Kerry's Plan
It was the best plan of action during the failed campaign and still is.
If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.
posted by Mark at 6:22 PM
6 Comments:
Sorry. Can't agree. Kerry's position on Iraq was something like this: "We will stay in Iraq, only I'll do it better than Bush." He never gave any specifics about how. No strategy, nothing was really offered. I voted for Kerry because he was the only alternative to Bush, but in the Democratic primary, I voted for Dennis Cucinich, because he opposed the war from the start and said we should withdraw.
We must leave Iraq now. That's the only sensible strategy. Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and other presidential wannabes voted for the initial Congressional resolution authorizing the war because they are afraid of being called weak on terror. They're wafflers, trying to walk on both sides of the street simultaneously. It can't be done. Take a clear, decisive position.
I disagree as one who promoted the policy outlined here. I read it at the time, I repeated it; I used it in speech class and wrote an op-ed based on it. What you say--no details is false on its face. A vote for Kucinich is like pissing into the wind. It just landed on your face.
Kerry's plan is terrible. No military presence in Iraq? We just spent billions creating a friendly ally in the middle of terrorism alley, and you want no military presence? What's the effing point? We need military over there, ready to act on fresh intel regarding terrorist training camps, schools, bases, etc. Kerry has nothing to offer besides bad ideas and broad generalizations of how he would do it better, which is what he said in his campaign. Have to agree with peter on that part. but don't get excited, peter, your plan is even more naive and stupid. leave iraq now? while it's half-rebuilt? while it has a weak and half-trained military? While its government is still incomplete? Nothing smacks of cowardice more than that, and you could expect favorable world opinion of the US to divebomb if we abandon Iraq while it needs help. We made a mess, albeit for a purpose, but now we have to clean it up.
No what Bush has is a broad generalization with no improvement in sight. They frigged it up from the start. And with American contractors only reaping the monetary raping of the American taxpayer instead of Iraqis needing work, we'll only be more hated than ever. Get a clue from behind the curtain.
American companies you hate like Halliburton are the best equipped to rebuild critical infrastructure in Iraq quickly. Leaving it up to the Iraqis would take much longer, which in turn would cause you to complain even more. the point is: no matter what happens anywhere, anytime, to anyone - people like yourself will find a way to complain about it and insist your ideas are better.
Then why is it still incomplete? Who built Saddam's palaces without Haliburton, John? Critical thinking man! You conservatives have none.
Post a Comment
<< Home