing this country.

Don't worry, be stupid.

Take back your power. We'll take back this country.