Kerry Describes Bush's 3 Iraq F-Ups

[DrFunkenstein]

Despite all the evasions and explanations, we are now in danger of losing the peace in Iraq because of the arrogance of this President and this Administration both before and after the war. It was bad enough to go-it-alone in the war. It is inexcusable and incomprehensible to go-it-alone in the peace. In the last year, President Bush has had three decisive opportunities to build an international coalition on the issue of Iraq. And three times, he not only failed; he hardly even tried.

The first opportunity came last fall after Congress authorized the use of force. That authorization sent a strong signal that the President and the Congress were united in holding Saddam Hussein accountable for his failures to keep his commitments and his scorn for the world community. It set the stage for the UN resolution that finally led him to let UN inspectors back into Iraq. When I voted to give the President the authority to use force, I said arms inspections are “absolutely critical in building international support for our case to the world. That’s how you make clear to the world we are contemplating war not for war’s sake, but because it may be the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism.”

But the Bush Administration, impatient to go into battle, stopped the clock on the inspectors against the wishes of key members of the Security Council and despite the call of many in Congress who had voted to authorize force as a last resort. Despite his September promise to the United Nations to “work with the UN Security Council to meet our common challenge,” President Bush rushed ahead on the basis of what we now know to be dubious, inaccurate, and perhaps manipulated intelligence – intelligence which the inspectors could have vetted and corrected. So the first chance for a true international response was lost in a relentless march to war.

There was a second opportunity – after the Iraqi people pulled down Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad. American and British forces had prevailed on the ground and it was time to win the peace. It was also obvious to everyone but the armchair ideologues in the Pentagon that the United States could not – and should not – undertake the reconstruction of Iraq on its own. To do so risked turning a military victory that promised liberation into an unwanted occupation by a foreign and Western power.

From the moment that statue fell, the successful reconstruction of Iraq and the creation of a new Iraqi government depended on the legitimacy of the process in the eyes of the Iraqi people and the world. And that legitimacy in turn has always depended on internationalizing the effort. But the Bush Administration insisted on a UN role that was little more than window-dressing. And yet again, a critical opportunity was spurned.

President Bush’s third – and most recent moment of opportunity – came last week when he addressed the UN General Assembly. Other nations stood ready to stand with us – to provide troops to help stabilize the security situation and funds to help rebuild Iraq. All President Bush had to do was ask. Instead of asking, he lectured. Instead of focusing on reconstruction, his speech was a coldly received exercise in the rhetoric of redemption. Kofi Annan offered to help. The Bush Administration said, “thank you, but no thank you” – and I’m not even sure they included the “thank you.” The President was self-satisfied and tone deaf, stiff-arming the UN, raising the risk for American soldiers and the bill to the American treasury, and reducing the chances of success within a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost.

The President could have owned up to the difficulties we face. He could have signaled or stated a willingness to abandon unilateral control over reconstruction and governance. Instead, he made America less safe in a speech and in conduct that pushed other nations away rather than invited them in. That failure will cost us dearly in the months ahead, in an Iraq consumed with suspicion, resentment, and continued violence.

We may well catch Saddam Hussein in the days ahead. We may even succeed in winning a measure of stability. But what will happen to the larger goals, like insuring that Iraq does not descend into chaos and become a breeding ground for terrorism. And how many more lives will be lost because an Administration imprisoned by its pride will not admit its mistakes and change direction. We cannot let this happen.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0930a.html

<>

[guevara]

1. A Note from the front line

Editor's Note: This is an open letter from U.S. Army Maj. Eric Rydbom in Iraq to the First Lutheran Church of Richmond Beach in Shoreline, Wash. Rydbom is Deputy Division Engineer of the 4th Infantry Division.

It has been a while since I have written to my friends at First Lutheran Church about what's really going on here in Iraq. The news you watch on TV is exaggerated, sensationalized and selective. Good news doesn't sell.

The stuff you don't hear about on CNN?

Let's start with electrical power production in Iraq. The day after the war was declared over, there was nearly 0 power being generated in Iraq. Just 45 days later, in a partnership between the Army, the Iraqi people and some private companies, there are now 3200 megawatts (Mw) of power being produced daily, 1/3 of the total national potential of 8000 Mw. Downed power lines (big stuff, 400 Kilovolt (Kv) and 132 Kv) are being repaired and are about 70 percent complete.

Then there is water purification. In central Iraq between Baghdad and Mosul, home of the 4th Infantry Division, water treatment was spotty at best. The facilities existed, but the controls were never implemented. Simple chemicals like Chlorine for purification and Alum (Aluminum Sulfate) for sediment settling (the Tigris River is about as clear as the Mississippi River) were in very short supply or not used at all. When chlorine was used, it was metered by the scientific method of guessing.

