This was emailed to me by moveon.org. In general, I don’t want to turn this into a pr-for-Kerry blog. However, I thought this was interesting enough to be worth posting, since it’s reasonably substantive and actually related to a real issue. It’s a collection of quotes from Kerry’s recent speech on Iraq.
Here are the main points from Kerry’s speech on Iraq yesterday:
- The war on Iraq was a mistake — war was unnecessary because the inspections were working: “Today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no — because a commander in chief’s first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.”
- Iraq distracted from the war on terror: “The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.” President Bush misled us about the reasons for the war before it occurred: “He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens. By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war.”
- President Bush is still misleading people about Iraq, painting an optimistic picture directly contradicted by his own intelligence officials: “In June, the president declared, ‘The Iraqi people have their country back.’ Just last week, he told us: ‘This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march.’ But the Administration’s own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story. According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people.”
- Bush went to war for ideological reasons and consistently misjudged the situation on the ground: “This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences. The administration told us we’d be greeted as liberators. They were wrong. They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq’s infrastructure. They were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong. They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong. In Iraq, this administration has ! consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself.”
John Kerry has a four-point plan to fix our Iraq policy:
- “First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don’t have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support. The president should convene a summit meeting of the world’s major powers and Iraq’s neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq’s borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq’s future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq’s oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.”
- “Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces. The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.”
- “Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people. One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we’re paying the price. Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.”
- “Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year. If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year — we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years.”
Nice excerpt. I’m sorry that it’s taken so long for this to get said… but very happy now that it’s been said.
promises, promises…
and i say we give him a chance to act on those promises. the alternative is a continuation of the clusterf*ck bush started. we KNOW the troops (and iraq) are up sh*t creek if bush stays in the white house. sometimes it’s better to go with the devil you don’t know.
[tiptoes quietly away from Round #1,273,988,405 of the Lesser of Two Evils Bout.]
Has Kerry been stumping loudly about the shit-ass manner in which Bush is treating the average enlisted person and/or veteran ? Seems to me like that one would be a no-brainer. Then again, I can’t stand Kerry.
I just thank god I’m not a US citizen and don’t have to deal with the whole issue of who to vote for…………..of course, the down side is that whoever you put into office affects us just as much as it does you.
So hell, why don’t you take a chance & vote on someone decent (ie outside of the nonexistent Republican/Democrat “divide” [WHAT fucking divide?????!!?!!!?]) for a change?
Alsis: I have to say I agree with your sentiment. I was lambasted on this blog for my write-in campaign for John Edwards.
I am at a loss on this comment — “Has Kerry been stumping loudly about the shit-ass manner in which Bush is treating the average enlisted person and/or veteran?”
President Bush has adequately begun pandering to his military political base. But, as long as he keeps the same civilians running the military, he will keep making the same mistakes. As for “Lurch” — I don’t pray much, but God help our Republic. All I can say is Clinton/Edwards in 2008.
So Kerry’s plan comes down to slowing down the introduction of Iraqi security forces by doubling their training time, switching from a gradual and careful infrastructure program to throwing money around, stand firm on having the election when we’ve already said we’re having it, and petitioning the mighty French Army for its glorious assistance.
Have I got that right?
Robert, i think i noticed a typo in your comment above, where you say:
switching from a gradual and careful infrastructure program to throwing money around
i think what you might have meant was “switching from throwing money around to throwing money around.” because, obviously, if we’re talking about a “gradual and careful infrastructure program” we’re not talking about Iraq, right?
Those of you who aren’t voting for Kerry are voting for Bush, even if you don’t put his name on your ballot. You may not like being told that, but your problem is with reality rather than with the people telling you that.
Oh, bite me, rea.
My problem with “reality” is no worse than that of people who believe Kerry is going to be all that different from Bush. There is nothing even remotely “realistic” about using one’s vote to reinforce the DLC’s shitty treatment of the liberal-Left voting bloc in this country and then somehow expecting him to give the liberal-Left anything as said bloc bites its tongue and rolls over en masse yet again. Did you even watch the fucking DNC ? How much clearer could Kerry’s handlers have made it that they don’t give a shit about you or what you want ? Gevalt…
Make whatever lousy, painful choice out of the limited gamut of lousy, painful choices that you want, but spare me your patronization and obnoxious finger-wagging. I don’t need it.
