SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Joe NYC who wrote (203121)9/20/2004 4:09:52 AM
From: Joe NYC  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577917
 
Kerry’s Timetable For Troops In Iraq Depends On What Time It Is

APRIL 13, 2004: Kerry Writes, “If Our Military Commanders Request More Troops, We Should Deploy Them.” “But to maximize our chances for success, and to minimize the risk of failure, we must make full use of the assets we have. If our military commanders request more troops, we should deploy them. Progress is not possible in Iraq if people lack the security to go about the business of daily life.” (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, “A Strategy For Iraq,” The Washington Post, 4/13/04)

FIVE DAYS LATER: Kerry Calls For More Troops If Needed. SEN. JOHN KERRY: “I believe the following very deeply. Number one, we cannot fail. I’ve said that many times. And if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos, that can provide the groundwork for other countries, that’s what you have to do.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 4/18/04)

12 DAYS LATER: Kerry Says He Believes More American Troops Should Be Sent To Iraq If Commanders “Need More.” “In the short term … in the short term, if our commanders believe they need more American troops, then they should say so, and they should get them and get what they need.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Westminster College, Fulton, MO, 4/30/04)

ONE MONTH LATER: When Asked When He’d Bring Home Troops, Kerry Says He’ll “Have To See Where We Are On The Ground.” “Asked by an opponent of the war Friday what he planned to do to bring the troops home from Iraq, John Kerry was careful about what he said and what he didn’t say. ‘I don’t know where Iraq will be on Jan. 20 next year when I’m inaugurated,’ said Kerry, the partisan audience cheering his self-confidence about the election. ‘I’ll have to see where we are on the ground,’ he said of the occupation.” (Craig Gilbert, “Kerry Chooses Words Carefully,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/29/04)

SAME DAY: Kerry Says He’ll Bring Home Troops “As Fast As Possible.” “Senator John Kerry promised an occasionally tearful gathering of soldiers, veterans and their families here on Friday that as president he would bring the troops home from Iraq ‘as fast as possible.’” (Robin Toner, “Kerry Redoubles His Attack Over the War,” The New York Times, 5/29/04)

THREE DAYS LATER: On Memorial Day Kerry Says He Could Bring Home Troops Sooner Than Bush Could. “[S]en. John Kerry, said that if elected he could get American troops home from Iraq sooner than Bush would.” (Pete Yost, “In Face Of Differing Views Over U.N. Resolution, Bush Calls German Chancellor,” The Associated Press, 6/1/04)

TWO MONTHS LATER: In His Convention Acceptance Speech, Kerry Failed To Say When He Would Bring Troops Home. “Notably, Kerry didn’t say when he’d bring U.S. troops home.” (David Yepsen, Op-Ed, “Tough Rhetoric Peppers Kerry’s Acceptance Speech,” The Des Moines Register, 7/30/04)

ONE WEEK LATER: Kerry Will Bring Troops Home “Within A Year.” “In an NPR interview Friday [August 6th], Kerry said: ‘I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that’s my plan.’ His comments took several aides by surprise. Until the interview, Kerry’s stated policy was to significantly reduce troops by the end of his first term.” (Jim VandeHei and Mary Fitzgerald, “Kerry Defends Position On Iraq,” The Washington Post, 8/8/04)

TWO DAYS LATER: Kerry Pledged To “Significantly” Reduce Troops In Iraq Within Six Months Of Taking Office. “Kerry and Rubin also are detailing a new Iraq policy to ‘significantly’ reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq during the first six months of a Kerry administration.” (Jim VandeHei and Mary Fitzgerald, “Kerry Defends Position On Iraq,” The Washington Post, 8/8/04)

ONE DAY LATER: Kerry Said Troop Level Depends On Commanders’ Needs. “Yesterday, he again said he hoped troops would be home within a year. ‘If the commanders asked for it, then you’d have to respond to what the commanders asked for,’ Kerry said. ‘But my goal, my diplomacy, my statesmanship, is to get our troops reduced in number . . . over that period of time. Obviously, we have to see how events unfold.’ He said his conditions for reducing troops in Iraq would be the country’s stability, the ‘training and transformation’ of the Iraqi national security force, and Baghdad’s ability to hold elections.” (Patrick Healy, “Kerry Says He’d Still Vote To Authorize Iraq War,” The Boston Globe, 8/10/04)

THREE WEEKS LATER: Kerry Says Goal As President Would Be To Bring Home Troops In His First Four-Year Term. “‘We want those troops home, and my goal would be to try to get them home in my first term,’ Kerry said, speaking to a fellow Vietnam War veteran at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania who had asked about a timetable for withdrawal.” (Calvin Woodward, “Kerry Slams ‘Wrong War In The Wrong Place’,” Associated Press Online, 9/7/04)
rnc.org

Joe



To: Joe NYC who wrote (203121)9/20/2004 12:06:32 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577917
 
THE QUESTIONS STILL LINGERING

The people don't want to hear about Vietnam any more so lets talk about Iraq.

So Joe, do you think Iraq has turned into a quagmire? Do you believe like some GOP senators do that Iraq is out of control? The good GOP senator from SC says there is no civil war but yesterday three Kurds were beheaded by Sunni insurgents? Is that the beginning of civil war?

Come on, Joe, talk to me about Iraq? Inquiring minds want to know what you think.



To: Joe NYC who wrote (203121)9/20/2004 12:13:03 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1577917
 
Monday, September 20, 2004

Candidates play on fears of attacks, war

By PAULINE JELINEK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER



WASHINGTON -- Playing on the fear factor, Vice President Dick Cheney suggested in a campaign speech there might be another terrorist attack on the United States if John Kerry were in the White House. President Bush's opponents' are raising their own worst fears, including the potential for more wars during a second Bush term.

The rhetoric continued during the weekend. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., speaking at a Saturday night fund-raiser in DeKalb, Ill., said his opinion is that the al-Qaida terror network could operate better with Kerry in the White House instead of Bush.
Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, issued a statement Sunday accusing Hastert of using the "politics of fear," which Edwards said is a "clear sign of weakness and failed leadership."

With fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq far from over, a Pew Research Center Poll found that 51 percent of voters surveyed said they do worry that Bush, if re-elected, would lead the country into another war.

"The Bush administration is on a crusade to make the world safe for democracy and part of that ... is eliminating countries of anti-Western aggression," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute think tank in Washington.

"They may not like me to say that on the eve of the election, but that's a fact," Thompson said. "It's less likely to happen with a Kerry administration."

Both Bush and Democrat Kerry have said they prefer diplomacy to deal with Iran and North Korea, which joined Iraq in "an axis of evil," as described by the president.

Under Bush, there is "reason for apprehension" because of his administration's "actions and rhetoric" over the past four years, said Ted Galen Carpenter of the libertarian Cato Institute.

Carpenter also cited among Bush's conservative supporters a "deep concern ... and fairly militant attitude" that the United States needs to "do something" about Iran, North Korea, Syria and perhaps other governments.



"In some extreme neoconservative circles," there have also been calls for "coercive measures against Saudi Arabia," Carpenter noted.


"That's fear-mongering," said Joseph Carafano, a 25-year Army veteran and former West Point professor who now is an analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Those who think more wars in a second Bush administration are unlikely point out that there are not enough U.S. troops, given that the Pentagon already is struggling to keep up with violence in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Others say the administration has no taste for another war after the unexpected difficulties of Iraq, and the bar has been raised for Congress and the American public as well. They say Americans will not so easily support another war after learning that prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was false.

"I really don't think, absent something like an invasion of South Korea (by communist rival North Korea), that we could sustain another one," Carafano said.

If forced into it by such a provocation, the Pentagon could most certainly do it by mobilizing more National Guard and Reserve troops and calling on allies, Carafano said.

But that would take the armed forces "to the edge," said Carafano, and would mean years to reconstitute the military in terms of troops readiness and resupplying equipment.

Others note that while the Army is stretched extremely thin now, the Air Force and Navy are not.

"So the talk that you hear within the conservative community about perhaps taking strong measures against Iran or North Korea would be feasible if it were confined to air strikes," Carpenter said. "Those who are concerned that a second Bush presidency might go down that path might have some foundation for their concerns."

Some fear the United States could provoke a war - even if it did not fire the first shot - by focusing on tough talk and actions, rather than negotiations.

"It's this process of bluster and threat and escalation that could lead to war," said Michael O'Hanlon of the liberal-leaning Brookings Institute. "I don't want to say that the chance of war is particularly high, but I think it would be higher under Bush than under Kerry."


On North Korea, Kerry favors direct negotiations. Bush has instead collective talks involving six countries.

With Iran, some fear any effort to aid anti-government forces could get the United States "deeply involved in Iran's internal politics with unpredictable consequences," Carpenter said.

seattlepi.nwsource.com