Article

2004-09-23 Home Front: Politix

Kerry Says He Wonât Send Troops if More Are Needed

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 H.D. Miller 2004-09-23 12:37:15 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Looks like Kerry's tacking to the left again. No, wait - he's tacking to the right. Whoops - I was wrong - he's ... left ... right ... left ... right.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-09-23 1:06:55 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-09-23 1:06:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Oww! Whiplash. I'll sue!

Posted by ed 2004-09-23 1:22:38 AM|| 2004-09-23 1:22:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The fact is that Kerry will cling to the left. He is apparently done with the flip flops and he is going after Bush hard about the conduct of the Iraq War, where Bush is most vulnerable. He may be afraid his base will stay home, so he is trying to keep them in the fold, and keep them angry enough about going to the polls.

News outlets seemed to conclude that Monday Kerry decided to stake his campaign on the Iraq War, be antiwar to retain his base. So things will definately be heating up. Kerry may even get a bounce out of it.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-23 1:33:18 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif] 2004-09-23 1:33:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Only 55% or so of Kerry's base are "antiwar" (nb. this includes those who take the other side). At least 30% of Dems are, like myself and Liberalhawk and others here, at least pro-war, if not actively favoring escalation. If Kerry zags to the left, he must write off this 30%.

Stupid, really: it makes much more political sense for Kerry to swing hard right on the war. If he did so, the "antiwar" folks wouldn't stay home, or even vote for Nader, who's not even on the ballot in most of the swing states. They've nowhere to go.

Posted by lex 2004-09-23 1:44:22 AM|| 2004-09-23 1:44:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Get a bounce by doing and saying what he did 30 years ago!! God (of life) please say it ain't so.
If this guy get's elected....then Michael Moore is right (Puke). We are the dumb asses of the planet!!
GWB should go out a hero by nuking Mecca on the 3rd of November to send the sheet head world into a complete and total melt down.

Posted by Long Hair Republican 2004-09-23 1:51:21 AM|| 2004-09-23 1:51:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 The DNC released an advertisement today calling Iraq a "quagmire" and dissing Bush for talking about the domestic agenda. Kerry is talking about a Bush plan to reinstate the draft. The only people talking about a draft are the LLL and the professional race baiter democrat from Harlem that thinks we need one.

I'll say it again Kerry's plan is to cut and run.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-23 2:04:57 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-23 2:04:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 ZF, tacking to the left and right is expected from a lifelong sail boat guy. I don't think he's anymore a sailor than he is a hunter. I can picture him yatching but I just can't picture him maintaining a boat.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-09-23 2:44:41 AM|| 2004-09-23 2:44:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 I cannot begin to imagine what our Coaltion allies are thinking with this latest flip-flop. This man has some serious pathological problems.

Posted by Capt America 2004-09-23 2:46:43 AM|| 2004-09-23 2:46:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 At least I can pick out a consistent theme in the Kerry campaign this week (aside from "I served in Viet Nam"): he scares his base with talk of a secret guard callup & draft after the election then baits Bush with the statement that if elected he won't send more troops to Iraq no matter what the consequences might be. Clearly he's inviting Bush to say that he'll do whatever it takes to win in Iraq, the response to which will be that it's going to take far more manpower and that will in turn require a massive callup and/or draft.

At best it's a silly direction to push the campaign because the secret callup / secret draft issues smack more than a bit of the unwashed tinfoil hat crowd and it's unlikely to appeal to anyone outside the extreme far left base or a few gullible college students.

Compare and contrast Kerry's new amateurish strategy with Bush's recent statements that Kerry's vacillations on Iraq encourage our enemies. That's a lot closer to a message that'll pull in swing voters than any Viet Nam era tinfoil hat theory.

Once again, Karl Rove is clearly the master of this game.

Posted by AzCat 2004-09-23 2:57:13 AM|| 2004-09-23 2:57:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 can someone please explain to me why Bush isn't committing more troops to Iraq to solve the trouble there ? I just don't get it.

Posted by lyot 2004-09-23 3:04:33 AM|| 2004-09-23 3:04:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Because more troops isn't going to do it. More ownership of the problem by Irasqis and Iraqi troops is going to do it.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-23 3:14:16 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-23 3:14:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Nice move Obersturmbahnfuhrer Kerry, that'll rally the troops. What an idiot. I can't believe the polls are as close as they are.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-09-23 3:19:55 AM|| 2004-09-23 3:19:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Rex - Do you recall the statement made a while back by Evan Thomas (assistant managing editor of Newsweek) that the media are firmly in Kerry's camp and that their support is worth 15 points to the Kerry/Edwards ticket? That's why we're not seeing a complete blowout. Yet.

Posted by AzCat 2004-09-23 4:08:42 AM|| 2004-09-23 4:08:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 can someone please explain to me why Bush isn't committing more troops to Iraq to solve the trouble there ? I just don't get it.

