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?
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.
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.
I’m all out of syrup and butter over here, can someone pass me some more?
Thanks.
I dunno.
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?
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.
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?
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? 
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 are the views of General Tommy Franks who appears to think that such an aim is attainable.
And this guy (Donald Rusmfeld…name rings a bell) seems to also feel that the timescale is perfectly realistic.
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?
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: 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.
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.
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.
Consider that I did not address whether or not Mr Franks had an idea of how long things would take.
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.
That’s certainly a possibility. There’re some others that haven’t been ruled out yet though.
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.
Nonsense. Of course you did. That’s precisely what is at issue.
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.
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”?
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”?
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.
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.
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.”
Agreed. Taken as a given already.
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.
Here is Kerry’s position on Iraq on 1/23/2003, given within a foreign policy speech at Georgetown University:
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.
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.
Sorry, I’m not interested in playing semantic games here.
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.
Hmmm…not really interested in arguing niggling details with you by way of convoluted analogies. I think you’re missing the broader point here.
I think you’re really reaching here.
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.
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.
No worries. I was just pointing out the facts.
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.
Yet you’ve replied anyway. How thoughtful. The ‘niggling details’ constitute the entire focus of my posts re Avengere’s post.
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’.
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).
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.
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.]
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.