Kerry's Iraq Vote: Pure Spin


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 March
2007 February
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March

My Links
Canadawide
Juan Cole
TPM
Daily Dish
CanucksCathie
E-Group
vanramblings
peace order and good government
Calgary Grit
True North
Gwynn Dyer
Public eye
declan
Sean
Progressive Blogs
Voice in the Wilderness
Tilting at windmills
sec 15
tyee
one damn thing after another
Antonia Zerbisias
Buckets of Grewal
Blank out Times
Accidental Deliberations
Heartlands
Rick Mercer
buckets too
Amazing wonderdog
The Maple Three
The Hive
Cindy Silver 7
Cindy Silver 6
Cindy Silver 5
Cindy Silver 4
Cindy Silver 3
Cindy Silver 2
Cindy Silver
Cindy Silver Sum
Cindy Silver 9
Cindy Silver PR
Cindy Silver (blogs Canada)
Cindy Silver (Blogs Canada 2)
Liberal Blogs

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog


Bookmark this site!

Kerry's Iraq Vote: Pure Spin
09.09.04 (10:54 am)   [edit]

Kerry has said he did not dirctly sanction the Iraq war; so as to strengthen Bush’s hand vis-via Iraq, he merely authorized the use of force.  The underlying implication being that he believed, or was misled to believe Saddam needed to be disarmed and like any good American he believed the president would only go to war if dipolmacy had been exhausted.  At various times he has said the case for needing to rid Saddam of weapons he never had was overstated.  More often, though, he has said that the President did not exhaust dipolmacy; he kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq before they were willing to render a final verdict.  With these arguments to fall back on when asked by Chris Mathews “Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY responded by saying “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)”


Kerry’s position is pure spin.  “Disarming” Iraq through peaceful means was never a live option.  There was only ever two options available once Bush took the UN route, either have the sanctions regime and the policy of containment collapse, or regime change.  You see, if dipolmacy had been exhausted and the weapons inspectors had pronouced that Saddam had indeed disarmed, then not only would the case for war collapse, so too would the case for continuing sanctions.  The US would have been left hanging onto UN resolution 687 paragraph 21, which states that inorder for sanctions to be lifted the Iraqis had to comply with “all relevant UN resolutions” including the Americans and British argued UN resolution 688.  The impetus for the creation of Iraqi Kurdistan and the two no fly zones, 688 condemned “the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq.”   (Ironically, the Bush administration had been very reluctant to pass 688 in the first place, but was pressured into it by the weight of public opinion.)   And the Russians, French and Chinese would have hammered with 687 paragraph 22, which seems to allow for the lifting of sanctions once Iraq has proved to have been rid of WMD.


What Kerry could claim is that Bush/Powell recklessly forced the issue by going the UN route and having the inspectors sent back in.  (Although, presented in the press as being the most skeptical of the lot, Powell evidently believed that there was probably something there and the weapons inspectors would not give Saddam a passing grade.)  He and others had no choice other than to sanction the use of force, or have the US’s entire Iraq policy collapse. 


 


posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 09.09.04 (11:07 am)

The problem is that Bush never bothered to come up with a working exit strategy or how a country living in the 12th Century is suddenly going to embrace a 21st Century democracy. In order to have a working government you need the people behind you. If the people of a nation are not willing to make the sacrifice it takes to have a revolution, they will not be willing to make the even greater sacrifices it takes to keep a free government going. (for evidence see India, Africa, etc) We should have let the Iraqis deal with it.



posted by: stepdad (reply)
post date: 09.09.04 (11:46 am)

Reply to: therealspartacus007

Ok.. so what's our "exit strategy" for Bosnia exactly?

Pretty easy to be an armchair quaterback, bit harder to be the guy that gets hit when you call the wrong play.

Let me clue you in on something a former NCO once told me many years ago, "No plan ever survives contact with the enemy".

No plan. No exceptions. You can't have an exit strategy in place until you know what your up against and what you have to work with, intel information that would be totally unavailable until after the war was over and you could start taking accurate stock of the situation.

