# Kerry's New Iraq Policy - Cut and Run **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 7, 2004, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442 "2004-09-07T03:49:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/41 "2004-09-07T14:45:57Z")
Are all of you daft? Kerry has said repeatedly for as long as I can remember, that we wants to significantly reduce U.S. troops there. It’s not cutting and running, since he wants to replace them with more international troops. So, most of these points would only be valid if he had recently said he will withdraw no matter what. Did he say so? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/42 "2004-09-07T14:54:18Z")
I actually welcome this debate. At least Kerry is saying something specific enough that one could agree or disagree with it. So, some say bringing troops home within his first term is too rapid a withdrawl. Some say that’s just about right. Great, if Kerry sticks to that plan, we have a point of debate. All we’ve had up to now is “I would have done it differently, and I will do it differently.” Differently how? Now we have some idea. ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/43 "2004-09-07T15:04:26Z")
Sooner or later US troops will leave Iraq. If you mean by the phrase “cut and run” a result that the country will quickly return to pretty much its condition before US troops were involved, then it doesn’t matter who is President or what our policy is. You can train a dog but you can’t change its nature. Iraq will be Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Daddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Bruce\_Daddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Daddy)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/44 "2004-09-07T15:16:13Z")
I’m all out of syrup and butter over here, can someone pass me some more? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/45 "2004-09-07T16:12:11Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > What is the WH estimate? > [@Marley 23](#): > > …what exactly IS the Bush plan for leaving Iraq? I dunno. They are building them 14 permanent bases and the world’s largest SU embassy, though. Are these more differences from Viet Nam? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/46 "2004-09-07T16:15:48Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > They are building them 14 permanent bases and the world’s largest SU embassy, though. > > Are these more differences from Viet Nam? Does the embassy have a helipad on the roof? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/47 "2004-09-07T16:34:48Z")
Sometime within the next four years = cut&run How does this work in situations other than this one? Let’s try it on for size: I’ve got three years left in my undergrad studies. becomes I’m cutting&running from college. I have less than four years left in my enlistment. becomes I’m cutting&running from college. I want to give you a raise, but because of budgetary pressures, the raise’ll have to wait a while- sometime within the next four years. becomes I’m going to c&r from our budgetary restraints and give you a raise. In these examples (and many, many others I’d wager) cut&run implies an immediacy that’s not a part of ‘within the next four years’. Based on this difference, I’d say that rarely, if ever, is c&r an acceptable equivalent of ‘within the next four years.’ YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/48 "2004-09-07T17:24:17Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So maybe its best to say, show steely resolve up to the point where it becomes clear you’ve really fucked up big. Then you show adaptability and flexible strategic thinking. Thinking outside the bog. The path to catastrophic success is not always so cut and dried, **Sam**. May even be cut and run. > > So it may be ok to _appear_ unshakeably resolute and determined to proceed at any cost. Just as long as you know you’re bluffing. Me thinks you make sense. I’d rather the two guys agree that Iraq will _happen_ and worry about making the proper adjustments on the fly with the goal of getting out as soon as possible. We must give, at least, the appearance that we are of hardened resolve. How much of the information that the Pres has access to is JK privy to regarding the goings on in Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/49 "2004-09-07T17:56:58Z")
> [@LilShieste](#): > > Did I miss something? Why exactly is **Brutus** laughing, and **Sam** high-fiving him? Because, if you’re still behind Bush, you have to play fast & loose with the facts. There’s just no way you can possibly say anything _good_ about the guy. The only thing left is making up strawman positions for Kerry and then knocking them down. “My goal is to withdraw U.S. troops in a first White House term” = “cut and run”? You’ve outdone yourself, Sam. And is anyone else getting the mind-blowing irony of these guys claiming Kerry’s timetable is too short, while at the same time supporting George “Mission Accomplished” W. Bush? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/50 "2004-09-07T18:05:53Z")
If Kerry’s plan is so unrealistic, can we expect to see George Bush setting out the reasons why four years and a half years is not enough time to expect the situation to be stable enough for the troops to leave? [Here](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3055357.stm) are the views of General Tommy Franks who appears to think that such an aim is attainable. > [@](#): > > General Franks told the US Congress that he believed troops would remain in Iraq for some years.“Whether that means two years or four years, I don’t know,” he said in testimony ahead of his retirement from the military. And [this guy](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3269817.stm) (Donald Rusmfeld…name rings a bell) seems to also feel that the timescale is perfectly realistic. > [@](#): > > The United States says its troops will stay in Iraq until democracy is established there - and beyond the transfer of political power to Iraqis. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said this could take at least two years. Question for **Sam Stone** , **Brutus** , etc. Do you not think that once Iraq has a sovereign government and a stable security apparatus, that the US troops should leave. Or do you agree with that, but just don’t think that it will happen in the next four and a half years? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/51 "2004-09-07T20:43:41Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > [Here](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3055357.stm) are the views of General Tommy Franks who appears to think that such an aim is attainable. Technically, all he says in that snippet is that he doesn’t know. I couldn’t find an actual transcript of the event to find out what question he was answering so that I could put the quote in cotext. Maybe someone else with some more time to spar can be luckier than me at finding the transcript. More to the point, note that earlier he’s also reported to’ve said: [April 13, 2003](http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:jXNFXV6aBToJ:www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/33355.htm+%22April+13,+2003%22+%22Gen.+Tommy+Franks,%22+%22occupation+of+Iraq+might+last+at+least+a+year%22&hl=en): Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of the U.S. Central Command, said that the occupation of Iraq might last at least a year. He told television reporters that many villages and towns had been bypassed, and that it might take a year to search up to 3,000 sites for weapons of mass destruction. > [@Avenger](#): > > And [this guy](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3269817.stm) (Donald Rusmfeld…name rings a bell) seems to also feel that the timescale is perfectly realistic. Again, this is not exactly what Mr. Rumsfeld’s said to’ve said in this snippet. **Mr Rumsfeld is very, very well known for speaking in a notably precise manner.** He chooses his words very carefully. If he did, in fact, use the phrase “at least two years,” that means two years is prob’ly the far outside lowball estimate. Mr. Rumsfeld does not put an upper limit on the on the estimated end of slogging time in Iraq. W/o a top end estimation as well, or a best guess, or some equivalence, you’ve not presented enough info for me to ascertain if ‘within four years’ is something Mr. Rumsfeld says is a “perfectly realistic” estimate. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/52 "2004-09-07T21:13:35Z")
I disagree with your interpretation of the quotes, SimonX. If one had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA AT ALL how long something will take, then one would not offer up ANY numbers. You seem to be saying that, even though these people used actual numbers such as 2 or 4 years, that those numbers should be completely disregarded. But if they didn’t think it even _feasible_ that it _might_ be accomplished in one term, then they never would have used those numbers at all. While it’s true that Donald Rumsfeld, in that quote, doesn’t literally say, “I, Donald Rumsfeld, hereby proclaim that John Kerry’s goal of removing troops from Iraq in one term is realistic”, I don’t believe that was the point **Avenger** was trying to make. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/53 "2004-09-07T21:47:26Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > If one had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA AT ALL how long something will take, then one would not offer up ANY numbers. Consider that I did not address whether or not Mr Franks had an idea of how long things would take. > [@blowero](#): > > You seem to be saying that, even though these people used actual numbers such as 2 or 4 years, that those numbers should be completely disregarded. More to the point, I’m trying to say that context would show how to interpret the signifigance of the numbers. It’s possible that the numbers were not of Mr. Franks’ devising. A lot depends on what question he was answering. > [@blowero](#): > > But if they didn’t think it even _feasible_ that it _might_ be accomplished in one term, then they never would have used those numbers at all. That’s certainly a possibility. There’re some others that haven’t been ruled out yet though. > [@blowero](#): > > While it’s true that Donald Rumsfeld, in that quote, doesn’t literally say, “I, Donald Rumsfeld, hereby proclaim that John Kerry’s goal of removing troops from Iraq in one term is realistic”, I don’t believe that was the point **Avenger** was trying to make. I do. At the heart of the issue is an assumption I’ve made. I assumed that by “timescale” **Avenger** meant the same timeframe that’s referenced by Kerry and throughout the thread- before the end of Kerry’s presidential term, about four years. Once thsi assumption’s made, then this: Originally Posted by **Avenger** _And this guy (Donald Rusmfeld…name rings a bell) seems to also feel that the timescale is perfectly realistic._ Becomes an equivalent of “_Rumsfeld seems to also feel that the same timeframe that’s referenced by Kerry and throughout the thread- before the end of Kerry’s presidential term, about four years- is perfectly realistic._” Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the nature of your objection. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/54 "2004-09-08T21:29:41Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Consider that I did not address whether or not Mr Franks had an idea of how long things would take. Nonsense. Of course you did. That’s precisely what is at issue. > [@](#): > > More to the point, I’m trying to say that context would show how to interpret the signifigance of the numbers. It’s possible that the numbers were not of Mr. Franks’ devising. A lot depends on what question he was answering. Unless the question was, “What’s a completely ridiculous incorrect guess as to how long the Iraq war might take?”, I don’t see how you can argue that the quote doesn’t support the contention that Kerry’s goal is at least within the realm of reason. > [@](#): > > That’s certainly a possibility. There’re some others that haven’t been ruled out yet though. You’re grasping at straws. Yes, I suppose aliens could have used a mind-control ray to make him say “at least a year”, when he really meant, “much, much longer than 4 years”. Is that what you mean by “other possibility”? > [@](#): > > I do. At the heart of the issue is an assumption I’ve made. I assumed that by “timescale” **Avenger** meant the same timeframe that’s referenced by Kerry and throughout the thread- before the end of Kerry’s presidential term, about four years. > Once thsi assumption’s made, then this: > Originally Posted by **Avenger** > _And this guy (Donald Rusmfeld…name rings a bell) seems to also feel that the timescale is perfectly realistic._ > Becomes an equivalent of > “_Rumsfeld seems to also feel that the same timeframe that’s referenced by Kerry and throughout the thread- before the end of Kerry’s presidential term, about four years- is perfectly realistic._” > > Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the nature of your objection. Obviously you have. Whether he specifically used the words “I agree with Kerry” (which he obviously wouldn’t do), is not the point. The point is that he was throwing around numbers similar (less, in fact) to what Kerry is stating as _his_ goal. If one considers 4 years to be absolutely, unequivocably out of the question, one would not say “at least **2** years”, now would one? In what bizarro-universe is 4 years not included in the set of numbers that are “at least 2 years”? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/55 "2004-09-08T22:25:58Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Nonsense. Of course you did. That’s precisely what is at issue. **Would you be so kind as to point out the specific language I used to do this thng?** AFAICT, I only addressed what was presented in the posted snippet. I adressed the content Mr. Franks’ statement rather than the contents of his mind. > [@blowero](#): > > Unless the question was, “What’s a completely ridiculous incorrect guess as to how long the Iraq war might take?”, I don’t see how you can argue that the quote doesn’t support the contention that Kerry’s goal is at least within the realm of reason. With a little more imagination and a little more time, I’m sure you could come up with more possible questions. But, that’s neither here nor there. What’s at issue is how much can be reliably discerned from a quote w/o context. You may well be right about what Mr. Franks was implying. > [@blowero](#): > > You’re grasping at straws. Yes, I suppose aliens could have used a mind-control ray to make him say “at least a year”, when he really meant, “much, much longer than 4 years”. Is that what you mean by “other possibility”? Certainly not what I had in mind. But if you like, I could humor you. I intended to point out how Mr. Franks’ assessment is fluid. I wasn’t using the info to try and make the case that Mr. Franks really meant, “much, much longer than 4 years.” > [@blowero](#): > > Whether he specifically used the words “I agree with Kerry” (which he obviously wouldn’t do), is not the point. Agreed. Taken as a given already. > [@blowero](#): > > The point is that he was throwing around numbers similar (less, in fact) to what Kerry is