Iraq: Some ruminating thoughts

[TayTay]

Just background stuff to consider:

One year ago on 9/21/04: Transcipt Kerry 9/21/04

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) if the world is better off with Saddam gone, how did that square with the comment last night with David Letterman, that knowing what you now know, you wouldn't have gone to war?

KERRY: Because, for several reasons. First of all, it's obvious, if he is gone, the world is better off without him.

KERRY: Everybody understands that. He's a brutal dictator. And as I said yesterday in my speech, he deserves his own special place in hell.

But that doesn't mean that you go to war in an irresponsible way that puts America at greater risk. That doesn't mean you should take your eye off the ball, which was Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida, and rush to war just to get rid of him.

Are we better off without him? Sure. But what they've done is, as I said in my speech yesterday, they have replaced a dictator with chaos, and chaos in a way that puts America and Iraqis at much greater risk.

I believe there was a more responsible way to do it. If you don't have weapons of mass destruction, believe me, Saddam Hussein is a very different person. That's what kept him in power. And I believe Saddam Hussein would not be in power.

This president avoided approaching this in responsible ways, and it's a tragedy. He now has an opportunity to lead and pull this together, but he seems to be in denial. He doesn't want to admit what even Prime Minister Allawi admitted yesterday. Terrorists are pouring across the border, ladies and gentlemen. That's what the prime minister of Iraq said.

And I believe that more than just Americans should be bearing the burden of getting and achieving this success.

Hmmm, why didn't this get better media play? Oh yeah, Kerry windsurfs, don't ya know.

*******************************

Meet the PRess, Jan 30, 2005 Kerry on MTP

MR. RUSSERT: Specifically, do you agree with Senator Kennedy that 12,000 American troops should leave at once?

SEN. KERRY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe there should be a specific timetable of withdrawal of American troops?

SEN. KERRY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: What would you do?

SEN. KERRY: I understand exactly what Senator Kennedy is saying, and I agree with Senator Kennedy's perceptions of the problem and of how you deal with it. I would--in fact, last summer, if you'll recall, I said specifically that if we did the things that I laid out--the training, the international community, the services and reconstruction, and the elections and protection--we could draw down troops and begin to withdraw them. I think what Senator Kennedy is saying--and here I do agree with him--is that it is vital for the United States to make it clear that we are not there with long-term goals and intentions of our presence in the region. I agree with Senator Kennedy that we have become the target and part of the problem today, if not the problem. Now, obviously, you've got to provide security and stability in order to be able to turn this over to the Iraqis and to be able to withdraw our troops, so I wouldn't do a specific timetable, but I certainly agree with him in principle that the goal must be to withdraw American troops.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the new government, as soon as it's possible, begins to negotiate some modality like that. And I wouldn't be surprised if they even asked us to leave in some way over a period of time. I wouldn't be surprised if the administration privately, behind closed doors, asked them to ask us to leave. I think there are plenty of ways to skin this cat. But the most important thing is that you've got to have stability.

What Iraq is after this is important to the world. It cannot be a haven for terrorism. It cannot be a completely failed state. Now, you'll notice the administration has backed off significantly of its own high goals of full democratization and so forth, and I don't think you're going to hear them pushing that. There are a lot of conservatives, neo-cons and others in Washington debating now sort of what the modality of withdrawal ought to be.

[TayTay]

1. More Iraq background stuff

This is from the Congressional Record of June 28, 2005. The occasion was a floor speech by Sen. Kerry offering advice to the Prez for his speech that night. (Which said Prez ignored, per usual procedures. Sigh!)
Thomas Server, Look it up!

So what can the President say tonight to get things right in Iraq and put us on the road to success? The President can start by immediately declaring that the United States does not seek permanent bases or any permanent military presence in Iraq . Erasing suspicion of indefinite occupation is critical to eroding support for the insurgency. Getting that right also means using the extraordinary leverage that we have to get the Iraqis to do their part. Our massive military presence is all that stands between the Iraqi people and complete chaos. Our special forces are protecting Iraqi leaders. With this kind of leverage, it is nothing short of shocking that the administration allowed 6 months to go by from the last election before including Sunnis in the political process. This was an obvious crucial prerequisite to success.

Yet there was no sense of urgency and minimal pressure applied. It is time for the administration to use its leverage to insist that the Iraqis do their part and establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding new elections in December. There can be no wavering from those dates.

Getting it right also means putting together a real plan for training Iraqi troops and following through on it. This should be our top priority. It is the key to getting our troops home and avoiding a humiliating withdrawal.

It is time to move beyond fudging the numbers and finally put the training of Iraqi troops on a true 6-month wartime footing. That includes ensuring that the Iraqi Government has the full budget necessary to be able to deploy and continue the training.

It is also time to stop using the in-country training requirement as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France, and Germany to do more. Why would we turn down the opportunity of other countries to help us do more? Why would we turn down the opportunity to be able to give our troops the relief they deserve?