No one could have proposed a valid exit strategy for Iraq prior to that, and to say otherwise is simply ridiculous.



posted by: flipsidedown (reply)
post date: 09.09.04 (12:15 pm)

Kerry was worried about you and me, the taxpayer, along with the Soldiers. ANd this is what we get:

BUSH TURNED RECORD SURPLUSES INTO RECORD DEFICITS, PLANS WILL COST $6 TRILLION. When Bush took office, there was a $5.6 trillion surplus over ten years. Now, this year alone CBO is expecting a $422 billion deficit. That is more than $800 billion worse than was projected for this year (CBO Mid-session 2004). George Bush’s proposals – both passed and proposed – would increase the deficit by more than $6 trillion over ten years. George Bush’s plan leaves out trillions of dollars of his proposals – including Iraq, Social Security individual accounts, and the likely cost of his proposed mission to Mars.



posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 09.09.04 (3:09 pm)

Reply to: stepdad
"Ok.. so what's our "exit strategy" for Bosnia exactly?"

We don't have one. That is one of the many many reasons I have opposed the US presence in the Balkans from Day One.

"Pretty easy to be an armchair quaterback, bit harder to be the guy that gets hit when you call the wrong play."

What's your point? I never said I could be president. All I said is that Bush made mistakes. There's nothing unreasonable about that.

"Let me clue you in on something a former NCO once told me many years ago, "No plan ever survives contact with the enemy"."

I'm not saying you have to have everything mapped out neat and tidy. But you have to look ahead and figure out at what point we can secure the nation and withdraw our troops. If we're going to use a football analogy, I'm critcizing the quarterback and the offensive coaches for not bothering to review game film and come up with a plan for the day's matchup.

"No plan. No exceptions. You can't have an exit strategy in place until you know what your up against and what you have to work with, intel information that would be totally unavailable until after the war was over and you could start taking accurate stock of the situation."

Um, espionage has been a documented part of warfare since the Jews invaded the land of milk and honey. I don't think a general plan is too much to ask, lol! We had one going in- the "Shock and Awe," which I thought was a good idea. Both Bush and I miscalculated on that one. But the goal was always 'disarm Saddam,' and there wasn't enough discussion about how to form a new government. This lack of foresight led to mistakes such as the disbanding of the Iraqi army, that could have been a powerful ally against the insurgents.

"No one could have proposed a valid exit strategy for Iraq prior to that, and to say otherwise is simply ridiculous."

Huh, thats really interesting. We had one for Germany and Japan. Exit strategies have often been the make or break point for military campaigns. Napoleon's empire was based around a complex network of exit strategies. His exit strategy didn't work in Russia, and that was part of his undoing.

Look, even Bush admits he miscalculated. That's perfectly forgivable.



posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 09.09.04 (5:32 pm)

Reply to: flipsidedown
please read my other posts before you pass judgment. You will get a better idea of were I stand vis-via Bush.



posted by: stepdad (reply)
post date: 09.10.04 (5:35 am)

"I'm not saying you have to have everything mapped out neat and tidy. But you have to look ahead and figure out at what point we can secure the nation and withdraw our troops. "

Sorry, but what your asking here is simply impossible. Entirely too many variables involved.

"Um, espionage has been a documented part of warfare since the Jews invaded the land of milk and honey. I don't think a general plan is too much to ask, lol! "

A general plan is fine, but no plan is going to go exactly as you intend and there simply is no way to predict all of the possible outcomes before one even begins an operation. Even the best espionage in the world couldn't tell you prior to the Iraq war what would be happening now. As I said, entirely too many variables involved.

"Huh, thats really interesting. We had one for Germany and Japan. "

We had them after the fact, not before. You might also wish to note that we spent a great deal longer in both Germany and Japan than we have currently been in Iraq.





posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 09.10.04 (10:50 pm)

Reply to: therealspartacus007

“The problem is that Bush never bothered to come up with a working exit strategy or how a country living in the 12th Century is suddenly going to embrace a 21st Century democracy.”

The goal was never to embrace Western Style Democracy. That was a pipe dream circulated in the press. The goal was to turn the rest of Iraq into something like Kurdistan. This is, was, an achievable goal.

“In order to have a working government you need the people behind you. If the people of a nation are not willing to make the sacrifice it takes to have a revolution, they will not be willing to make the even greater sacrifices it takes to keep a free government going.”

It was never a matter of having the Iraqis just suck it up. The problem with Iraq as opposed to Kurdistan is there was no opposition groups, at least none the States liked, who could step into the reins of power. Pentagon had thought they could build such a group (INC) and have it step in, but the group did not have any sort of legitimacy.

What the States should have done right of the bat in the Shia areas, and this is some sort of consensus emerging around this, was they should have handed over control at the municipal early on. This is what the British wanted and this is also what the some local commanders wanted. If memory serves me right, the commander in Nassriyah was pushing for local elections.





Your Name:


Your Comment: