Article

2004-03-07 Home Front: Politix

Time mag: Kerry to send 'his own team' to Iraq to assess situation

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-03-07 14:17|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 god that Kerrys a fucking prick, hope he gets rectal cancer

Posted by Jon Shep U.K 2004-3-7 2:20:27 PM|| 2004-3-7 2:20:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 So the fuckhead (pardon my French) is admitting that his statements in regards to Iraq have been based on ignorance?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-3-7 2:21:41 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-3-7 2:21:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 wellll, he has a habit of picking up paychecks when not showing up for work (votes). That needs to be raised as an issue:
"As President, would you show up for work every day? Or take a partial paycut for the periods you're busy somewhere else?"

Posted by Frank G 2004-3-7 2:26:32 PM|| 2004-3-7 2:26:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Looks a though the whole Dimmycrat party is infected with the I Have a Scream Syndrome.

Posted by dataman1 2004-3-7 2:31:17 PM|| 2004-3-7 2:31:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Watch this space. Kerry will try to build an case that he basically agrees with Bush's desired outcome but is more competent than Bush to achieve it because he is a combat veteran and nuanced thinker.

The media will give him a free pass in making this case. Because Kerry has no real responsibility, he can sit back and demagouge ever bit of bad news that comes along. He's leading in the polls already and may be able to monday morning quarterback his way to convincing the electorate he can handle national security.

If he wins, the UN and regional powers will be more than happy to 'cooperate' in 'cleaning up this mess' and the end result will be that we give up the strategic gains we've made since 9/11 as these gains are based on our demonstrated willingness to stay and fight rather than our mere presence on the ground. Kerry simply does not have the will to do what is necessary for strategic victory. Bush does. The mullahs, dictators, terrorists and weasels of the world understand this.

If Kerry is elected, life will probably seem good for a few years of false peace punctuated by law enforcement and intelligence successes against the terrorists. Then, inevitably, something big will happen and Kerry, or his successor, will find themselves flipping through a book of launch codes with no alternatives.

Don't mean to be morose, but a lot is at stake in this election. It's a single issue one for most of us who read Rantburg, but we need to be aware that we are relatively unique in the electorate.

Posted by JAB 2004-3-7 3:32:29 PM|| 2004-3-7 3:32:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 I can empathize with the poor Dhimmycrats. I, too, am occasionally racked with ambivalence:
pull out -or- complete the emission.

The difference is that they seem to have developed quite a taste for the run away response, leaving themselves open to criticism for the messes they leave behind. I, for one, am becoming rather tired of fetching a towel.
[Content Warning]

Posted by .com 2004-3-7 3:49:41 PM|| 2004-3-7 3:49:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 JAB, I suspect the election ,as close as the media claims it may be will boil down to two definitive styles:

1) Real world tried and true solutions to problems, but more importantly, better hope for a better future. Strong Defense, lowered taxes, lowered regulations, snd, God willing reduced federal government.

2) Railing against the extremeist rightwing and jerking off about how much better a socialist will handle the nation's current business: Higher taxes, deprecated defenses, and stifling regulatory environment including a socialist federal agenda, for everyone.

At least, that's the plan. ;o)

Posted by badanov 2004-3-7 4:25:12 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-3-7 4:25:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 JAB has hit the nail on the head. The reason we (and it is 'we' - as in Western Civilisation) are in Iraq and trying to make the place work is because *we know* what the alternative is. This war will end with the Islamic world reforming, or it will end with the Islamic world disappearing. If the mullahs had half an ounce of intelligence they would dump all their nuke technology in an instant. They don't. They are besotted with the idea of a truly Islamic bomb (not the faux-Islam of Pakistan this, but the real McCoy - Tehran style), but have not thought the thing through.

For instance, I don't doubt that there is a Pentagon plan for the nuking of the UK. I don't like it, but it's the way the world has been kept safe for the last 60 years. It works. Because we know that the retaliation would be unimaginable - we wouldn't launch missiles at the US, and nor would we do anything to have the finger pointed at us if there were a detonation in the US. Now, think about some of the planning that must have taken place in the Pentagon after 9/11. The scenario of the UK disappearing in a puff of smoke is, I believe, highly remote. I put forward the notion that there must exist a plan which calls for the destruction of the Islamic world, and that this plan is anything but a remote scenario given the Pakistani and Iranian bombs.

The Mullahs (and by implication the Islamic world) do not think in terms of deterrence. They would love to bloody the nose of the US, and in doing so bring a terrible retribution on themselves.

Sorry, this has drifted off Kerry a bit, but my point is that this coming election has little to do with budget deficits, nor with gay marriages nor medicare benefits. It is fundamentally about whether the wheels are put in motion for the destruction of the Islamic world, with a Kerry presidency and 'business as usual at the UN, and ten more years of sanctions on Iran', or whether the Islamic has a chance at reforming with Bush being re-elected.

What an irony it would be if GWB, a born-again christian, was hailed as the saviour of a renewed Islam.

Posted by Tony (UK) 2004-3-7 7:05:21 PM|| 2004-3-7 7:05:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Kerry argues, because he knows how to play well with others

Yeah, just ask the south Vietmanese. I can even introduce you to one -- her family was driven out of Vietnam when Kerry's friends the North Vietmanese took over.

Don't for a moment think all that worldliness means he has no convictions. Or that he is weak or a waffler or a political opportunist, TIME reports.

I dont have to think it. I know it --- his record is screaming it! Kerry has been short stroking himself to get elected president since before Vietnam. In fact that is the sole reason he went is so he can tell everyone about it during his campaigns. Scary....

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-3-7 7:40:36 PM|| 2004-3-7 7:40:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Kerry knows how to play well with others - no argument there. Problem is we want someone who will work well with others for that job.

Posted by B 2004-3-7 8:33:56 PM|| 2004-3-7 8:33:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 The fact that Kerry would use Rand Beers on his foreign policy team indicates a willingness to employ mediocrities, and, as some have called him, a perjurer. See http://www.narconews.com/beersperjury1.html

Posted by Tancred 2004-3-7 10:00:13 PM|| 2004-3-7 10:00:13 PM|| Front Page Top

12:34 TM Lutas
08:23 Jennie Taliaferro
07:08 Shipman
06:51 Shipman
04:25 Anonymous
02:08 Traveller
00:26 Aris Katsaris
00:04 .com
23:55 tu3031
23:48 tu3031
23:45 Frank G
23:41 Danny
23:35 Phil B
23:32 .com
23:32 badanov
23:31 B
23:30 Pappy
23:25 Steve White
23:23 Steve White
23:21 B
23:14 .com
23:07 Anonymous
22:58 Pappy
22:54 Frank Martin