Furthermore, Kerry is running even with Bush right now, isn’t he ? You have no guarantee whatsoever that he’s going to win, or even any guarantee that there’s going to be an election at all. Perhaps you should stop being such a pious, snotty asshole to the twenty or thirty die-hard 3rd Party folk remaining in the U.S. and start thinking about what you’re going to do if Bush stays in office for another four years. Of course, I suppose you could just continue to sit in your corner and whine at a handful of 3rd Party folk and the infinitely greater masses of non-voters who wouldn’t get up off their butts because Kerry couldn’t or wouldn’t give them a real reason to. You could also join with us supposed “unrealists” [snort] and work to reform the election process in this country so that years down the line, we won’t be facing this kind of shitty dilemma and arguing with each other over crumbs.
What alsis38 says. Much more eloquently & directly than I can.
Rea: Who says that Kerry is better than Bush. That guy is probably the worse politician since — O’ I don’t know — “Jengis Khan”. Picture this, you are from Massachusettes, it is a Friday and your representative has a plane to catch (goin’ skiing). There is an impasse in the Senate, Democrats are holding up some legislation. Your representative goes to the majority leader and says “what can we do to get out of here, I don’t want to be here all night.” The majority leader says — “your party is holding up these votes because of 1,2, and 3.” Your representative sells your interests and everything that you hold dear to make sure the votes are no longer held up by the Democrats and he can make his plane.
All those votes missed and against national security. My perception is that they were concessions so he could get out early. Senator Kerry is the guy who will sweep the dirt under the rug and tell his parents the room is clean — “can I go play now” kind of guy. Don’t be fooled he was selected over Edwards for a reason — to lose.
Twice in the last 18 hours I’ve had people whose opinions I respect intimate that Bush is winning and that Kerry is disappointing them. When queried further about (a) what leads them to believe Bush is winning; or (b) What Kerry ought to do differently, the eminently respected folk replied to (a) That’s how it looks/feels to me; and to (b) He’s not getting a clear, strong message out there.
Read the rest at SCRUTINY HOOLIGANS
Screwy Hoolie: The sad thing about those statistics is that Bush and Kerry are not running neck and neck because they are two good candidates, it is because they are both sooooooo baaaaad for this country, no one can decide who they want to lead us down the road to destruction.
It used to be “Anybody But Bush (ABB)”. Now it seems (ABB/BK) “Anybody But Bush, But Kerry”.
And Saddam asked: “shall I chop off your arms and gouge your eyes — Bush” or “shall I gouge your eyes and chop off your arms — Kerry”, either way we end up walking blind and defenseless into the future.
God, the mass media’s smear campaign on a well-liked senator is working like a charm.
ampersand,
How is it not PR-for-Kerry to repost extensive quotes from a stump speech — at the emailed promptings of moveon.org no less?
I dunno, maybe you’ve done the same sort of reposting for the other candidate’s promoters?
I’m not suggesting that a blogger has any obligation to be evenhanded. It just struck me as a bit odd to read a half-hearted introduction for a very lengthy precis of what was a rather weak speech. Should the lack of commentary be read as meaning you were sitting on your hands? Or that you were disinterested?
Please believe me, I am still hoping Kerry will serve his country as a worthy presidential candidate and add substance to the discussion of the global war and make himself relevant to the choice the nation will make in a few weeks.
That speech didn’t do it. It probably did him more harm than good. More harm than so-called smears, as alleged by moveon.org boosters.
Chairm:
I’ve never claimed to be evenhanded, so pointing out that I don’t do the same for Bush seems more than a little weird. Is there anything – anything at all – about my blog which would mislead any reader into thinking that I pretend to be providing neutral, unbiased news coverage?
I’m not obliged to provide commentary; some do, but others are just “hey, look at this, I think it’s interesting.” In this case, I thought that Kerry’s most explicit (to date) description of his views on what is (arguably) the most important issue of the election qualified as “interesting.”
I guess you could call this one post “pr for Kerry.” However, I was speaking “in general” of my intentions for my “blog,” not for this one post. I don’t think my blog as a whole could be fairly described as pr for Kerry.
That speech didn’t do it. It probably did him more harm than good.
You provide some strong opinions, but provide no arguments or warrents in support of your opinions (unlike what Kerry did in his speech, by the way), which to me makes your opinions just noise.