Ever play with project management problems? One of the things ya find out is that theres a point where when you have too many people working on the same project you basically take longer and cost more to produce that project than if you had a bit fewer people (called the threshold point usually). Its at that point that intracommunication between the group network gets clogged down because too many people are trying to do too many tasks without as much coordination. Thats sorta what we face in iraq right now. Ya get pretty close to what ya consider is too many troops that at which point they become more potential targets rather than doing useful work. Mind you...more trained MPs would be a lot of use at this point along with certain types of AFVs

Posted by Valentine 2004-09-23 4:32:05 AM|| 2004-09-23 4:32:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 But will he send troops to Cambodia?

Posted by Mike 2004-09-23 6:47:18 AM|| 2004-09-23 6:47:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 I listened to the interview and at first Commander Waffle said he couldn't answer the question " would you increase troop strenght if the military asked for them?" because he didn't know what the situation would be when he takes office. He wouldn't give very many details about what he will do because it depends on what the President does between now and Kerry's inauguration. He finally did say he would not increase troop strength after he had said we must win in Iraq and make the democratization work. I still don't know what his position is or what he would do. He seems to me to be reactive, not proactive. He will react to situations and not try to preempt anything.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-09-23 7:15:56 AM|| 2004-09-23 7:15:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 September 23rd and he's still trying to firm up the base. The Dems are IN TROUBLE up and down the ticket. Keep pouring it on!

Posted by Frank G 2004-09-23 8:30:53 AM|| 2004-09-23 8:30:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 The DNC released an advertisement today calling Iraq a "quagmire" and dissing Bush for talking about the domestic agenda.

Wasn't it just last week they were whining that Bush didn't want to talk about a domestic agenda?

I guess the Bush ads that literally rattle off everything he mentioned during his acceptance speech are doing well, if the Donks are whining about it.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-09-23 9:39:08 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-09-23 9:39:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 I can't for the life of me figure out WHY the administration has not released photos of Saddam's victims of torture and murder. It's pretty easy to flap your lips about how this war wasn't justified with those pictures out of sight. I think Kerry's increasingly anti-war position would dissolve quickly in the light of those horrific pieces of persuasive evidence. I suppose there are those that would accuse the administration of sadistic voyeurism for showing the pics, but a strong case could be made that it is worse to hide them in the back of a file cabinet.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-23 9:51:37 AM|| 2004-09-23 9:51:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 jules. That's for closer to the election. Kerry totally bases his campaign on impugning Bush, the WOT, Iraq, WMDs and Halliburton. What if, right before the election, the RNC shows those photos, WMDs from Syria, etc.....? Devastating, and no time to counterpunch

Posted by Frank G 2004-09-23 9:58:37 AM|| 2004-09-23 9:58:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 A sound strategy, but a big risk to run in the blogging age. There are how many days-40 some-til the election?

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-23 10:06:32 AM|| 2004-09-23 10:06:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 A sound strategy, but a big risk to run in the blogging age. There are how many days-40 some-til the election?

Kerry could easily charge that he wasn't right on WMD, how can we trust him on anything he says. Of course the counter to that to put in the ad before the countercharge and to counter subsequent to the ad is: This is what we now KNOW about Iraq.

1) Iraq was routinely firing on American combat aircraft on patrol under a UN mandate, an act of war whether the mandate was in force or not

2) Iraq had failed in its obligation under the truce. It had defied 12 UN Security Councils thingies ( I haven't had my coffee this morning, yet, OKAY??)

3) Saddam killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, a million Iranians and an unknown number of his own soldiers.

4) As soon as the UN would have left Saddam would have started up with his WMD programs again.

5) Libya came tumbling down as did an entire infrasturture for selling elements to be used for WMD directly as a result of this invasion. Gadaffi knew Bush was serious about WMD and terrorism and he wanted no part of being on the receiving end..

Be hard for the left to counter.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-23 10:22:15 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-09-23 10:22:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 With respect, the Kerry team is already countering 1, 2, 4 & 5. It's tough to counter 3 with 40 days or 365 days-images stick. How could Kerry come off as anything but as the nationally apologetic, principle-challenged American candidate that he is by countering such horrific pictures? Boost President Bush's momentum; don't wait to put them out during a week when Kerry has the upper hand on some issue.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-23 10:33:27 AM|| 2004-09-23 10:33:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 Say it loud, JFingK. Say it loud and often.

The American people do not want to hear that their president refuses to send more troops, if generals ask for those troops. Though Bush has held back, mostly, on sending more, he's consistently stated that if requested by the generals, he'd do it.

It's one thing to cut and run. I can imagine some voters not having a problem with that. But to leave the guys in the field twisting in the wind when they need reinforcements? No way.

