Well, it’s a new day of the week, so it was about time for Kerry to shift his position on Iraq again:
[url=http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=578182§ion=news]Kerry vows to withdraw troops from Iraq
[/quote]
This is idiotic. It’s also a change from what he was saying just a few weeks ago, when he said the problem with Iraq was that Bush wasn’t sending enough troops there, and he was pledging another 40,000 troops. Now he wants to pull them all out.
I know there are a lot of Kerry supporters here who have said that even though the war was wrong, it would be disastrous to cut and run. Do you now agree with Kerry’s new position, or do you agree with the ‘old’ Kerry, from say a couple of weeks ago?
And even if you think the troops should come home, don’t you think it’s stupid to announce a timetable before hostilities have ended? Doesn’t that just give the enemy more strategic options? (“The Americans want to go home, Aziz. Let’s calm down, let them think everything is okay, and then after they leave we will take over.”)
Finally, from a tactical election standpoint, is this not just idiotic? Kerry’s biggest problem is that he has been pigeonholed as a waffler who can’t stand the heat. How does changing his position again help his campaign?
How is this a change? He’s not talking about leaving Iraq next week, he’s pledged to leave Iraq within his first term, if elected. That’s four and a half years leeway. Hardly “cutting and running”. Don’t be deliberately obtuse.
The weather in Iraq will be cooling down in the next month or so, and I expect the Iraqi civil war will be heating up. I don’t recall anyone saying that we conquered Iraq in order to serve as a pawn to one faction in that type of conflict, yet that seems to be what we’re doing nowadays. Why are we attacking the Turkmen in Tal Afar for instance, if not for some political reason thus far known only to Allawi and a few military and administration officials? Over the past couple months, the strategic benefits US actions have become steadily less clear, and the areas of the country controlled by either the US or Iraq’s sovereign government have gotten steadily smaller. There is no end in sight, and the shit we are in continues to get deeper. Under those circumstances, it’d be foolhardy to wait until everything is hunkydory before rethinking our goals and our deployment.
It doesn’t look as if things are going to get better anytime soon, and it doesn’t look like anything we could do incountry will help matters.
So why should we force the men and women in the armed forces to stay in Iraq and risk death?
I just watched Mary Matalin (former Bush campaign strategist) on Meet the Press, saying that this represents Kerry’s 8th major policy change on Iraq. I guess what we need is a steering wheel lock on the “Iraq policy” so that no directional changes are ever made, regardless of new developments in the war or in public opinion.
As I was saying, I suspect that public opinion has changed somewhat since last December, as more and more of our boys come home in body bags. It will probably change again as the mortality rate hits the 1000 mark within the next few weeks. Is it wrong for a politician to alter his policies to reflect the desires of the electorate?
I honestly don’t give a damn. I’d vote for a ham sandwich if it got Bush out of office. Besides, the cut and run thing was what I wanted to begin with.
Well, despite what the criteria, qualifications and specifications of ‘cut&run’ may or may not be… Maybe Kerry plans, just like the Bush plan didn’t survive contact with reality.
Did I miss something? Why exactly is Brutus laughing, and Sam high-fiving him?
As for the accusation of Kerry wanting to “cut and run”: get real.
A lot can happen during 4 years, and we are more than capable of withdrawing our troops (or at the very least, cycling them), regardless of what Our Fearless Leader would have you believe.
A lot is possible when your allies aren’t pissed at you.
I’m starting to seriously consider even sending in my voter registration forms. What’s the point in voting if I don’t want to see either candidate win?
I repeat - Kerry has never called for the immediate withdrawal of US troops, or even their withdrawal within 18 months or so. He didn’t propose it in the past, he’s not proposing it now.
The change in policy? Well, back in December he said he wouldn’t withdraw troops straight away, that there might need to be new troops sent through. Now he says he’d withdraw the troops within four-and-a-half years. There’s no cognitive dissonance between those two positions.
Repeat - back then he wasn’t in favour of leaving immediately. Now he’s in favour of leaving over a long time frame. Where is the difference?
Umm, yeah… if we withdraw our troops immediately (i.e. cut and run), then it would be an invitation for failure. But since Kerry said he had a goal to withdraw troops within the next 4 years… Let me re-iterate: “WITHIN THE NEXT 4 YEARS”…4 years is hardly “cut and run”.
Give it a rest. Our current president is not capable of envisioning the withdrawal of our troops (in any reasonable manner), but his opponent is. And you’re laughing? This is ridiculous.