Getting it right also means drawing up a detailed plan--a real plan, shared with the Congress of the United States--with the clear milestone of transfer of military and police responsibilities to the Iraqis after the December elections.

The administration's plan should take into account both political and security objectives, including Iraqi force structure and capacity, and it should be specifically tied to a series of specific tasks and responsibilities. This plan must have more than just dates and numbers. It must make it clear to the Iraqi Government that American patience is limited.

**************************************

9/19/05 Speech at Brown (in excerpts.)

The Brown Speech

I know the President went on national television last week and accepted responsibility for Washington's poor response to Katrina. That's admirable. And it's a first. As they say, the first step towards recovery is to get out of denial. But don't hold your breath hoping acceptance of responsibility will become a habit for this administration. On the other hand, if they are up to another "accountability moment" they ought to start by admitting one or two of the countless mistakes in conceiving, "selling", planning and executing their war of choice in Iraq.

SNIP

Katrina is a symbol of all this administration does and doesn't do. Michael Brown -- or Brownie as the President so famously thanked him for doing a heck of a job - Brownie is to Katrina what Paul Bremer is to peace in Iraq; what George Tenet is to slam dunk intelligence; what Paul Wolfowitz is to parades paved with flowers in Baghdad; what Dick Cheney is to visionary energy policy; what Donald Rumsfeld is to basic war planning; what Tom Delay is to ethics; and what George Bush is to “Mission Accomplished” and "Wanted Dead or Alive." The bottom line is simple: The "we'll do whatever it takes" administration doesn't have what it takes to get the job done.

This is the Katrina administration.

SNIP

And instead of stubbornly disregarding intelligence, using force prematurely and shoving our allies aside, it means an America that restores its leadership in the world. An America that meets its responsibility of creating a world where the plagues of our time and future times - from terror to disease to poverty to weapons of mass destruction to the unknown - are overcome by allies united in common cause, and proud to follow American leadership.

That is the direction not taken but still open to us in the future if we answer that simple question - ‘what’s in it for all of us?’ It comes down to the fact that the job of government is to prepare for your future - not ignore it. It should prepare to solve problems - not create them.

That is a major change in tone, but not in meaning or conssitency. Hmmmmm.........

[beachmom]

2. He really has been consistent, Tay Tay, but maybe he is "framing"

it differently. Putting it all together by saying that if we hadn't gone into Iraq essentially alone, and instead cooperated with the U.N., done the weapons inspections, et al, we would be in a better position now. It kind of reminds me how Bush turned down foreign aid "we can handle it all by ourselves" on Thursday after Katrina hit, and then had to reverse himself when he realized what a mess it was in NO. Kerry is saying we need help from other countries in the region, we need to work together to make this thing work. There were many Republicans who ended up endorsing Kerry for president. And one reason was that if Kerry were president, it would make Iraq America's war instead of Bush's war. There are so many minds that have turned away from this problem that could have helped out, with the way Bush shuts everyone out.

I'm not sure if any of this is making sense, but JK is mostly saying the same thing as far as the past, but he may be working through what the solutions can be to this big problem, Iraq.

[TayTay]

3. I thought the same thing

All the speeches and papers are remarkably consistent. And this goes back much farther than the quotes I put in above. (As you know.)

The latest speech is so interesting. That's Kerry speaking. That's the guy I remember. The speeches last year were good (hell several were great) but this latest speech is pure Kerry. I have no doubt at all that he wrote the whole thing himself. It is just him. That speech came from his heart. It reflected all the sorrow and anger, the frustration and optimism that I have heard so much in the past. It was a great, great speech.

If this is a taste of the future, hot damn, I'm in.

[karynnj]

4. I liked the way it had a vague resemblence to the 1971 speech

like that speech at Brown, he first enumerated all several ways in which the government is not doing doing the right thing, but then comes back with a call to believe in a vision of the alternatives that are still available. The justposition of harsh critisism and pure idealism and faith in the people and country to demand more is beautiful.

It's too bad that it will be heard by so few - I hope that Brown video taped it. But, it does sound like we will hear more. The great thing is that he is speaking from his heart and what he says rings true. That's what makes him so special. That and the fact that he seems to be naturally eloquent.

Also, thanks to Kerry's email the speech did get a moderate amount of attention. At this point, no RW person would listen anyway. There were 5 million people who got the email - if even 1 million read it, that's a lot. This is a reasonable percent of the Democratic involved with politics even when the election is 2 years out population.

Look at the fact that with little notice, he got unexpectably large crowds out to hear him in NJ and RI - and in several places where he did his Kids First events. Some of you talked of a time in NH in 2003 where he drew almost no one. The media pushed Dean, then Clark, then Edwards as saviors, but Kerry won the primaries. Four years ago, conventional wisdom was that Gore should run again. Now, Hillary has the advantage, but all we see is Bill.

[emulatorloo]

5. I appreciate you pulling this together in one place. . .

EOM