Posted by growler 2004-09-23 10:45:48 AM|| 2004-09-23 10:45:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 Kerry is a fucking traitor. If he wants to leave our troops to twist in the wind, we can just leave Kerry to twist in the wind.

Posted by Steve from Relto 2004-09-23 10:56:24 AM|| 2004-09-23 10:56:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Treebeard makes me chuckle. If you are not going to let your professional experts (i.e. generals) do their job then you've no business being c-in-c.

Badanov> it was actually 17 thingies over 12 years, but I knew what you were getting at.

I don't think sending more troops is a bad thing but it depends on the mission. If our mission is to maintain status quo then we're prolly good right now. If the mission shifts to clearing out Sadr City/Fallujah, then another fresh division would prolly be a good thing. Actually the more mass the better if we end up doing house to house. If we do pre-selected precision raids then maybe not an issue. I'd prefer to quarantine or cordon off sections of city & clear them thoroughly like we did early in fallujah. We suffocated the terrorists & then we moved on to the next piece of real estate.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-09-23 11:36:09 AM|| 2004-09-23 11:36:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 Only 55% or so of Kerry's base are "antiwar" (nb. this includes those who take the other side). At least 30% of Dems are, like myself and Liberalhawk and others here, at least pro-war, if not actively favoring escalation. If Kerry zags to the left, he must write off this 30%.

Im a tad more pessimistic about our party, looking at the early primary results and polls. Id say the real honest to goodness liberal and moderate hawks make up less than a quarter of the Dems - theres a huge group who were fence sitters much like Kerry himself, who werent comfortable with the Dean stand, out of principle or politics, but who arent ready to stick it out in Iraq even when things look bad. Call them sunshine liberal hawks.

The real liberal hawks are important only cause of the closeness of the race.

Posted by liberalhawk 2004-09-23 11:49:32 AM|| 2004-09-23 11:49:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 Hear ya AzCat Which prolly explains the poll numbers themselves - most of the sources no longer have credibility.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-09-23 1:35:22 PM|| 2004-09-23 1:35:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 LH:

I hope it isn't that bad. Generally, far fewer people vote in the primaries than vote in the fall, right? So, the problem seems to be that the far left is more motivated than moderates and patriotic liberals. Only 2 of the candidates (Lieberman and Gephardt) were hawks, and they both crumbled early. Yet, I think either one would do better among registered Democrats (let alone independents and Republicans) in the fall. At least, you wouldn't have the high-profile people like Koch and Miller turning away.

What is different about the two parties? The Republicans went over a cliff in 1964 with Goldwater, and since then have been very cautious in who they pick (Reagan probably being the most "daring."). Someone like Buchanan or Keyes never even came close to getting the nomination. The rules and the primary scheduling seem to select for "establishment" types, generally conservative, some more than others. Sometimes you get a charismaless nobody who has no chance of winning (I won't mention Bob Dole by name), but always someone who can bring the whole party and a good hunk of independents and can be counted on to at least not drag down the downticket races.

The Democrats went over the cliff in 1972, but seemed to learn a different lesson. Clinton was the one exception, but the big guns didn't decide to run in 1992, so he won almost in spite of the system.

Is it the nominating system? Is it because those committed are more ideological? That doen't seem to happen with the GOP. (I'm sure they are also more ideological, but often pick pragmatically.) Is it because the media generally support the left, so they get a free ride?

Posted by jackal 2004-09-23 2:24:08 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-09-23 2:24:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 This is getting to sound like an introspective Winter Democrat Investigation.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-23 2:48:35 PM|| 2004-09-23 2:48:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 I just read today that Kerry said he WOULD send in more troops and win the war decisively--i.e., that Bush isn't doing enough. He also said he'd have the majority of the troops home in four months and all out in four years. He doesn't know what he's doing. He really doesn't. Guess this all proves that, yes, ANYONE can run for president of the United States. Doesn't mean they know what they're doing, though.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-09-23 2:56:08 PM|| 2004-09-23 2:56:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 lawyers, lawyers everywhere, and still they let this guy talk. Keep talking Kerry! Keep producing those video clips for future GOP advertisements re: your compulsive flip-flops. Thanks also for the peep show into your wack0-jack0 mindset.

Posted by 2B 2004-09-23 4:04:39 PM|| 2004-09-23 4:04:39 PM|| Front Page Top

13:27 Dreadnought
12:59 lex
12:44 Bulldog
12:29 Bulldog
04:23 Sock Puppet of Doom
02:30 SCpatriot
02:06 lex
00:37 Rafael
00:21 trailing wife
00:20 Zenster
00:05 tipper
23:58 Atomic Conspiracy
23:53 OldSpook
23:43 tibor
23:10 cingold
23:00 Cyber Sarge
22:54 Dave D.
22:53 Jarhead
22:44 Mike Sylwester
22:44 Jarhead
22:41 Jarhead
22:40 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:38 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:38 Steve White