If it ain’t an argument, it’s noise? Maybe, if its argument for the sake of argument, it’s just noise and more noise and we end-up deaf to discussion.
Or as Groucho Marx might have said: No noise is good noise. ;-)
I did not solict support for my views. I expressed myself in a very brief comment. Not sure why you’d take umbrage with that.
You’re right that there was no argument:
When I wondered if you had posted cut-and-paste for other candidates, I thought you might have done such a post or two and I had missed them. It would have made for convenience in comparing them and in comparing your relevant comments. As I clearly said, I don’t expect bloggers to be evenhanded. There’s no argument on that.
And I didn’t say that I thought your entire blog was PR for Kerry. No argument there either.
I did ask if your lukewarm intro to the snippets was a sign that you were sitting on your hands on the war issue. That is to say, were you not applauding Kerry’s speech? Or was it just an indication that you were disinterested in it?
Lots of pro-Kerry people were dissappointed, even disenchanted, with what he said, yet remain pro-Kerry. Some who are for anyone but Bush are kinda agnostic on Kerry’s war policies. Others undecided just can’t figure out if he means all that he said, some of what he said, or none of what he said. I don’t think that either response would be uncommon at this stage in the campaign.
Now, if you truly want a discussion about Kerry’s speech, then, say so. If you just want to diss me for offering a brief opinion — to get the ball rolling — then you defeat the espoused purpose of your blog. It’s your bat and ball.
I meant it when I said my hope is that Kerry will offer an alternative for the country. It’s wartime. Should he become president, I trust he’d do his best. Just as W is doing his best. I sincerely hope that his speech does not represent the best he has to offer this country as we face years of fight this global war that has been declared against us.
Given the discordant reaction that pro-Kerry people have shown in light of substantive criticism of Kerry’s speech (not referring to you, ampersand), why not start with less detailed views and discuss overall views rather than debate preformed arguments?
I mean, there’s only so much a person can condense into a single vote. Sometimes, for me at least, arguments and impressions and so forth boil down to political instinct. And my instinct is as I described it in my earlier post.
The so-called smears (for example see comment just above my previous comment) that Kerry supports often complain about as the reason for the appearance of Kerry’s ineffectiveness and incoherence on the war are nothing compared with his lack of substance on this, the biggest issue.
If this not the time nor place for a discussionof this, no problem. We can just move on. ;-)
Okay. I took your comment as being a bit obnoxious, and so I responded in kind. In retrospect, clearly I was mistaken. Sorry about that, Chairm.
Iraq is a subject it’s hard for me to be enthusiastic about, as you’ve correctly noticed. In my view, Kerry is absolutely correct in his criticisms of how and why the Iraq war began. However, I have no confidence that his solutions are viable. Then again, I certainly haven’t heard any better plans suggested, least of all by President Bush or any of his supporters.
Truthfully, I don’t think there is a workable solution for the Iraq problem; Bush never had a viable exit plan before going in, and as a result we’re in a place with no viable exit.
I agree with you that Karry has displayed a lack of substance on this issue. On the other hand, I suspect (perhaps wrongly) that you think Bush has displayed some substance on this issue, which (if that’s really what you think) puts your views so far from mine that you might as well be from Klingon.
Took me awhile to find this thread again. Apology accepted, Ampersand. Disembodied words often are misconstrued in haste and I’ve done my share of that on the internet, too.
Although I’ve been dismayed by the difficulties we face in an unconventional war (probably not too far from how you feel about it), I’ve also appreciated that any president will be greatly challenged to come up with exit strategies in what no doubt will become a regional, rather than single-country, conflict.
In the election I was looking for answers to questions that Kerry did not really seem ready to ask forthrightly, but which Bush (and his team of advisors) tackled with vigor — albeit without getting their points across to the public very well. I truly was casting about for information on that would provide a good, solid, optimistic reason to support an alternative. I really did want a choice.
The election turned out the way I voted but, again to my dismay, the Dems haven’t truly engaged the thorniest and most difficult questions about security and the global war that we hafta conclude successfully. Never mind exit strategy for Iraq, howzabout a start on criteria for winning the broader contest!
I can admit to having some Klingon blood.
Of course, the bumpy forehead kinda gives that away without my opening my mouth (or keyboarding pixelated grunts and menancing glares).
:-)