stating as _his_ goal. If one considers 4 years to be absolutely, unequivocably out of the question, one would not say “at least **2** years”, now would one? No, I suppose not. however, **Avenger** wasn’t talking about what’s “within the question.” **Avenger** specifcally used the phrase “perfectly realistic.” Thaty’s what I was addressing, teh realm of probability, rather than the realm of possibility. As a way of explanation, consider this example of the vagaries of American language. If I were to calculate how long it would take me to get from Dallas to DC on foot, I might take my sprinting speed and use it to generate a number- x days. It would then be perfectly (and technically) correct and true to say, “It’ll take at least x days for me to get to DC from Dallas on foot.” However, this is not a statement of what’s “perfectly realistic” or even about what I think is perfectly realistic. Rumsfeld’s paraphrased as having said “at least two years.” This estimate may well have the equivalent _likelihood_ as me sprinting from Dallas to DC. There’s no discussion of what the “no more than” number would be. Nor (more to the point) is there any discussion of what the most likely or expected time frame would be. There’s only a bottom limit mentioned. “It will not be shorter than this,” is not the same as “It’ll prob’ly be about this long.” If there were more info than the snippets provided, then more conclusive conclusions could be reached. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/56 "2004-09-08T23:23:06Z")
Here is Kerry’s position on Iraq on 1/23/2003, given within a [foreign policy speech at Georgetown University](http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=4782&keyword=&phrase=&contain=&PHPSESSID=701913944addd4e2ee2d7d33dda5b060): > [@](#): > > In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. **But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.** > > As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. **And we don’t have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action. > The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.** > > I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. **We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation’s participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution’s decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.** Kerry’s position on Iraq has not changed in the least since prior to the Iraq war. Not only has he been consistent, but he has again been prescient This charge that he has reversed course is simply another lie. On a related note, I recommend strongly that everyone watch the movie _Outfoxed_, which gives an idea as to how these types of lies about Kerry’s positions get disseminated. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2004, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/57 "2004-09-09T20:45:33Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > **Would you be so kind as to point out the specific language I used to do this thng?** Yes, you said, “Technically, all he says in that snippet is that he doesn’t know.” Unless you are playing some sort of semantic game, you are implying that Franks is NOT making any implication as to how long the war might take, but rather is ONLY saying that he doesn’t know how long the war might take. So yes, you WERE addressing “whether or not Mr Franks had an idea of how long things would take”, in spite of your protestations to the contrary. > [@](#): > > AFAICT, I only addressed what was presented in the posted snippet. I adressed the content Mr. Franks’ statement rather than the contents of his mind. Sorry, I’m not interested in playing semantic games here. > [@](#): > > Certainly not what I had in mind. But if you like, I could humor you. > I intended to point out how Mr. Franks’ assessment is fluid. I wasn’t using the info to try and make the case that Mr. Franks really meant, “much, much longer than 4 years.” Whether Franks’ statement is “fluid” is not the point in question. The point in question is whether Kerry’s stated goal of 4 years is completely out of the question, or whether it is reasonable. > [@](#): > > No, I suppose not. however, **Avenger** wasn’t talking about what’s “within the question.” **Avenger** specifcally used the phrase “perfectly realistic.” Thaty’s what I was addressing, teh realm of probability, rather than the realm of possibility. > As a way of explanation, consider this example of the vagaries of American language. > If I were to calculate how long it would take me to get from Dallas to DC on foot, I might take my sprinting speed and use it to generate a number- x days. > It would then be perfectly (and technically) correct and true to say, “It’ll take at least x days for me to get to DC from Dallas on foot.” > However, this is not a statement of what’s “perfectly realistic” or even about what I think is perfectly realistic. Hmmm…not really interested in arguing niggling details with you by way of convoluted analogies. I think you’re missing the broader point here. > [@](#): > > Rumsfeld’s paraphrased as having said “at least two years.” This estimate may well have the equivalent _likelihood_ as me sprinting from Dallas to DC. There’s no discussion of what the “no more than” number would be. Nor (more to the point) is there any discussion of what the most likely or expected time frame would be. I think you’re really reaching here. > [@](#): > > There’s only a bottom limit mentioned. “It will not be shorter than this,” is not the same as “It’ll prob’ly be about this long.” And similarly, “It will be at least 2 years”, is inconsistent with “4 years is unreasonable”. Nobody said there WAS an upper limit mentioned. We’re discussing whether a GOAL of 4 years is REASONABLE, not whether there is an absolute guarantee of it being within 4 years. You’re arguing against a strawman. