Kerry Wants Out of Iraq; Bush Wants to Bomb Iran

[kpete]

Kerry Wants Out of Iraq; Bush Wants to Bomb Iran
by Steven D
Wed Apr 5th, 2006 at 08:16:37 AM EST

The difference between Democrats and Republicans has never seemed so stark. Yesterday John Kerry called for the removal of US troops from Iraq. By May 15th this year if Iraq can't form a unity government; by the end of the year if they can:

Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America’s leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much as we do. Our valiant soldiers can’t bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq’s leaders are unwilling themselves to make the compromises that democracy requires.
As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must be won politically. No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political differences.

This is what is called learning from ones mistakes, and Iraq (pardon the expression) has been the mother of all mistakes for the United States. Kerry, who was squishy on Iraq for far too long at least now has admitted that it's time to end this travesty, and close the chapter on the American occupation of Iraq. We can do nothing more there that can be helpful, and our continued presence as an occupier will only cause additional harm to both the Iraqi people and our own troops.http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060405_kerry_calls_for_iraq_pull_deadline/

The Republicans, under George Bush, however, are nothing if not consistent: consistently wrongheaded, that is. You see, Bush and Co. are dead set on attacking Iran. Take a look at this:

‘Two B-2s could take out Iran’s nuclear assets’
By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions will be history by the time US President George W Bush leaves office, said a report published here.

Veteran foreign correspondent Arnaud de Borchgrave, writing for the United Press International, quotes a “prominent neo-con” with good White House and Department of Defence contacts, as the source of the assertion. Asked what would the US do if sanctions did not make Iran turn away from its nuclear target, the source replied, “B-2s. Two of them could do the job in a single strike against multiple targets.” <...>

According to de Borchgrave, “This is also the British assessment of Bush’s intentions against Iran, a power whose president has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Today (April 3, 2006), senior British officials met with defence and intelligence chiefs to assess the consequences of air strikes against Iran - as well as European and global repercussions..." http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C04%5C05%5Cstory_5-4-2006_pg7_62

Many of you know I'm not exactly thrilled with the quality of the leadership in the Democratic Party. But at least this much is certain: had Kerry been elected as President in 2004 we would at least had a grown up in the White House, one who understands the difference between determined and decisive leadership and the stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality when it bites you in the ass.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/4/5/81637/64414

[mdmc]

1. This Kerry call for withdrawl would have been a good stump speech

during the election.

[rodeodance]

2. perhaps. But that was then. Time to think Now--and I am glad he has

put it out.

I, too always think of how might have been. So, I am not dissing you this.

[mdmc]

10. i hear you

peace and low stress

[madame defarge]

3. Let it go...

We whine about how nobody in the Dem party is doing/saying/standing up for anything (except Feingold). So now Kerry finally comes out with a concrete statement, and what do we do? Relive the past. Damn, it's time to move on from 2004 and end this war NOW.

At least someone is standing up with Murtha and speaking out.

[mdmc]

11. good advice

as a liberal, i was pretty happy with candidate Kerry.

[TayTay]

4. Conditions have dramatically changed in Iraq

After Bush got his war he screwed up everything he touched in Iraq. We all now know that the Bush Admin was determined to go to war, no matter what Congress said and would have finessed a war even if the Senate vote had failed. (Ahm, Unitary Executive anyone? This Admin believes and has believed from the beginning that it has the right to do whatever it wants. It wanted war and it was willing to manufacture reasons to go to war.)

This is not 2004. There was a brief window, after that invasion, to actually help the Iraqis. As we all know, that opportunity was bungled. There have been attempts by the Democrats to offer suggestions that might help and might stabilize the region. Those offers were not only rejected they were ridiculed by this Admin. The situation has changed for the worse. The calls for what has to be done now, going forward, have to change as well.

The Bush Admin has to be pressured to do something different in Iraq. They have been playing this out and pretending that if only the military stays there and shows a presence that things will eventually work out and the troops can come home some day, maybe in 2009 when a new President takes office. The US cannot afford another 3 years in Iraq. We have to pressure the Iraqis to step up and begin to form their government and start to enforce their own security. The US cannot impose a democracy on Iraq. We need to get out of there and this is one way to speed up that process. Bush has to be made to listen to reason.

[mdmc]

12. good post - - thanks

[blm]

7. No - the window of opportunity for political success only recently closed

after Bush failed to withdraw a large number of troops after the December elections.

That was the LAST window that anyone who wanted stability in Iraq had to work with.

In 2004, you couldn't say that the people of Iraq will refuse to stand up for themselves BEFORE they had their first election that was scheduled in Jan 2005.

[niceypoo]

5. During the election Kerry kept saying.....

Knowing what he knows now he would still vote for war. Too little too late.

[TayTay]

8. That's not true

He said he would have voted for the Resolution to get Inspectors into Iraq. He specifically said that this war was wrong.

[DemonFighterLives]

6. It took long enough for Kerry to see the light

but now he is right.
Of course the righties and Haliburton will not see it that way. There is too much money to be made repairing the oil network time and again.

[bunkerbuster1]

9. Why isn't this issue #1 at DU?

For crap's sake, John Farking Kerry issues an ultimatum, he sets himeself up to be Shit-floated all over again and this isn't topic A?

sorry, I'm a little pissed.