So some people got pool water to drink and some people got water with lots of little things floating around in it. We are slowly but surely solving that. Contracts for repairs to facilities that are only 50 percent or less operational are being let, chemicals are being delivered, although we don't have the metering problem solved yet (...but again, it's only been 45 days).

How about oil and fuel? Well the war was all about oil wasn't it? You bet it was. It was all about oil for the Iraqi people! They have no other income. They produce nothing else. Oil is 95 percent of the Iraqi GNP. For this nation to survive, it must sell oil.

The Refinery at Bayji is at 75 percent of capacity producing gasoline. The crude pipeline between Kirkuk (Oil Central) and Bayji will be repaired by tomorrow (2 June). LPG, what all Iraqis use to cook and heat with, is at 103 percent of normal production and we, the U.S. Army, are ensuring it is being distributed fairly to all Iraqis.

You have to remember that only three months ago, all these things were used by the Saddam regime as weapons against the population to keep them in line. If your town misbehaved, gasoline shipments stopped, LPG pipelines and trucks stopped, water was turned off, power was turned off.

Now, until exports start, every drop of gasoline produced goes to the Iraqi people. Crude oil is being stored and the country is at 75 percent capacity right now. They need to export or stop pumping soon, so thank the U.N. for the delay.

All LPG goes to the Iraqi people everywhere. Water is being purified as best it can be, but at least its running all the time to everyone.

Are we still getting shot at? Yep.

Are American soldiers still dying? Yep, about one a day from my outfit, the 4th Infantry Division, most in accidents, but dead is dead.

If we are doing all this for the Iraqis, why are they shooting at us?

The general Iraqi population isn't shooting at us. There are still bad guys who won't let go of the old regime. They are Ba'ath party members (Read Nazi Party, but not as nice) who have known nothing but and supported nothing but the regime all of their lives. These are the thugs for the regime who caused many to disappear in the night. They have no other skills. At least the Nazis had jobs and a semblance of a national infrastructure that they could go back to after the war, as plumbers, managers, engineers, etc. These people have no skills but terror. They are simply applying their skills ... and we are applying ours.

There is no Christian way to say this, but they must be eliminated and we are doing so with all the efficiency we can muster. Our troops are shot at literally everyday by small arms and Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs). We respond. One hundred percent of the time, the Ba''ath party guys come out with the short end of the stick.

The most amazing thing to me is that they don't realize that if they stopped shooting at us, we would focus on fixing things more quickly and then leave back to the land of the Big PX. The more they shoot at us, the longer we will have to stay.

Lastly, all of you please realize that 90 percent of the damage you see on TV was caused by Iraqis, not by us and not by the war. Sure, we took out a few bridges from military necessity, we took out a few power and phone lines to disrupt communications, sure we drilled a few palaces and government headquarters buildings with 2000 lb. laser guided bombs (I work 100 yards from where two hit the Tikrit Palace), he had plenty to spare.

But, any damage you see to schools, hospitals, power generation facilities, refineries, pipelines, was all caused either by the Iraqi Army in its death throes or from much of the Iraqi civilians looting the places.

Could we have prevented it? Nope.

We can and do now, but 45 days ago, the average soldier was fighting for his own survival and trying to get to his objectives as fast as possible. He was lucky to know what town he was in much less be informed enough to know who owned what or have the power to stop 1,000 people from looting and burning a building by himself.

The United States and our allies, especially Great Britain, are doing a very noble thing here. We stuck our necks out on the world's chopping block to free an entire people from the grip of a horrible terror that was beyond belief.

I've already talked the weapons of mass destruction thing to death - bottom line, who cares? This country was one big conventional weapons ammo dump anyway.. We have probably destroyed more weapons and ammo in the last 30 days than the U.S. Army has ever fired in the last 30 years (remember, this is a country the size of Texas), so drop the WMD argument as the reason we came here. If we find it great if we don't, so what?

I'm living in a "guest palace" on a 500-acre palace compound with 20 palaces with like facilities built in half a dozen towns all over Iraq that were built for one man. Drive down the street and out into the countryside five miles away like I have and see all the families of 10 or more, all living in mud huts and herding the two dozen sheep on which their very existence depends ....then tell me why you think we are here.

Respectfully,

ERIC RYDBOM
MAJOR, ENGINEER
Deputy Division Engineer
4th Infantry Division

[revcarol]

5. Everything's on its way to being hunky-dory?

How many of those things were blown up AFTER he wrote this letter?

And who cares if there were WMD's? We're winning, and all those contracts for oil are given out to Bush's buddies, and besides we have control of the money the Iraqis would have gotten to decide what they would spend it on, had we not been an occupying nation.