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2004, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/58 "2004-09-10T03:10:42Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Yes, you said, “Technically, all he says in that snippet is that he doesn’t know.” Unless you are playing some sort of semantic game, you are implying that Franks is NOT making any implication as to how long the war might take, but rather is ONLY saying that he doesn’t know how long the war might take. So yes, you WERE addressing “whether or not Mr Franks had an idea of how long things would take”, in spite of your protestations to the contrary. My milages varies. I think people can have lots of ideas abou things that they don’t sa. To me this is evidence that it’s useful to consider having an idea about something as distinct from statements about that something. While the two things are related, they are seperate items, AFAICT. YMMV. > [@blowero](#): > > Sorry, I’m not interested in playing semantic games here. No worries. I was just pointing out the facts. > [@blowero](#): > > Whether Franks’ statement is “fluid” is not the point in question. The point in question is whether Kerry’s stated goal of 4 years is completely out of the question, or whether it is reasonable. While that was **Avenger** ’s point, my point was that there wasn’t enough info presented to have certainty with the conclusions that **Avenger** reached. After all the source cited by **Avenger** ’s a year old. I provided evidence that suggested Mr. Franks’ assessment may have changed in the a few months (April - July). If this is the case, It’s possible that Mr. Franks’s assessment at the timeo f **Avenger** ’s post may have changed as well. > [@blowero](#): > > Hmmm…not really interested in arguing niggling details with you by way of convoluted analogies. Yet you’ve replied anyway. How thoughtful. The ‘niggling details’ constitute the entire focus of my posts re **Avengere** ’s post. > [@blowero](#): > > I think you’re missing the broader point here. Depending on what you define as the ‘broader point’ I was intentionally not addressing it. Hence, I posted what I did about **Avenger** ’s conlusions rather than about ‘the broader point’. > [@blowero](#): > > And similarly, “It will be at least 2 years”, is inconsistent with “4 years is unreasonable”. I understand you’re saying this. What I’m pointing out is that there’s not enough information to reach this conclusion. If you have a citation that shows this to be the case, please provide it. Otherwise, we’re left with only your say-so, (or the “it’s-common-sense” citation). > [@blowero](#): > > Nobody said there WAS an upper limit mentioned. We’re discussing whether a GOAL of 4 years is REASONABLE, not whether there is an absolute guarantee of it being within 4 years. You’re arguing against a strawman. Since I did not assert that anyone said “there WAS an upper limit mentioned,” I’m not sure why you would think this. I did not make a case that anyone (posters) did say something that they did not. I am making the case that people (Rumsfeld) did not say things which they’re said to’ve. I’m just pointing out that there was not enough information provided. Then I noted some other relevant info that could be used make more reliable conclusions. I noted that the bottom end of an estimate is distinct from a “perfectly reasonable” estimate. the two may be the same in some instances, but they are not necessarily so. As I don’t know how else to explain myself I retire. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2004, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/59 "2004-09-10T04:12:14Z")
Having read this thread, all I can say is: Are **Sam Stone** , **Brutus** , and **Shodan** really this desperate? [Then…considers the President they are trying to defend with these diversions…Hmmm, I guess I see why.] ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2004, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442/60 "2004-09-10T11:48:45Z")
I would also like to sum up regarding important points vis a vis the OP that have gone unchallenged. Kerry: consistent on Iraq from the beginning. Kerry: strongly concerned about mismanagement and the failure to commit adequate strength to the effort to get Bin Laden in Afghanistan from the beginning. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-new-iraq-policy-cut-and-run/263442.md?page=4)