Kerry & Iraq

[Sarah]

I went to John Kerry's website and looked at his exit strategy for
Iraq.

http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html

After reading through his doublespeak, we get to his plan about 3/4
of the way down:

Nowhere does he propose going back to the UN for another resolution.
He comments about the need to "conduct real diplomacy," but offers
indication as to what this means nor any rationale for why other
nations would willingly enter a war-zone -- perhaps because he has no
intention of internationalizing it.

He talks about a timetable, but offers none. This is less than what
Bush is doing now (not that timetables have any relevance at all,
because this is all meaningless as long as the military occupation
continues, which neither Bush nor Kerry have any intention to do).

He says we need 40,000 more troops there. This is presumably NOT to
turn anything over to anyone.

Finally, Kerry says that "we need to establish the rule of law, we
urgently need to rebuild a sense of basic order," which may be a
direct quote from Bush's press secretary. Again, he offers no plan
to do so.

The UN was involved in Iraq under the Bush regime until they were
attacked by the Iraqi resistance.

The mere fact that John Kerry will be the President will not change
the enmity Iraqis feel for a military occupation.

John Kerry cannot stop the resistance.

Finally, the UN just returned from Iraq after evaluating the
constitution/elections issue. They said they wouldn't return to Iraq
until it was more stable.

[Bert Bishop]

Post by Sarah
I went to John Kerry's website and looked at his exit strategy for
Iraq.
http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html
After reading through his doublespeak, we get to his plan about 3/4
Nowhere does he propose going back to the UN for another resolution.
He comments about the need to "conduct real diplomacy," but offers
indication as to what this means nor any rationale for why other
nations would willingly enter a war-zone -- perhaps because he has no
intention of internationalizing it.
He talks about a timetable, but offers none. This is less than what
Bush is doing now (not that timetables have any relevance at all,
because this is all meaningless as long as the military occupation
continues, which neither Bush nor Kerry have any intention to do).
He says we need 40,000 more troops there. This is presumably NOT to
turn anything over to anyone.
Finally, Kerry says that "we need to establish the rule of law, we
urgently need to rebuild a sense of basic order," which may be a
direct quote from Bush's press secretary. Again, he offers no plan
to do so.
The UN was involved in Iraq under the Bush regime until they were
attacked by the Iraqi resistance.
The mere fact that John Kerry will be the President will not change
the enmity Iraqis feel for a military occupation.
John Kerry cannot stop the resistance.
Finally, the UN just returned from Iraq after evaluating the
constitution/elections issue. They said they wouldn't return to Iraq
until it was more stable.

Sarah you can change my vote. I plan on voting for your candidate in
the Ohio Primary next Tuesday. However, if I see one more negative post
from you (or any Kucinich supporter on alt.politics.elections) between
now and then I will vote for Edwards (because he has been better than
Kerry about not going negative). Better isn't worse. Consider:
ANWAR, abortion rights, availabilty of contraception, logging, roads
in the national forests, the progressive tax structure, subsidizing of
corporations relocating their jobs and even offices overseas, the
environmental and human degradation of the machildoras(sp?) as a result
of NAFTA, the Mexico City policy, our relationship with long time
European allies, the respect (as opposed to only fear) of the world's
people and governments, the minimum wage, saving social security as we
know it, the availability of drugs for seniors, the availability of the
full range of medical care for all U.S. residents, respecting the
knowledge we get from science, appointments to the courts, respecting
the civil rights of the people in the Constitution, and keeping a
Constitution that doesn't have descrimination written into it (although
this is not a presidential issue). Either Kerry or Edwards will be
better on almost all of these issues, and on all the others they show
promise. And surely the list above is not complete.

[Jym Dyer]

=x= Remarks about John Kerry, a Democratic Party politician, are
irrelevant to the Green Party and to Green movements worldwide.

=x= Please stop cross-posting off-topic political chatter to
alt.politics.greens. The most rudimentary piece of Usenet
courtesy is to post to newsgroup(s) what people subscribed to
those newsgroups to read; *not* to spew at everyone you can
think of. You're not helping your arguments with this strategy;
you're just ending up in killfiles.
<_Jym_>

[Jerry Okamura]

Interesting post. Thanks

Post by Sarah
I went to John Kerry's website and looked at his exit strategy for
Iraq.
http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html
After reading through his doublespeak, we get to his plan about 3/4
Nowhere does he propose going back to the UN for another resolution.
He comments about the need to "conduct real diplomacy," but offers
indication as to what this means nor any rationale for why other
nations would willingly enter a war-zone -- perhaps because he has no
intention of internationalizing it.
He talks about a timetable, but offers none. This is less than what
Bush is doing now (not that timetables have any relevance at all,
because this is all meaningless as long as the military occupation
continues, which neither Bush nor Kerry have any intention to do).
He says we need 40,000 more troops there. This is presumably NOT to
turn anything over to anyone.

What I find interesting about the above, is he must be taking a page out of
the President Johnson playbook, i.e. micro managing the defense department.
And anyone who has managed knows that is not really a smart thing to do.