And sometimes you worry about propaganda in the military...

[flpoljunkie]

2. Thanks for posting, Dr. Funk. Hoped this speech would be LIVE on C-Span

but, alas, it was not! Would love to see a video of the speech.

I have said many times, Bush went to both Congress and the United Nations in bad faith all the while lying to the American people about war being his'last resort".

By not giving the inspectors a final 30 days to make a final report re WMD, and by pulling a US/UK sponsored resolution headed for failure, Bush showed his hand--and made clear he meant what he said to Condi Rice and three Repug Senators meeting in her office in the spring of 2002, "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out!"

[curse10]

3. Great speech

I can't believe people accuse Kerry of not being exciting. I think his speeches are powerful-- they are clear cut and to the point. None of this angry rhetoric which seems to pass as excitement these days.

[DrFunkenstein]

4. Kerry Sounds Like Common Sense, Not Anger

This may be a factor in why certain people gravitate towards Kerry or Dean. Kerry sounds indignant, Dean sounds pissed. I think the latter probably plays better in the primaries, but the former would resonate more with the general public.

Kerry shares our outrage, but he doesn't have a fire-breather's style. What matters to me more is who has the better plan, and the qualities that make a leader. Kerry has shown me over and over that he knows exactly what needs to be done in each situation - which is how he developed such an amazing record.

Kerry was clearly tortured over the IWR, but I believe he did his best to do what was most responsible. I'm not sure if I agreed with his decision, but I am absolutely certain that Kerry's detailed plan of action was dead-on correct. That matters to me.

[curse10]

8. Preachin' to the converted :-)

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I also didn't agree with his vote, but I'm not, and never will be, a single issue voter. A lot of people who are anti-Kerry can only name that one thing he did. They are blinded by this freakish obsession over the war vote. Never mind that Kerry has over two decades of a proven liberal agenda.

And, here's a side note: Kerry voted against the first war against Iraq, but Al Gore voted for it...

[revcarol]

6. And NO, I will NEVER forgive Kerry!!

His article makes sense except for one obvious thing: he TRUSTED BUSH, when well over half the country had already seen how untrustworthy Bush was, and he had first hand knowledge of the initiatives Bush refused to fund after his photo-ops promoting them, the lies he had already been caught in....

THIS WAS A GLARINGLY OBVIOUS MISTAKE IN JUDGMENT...and with such poor judgement, he should NOT be President.

[MrPeepers]

7. There is a point

where one must trust the Administration. You can't go around assuming everyone's out to screw you. The Administration promised they would do everything they could to avoid war. Kerry took their word on this. It was not bad judgement at the time. The Presidency is an office that should be respected, Kerry acted as such. President Bush was unworthy of that respect, and consequently will be punished. I believe it is hope that so many people on this board believe is important in a presidential candidate. Kerry hoped that the Administration would handle the Iraq matter responsibly. They didn't. Is it so wrong to have that hope? Kerry won't trust the Bush Administration again, a point which he has made very clear. If he wins the nomination, and thus the Presidency, he won't be in a position to make that mistake again, because he will be the President. In any event, a President John Kerry would never lead us into a war as President George W. Bush did. President Kerry would never lie his way into a war, would never send young Americans to die for an unjust cause, would never fail to plan out the reconstruction process, and would never go in unilaterally.

Peepers

[DrFunkenstein]

9. It Was The Most Difficult Vote He Ever Had To Make

As his 45 minute speech indicated. But, in the end, he felt it was his responsibility to vote for what he felt was the best of two lousy options. If he were President, he would use the threat of force to put Saddam in compliance. That was how he voted.

It is also clear, though, that he presented a real plan for what to do, not just criticism of Bush. If you see his plan, you would say that is absolutely the right course of action.

[HPLeft]

10. Sorry. Wrong Numbers

By February 2003, nearly 70% of Americans were supporting this invasion. Over half the country DID NOT AGREE that Bush was untrustworthy. In fact, the poll numbers with regard to Bush's trustworthiness were quite strong in his favor well into the summer of 2003.

I know that facts are a poor substitute for emotion, but those are the facts.

I will also point out that had the Democrats voted to deny the President the authority to confront Hussein, in the face of a strongly supportive public, it is my opinion that they would lost every close Senate seat in November 2002, and Bush would have received his authorization in January of 2003.

John Kerry voted to authorize the President because of his long-standing belief that an armed and appeased Hussein represented a threat to the region - and the intelligence reports he was seeing indicated that the likelihood was strong that Hussein was re-arming. Those intelligence reports may have been dramatically incorrect, but United States Senators do have to make calls based on the available facts, not just on emotion, hatred or political expediency.