KMA-628

What happened to the original............look a butterfly!

bodymassage3

I'm not bold enough to create a new thread for this, but I can make it fit here. I just watched Bush at a speaking event about 15 minutes ago, and he told the people he was speaking to that Kerry's plan was to immediately withdraw troops out of Iraq, followed with "i'm not going to do this, we need to see it through, etc." Now - I saw what Kerry said last thursday, and this was not it. You guys that watched the debate never saw him say this, and I would like to think that the President, who was standing a mere 20 feet away from Kerry (taking notes, nonetheless) would have heard Kerry explain his plan, which did not include the immediate withdrawal of troops. Did anyone else watch this? What can Kerry "do to win," short of mailing out transcripts of the debates to the people that would do something like this?

aceventura3

Kerry needs a backbone. Once he gets one his chances of winning goes up 100%

bodymassage3

Out of curiosity, did you just hear (this morning) what the President said Kerry plans to do in Iraq? I know what I heard, but do you, aceventura3, recall hearing Kerry last thursday say that his plan was to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq? I am not attacking you or anybody else, just curious if anyone else picked this up. But it just blows my mind that the person closest to Kerry, who we all saw taking notes, would come out this morning and totally contradict what he and everyone else watching on television, or listening on the radio, or reading the transcript saw, heard, and read. It also seems as if they're making up what Kerry's plan(s) should be, shaping them into what they think is the opposite of what every voter wants to hear, and campaigning as such.

Its like they (the President and his staff) formed this whole list of things to do and things to bring up when they found out who they would be running against. It seems like they assumed their competition would be totally anti-war, would be for the immediate withdrawal in Iraq, and would be against any war at any time, regardless of the situation. What I heard from Kerry last thursday was actually the quite opposite of this, but Bush is still speaking as if they are *still* following this "plan" that consists of a "anytime/anyplace" anti-war competitor.

theusername

They're trying to make Kerry into McGovern... except he's not McGovern so it is not working. Therefore, here a former Bush supporter has gotten sick of hearing the Republicans interpretation of the Democrats plan and not the Republicans actual plan. So I guess the Dems got this swing voter.

I'm not overly confident with Kerry, i think that any President who ever promised everything did nothing in return. O well, cant wait til Nov. 2nd.

__________________
?

Paq

that's what i'm seeing, actually...bush only heard exactly what he was thinking he would hear and he's going on as if the rest of the country heard that as well, when the rest of the country that watched the debates heard what kerry said...no mention of pulling troops out, no mention of handing over our defense to the UN...Hell, i'm shocked we aren't hearing that a vote for john kerry is a vote for the pope.....

__________________
Live.

Chris

Stompy

Haven't read most of the posts before hand (lot of reading!, but will do so after this post)..

But in order for Kerry to win, he and Edwards need to keep making asses of the Bush Administration. Likewise, Bush & co need to keep making themselves look utterly stupid.

Even then... I dunno. I don't give the average voter much credit because in the end they'll still believe all the lies and will fail to see through the smokescreens. Hell, I think Bush could come out and say, "Yeah, I lied to you" and admit to all the other accusations against him, and I think people would STILL vote for him. He rambles off something about 9/11 and all of a sudden they become "patriotic".

__________________
I love lamp.

gmccortney

Bodymassage,

Kerry has said many times that he will start bringing home troops within six months and that they will all be home within four years. Don't know if that was in the debate or not, but google will help you find it I'm sure. I'm not sure if "within six months" is the same as "immediately", but we assume it is faster than Bush would bring them home. (Bush will not set a time table saying that it would only encourage the "insurgents" (read terrorists) to wait until we are gone to really fight, which I think is a very valid point but off the subject here.)

Kerry is promising to remove troops. That is fact. I believe the argument Bush wants to make is that Kerry making that promise is bad for Iraq's new government. I have no clue if Bush is doing a good job of making that argument, but I believe that's what he's trying to say.

I don't believe that Bush is acting like he's running against an anti-war foe. I don't think anyone can honestly say that they think Kerry would be as focused (ruthless may be a better word) on the war on terror as Bush has been, and I think Bush sees that as one of his strengths. Thus, Bush is taking every chance he gets to make sure that people know that he thinks Kerry may not have the stomach for this. Vowing to pull out troops is just one way that Kerry indicates this theoretical weakness.

bodymassage3

What I heard was that the Iraqi police need to be better trained, and that we need more "trainers" to do it effectively and in a reasonable amount of time. During the debate, Kerry reiterated that the troops needed to stay until they were no longer needed, until we have "won." What made the President's remark this morning seem so rediculous was the tone of his voice and his smirk as he said it. He definately made it seem as though "If Kerry is elected on tuesday, expect our troops to be gone by wednesday." Like I said, anyone who saw or read the debate in any format knows this to be not just horribly innacurate, but false. What made it even MORE rediculous to me, is this man was more personally involved with Kerry when he (Kerry) made these points than anyone else in the world, other than Kerry himself.

KMA-628

You never, ever release a timeline for any type of troop withdrawls. HUGE tactical mistake.

Scenario A: By announcing that troops will be removed in XX years/months, you just told your enemy how long they need to hold out. Once the troops are gone, the enemy moves back in. This mistake has been made many times in history with the outcome of failure, every time.

Scenario B: "Stay till the job is done", the enemy has no timeline, so they can hold out, but they don't know for how long. You keep fighting until the enemy is gone or gives up. This will lead to victory, as long as the battle(s)/war isn't lost in the process (not a concern for our military).

/back to the topic

It is safe to safe that most people that are current/former/future military vote conservatively. These same people know that announcing any form of timeline will lead to failure and our men and women in uniform do not believe in failure. Bad move on Kerry's part and he would be wise to not mention it again.

In combat, there never should be a timeline, just an objective/mission. The job is done when the objective is met, not because XX days/weeks/months/years have passed.

Remember, nothing Kerry or Bush can or will do will really change the minds of the respective "political base". If Kerry wants a chance, he must appeal to people other then his ABB crowd.

This one ain't gonna do it.....

bodymassage3

But to put it in perspective, whoever the Commander in Chief may be, having a plan for leaving/withdrawal/whatever you want to call it, does not mean just abandoning everyone, leaving a bunch of civilians to deal with terrorists. On the other hand of your argument, I think it is important to give OUR troops and their families somewhat of an idea of how long they're going to be there. Another thing you shouldn't do, along with divulging every detail of your strategy with the public (more specifically, the enemy, who can get it from public sources), is give your troops the idea that they could be doing what they are indefinately. A good analogy to this would be mowing the yard versus vacuuming it. You can see that there is an end in sight, be it sooner or much later. Vacuuming the yard, on the other hand, does not have such an end.

I think both sides want the Iraqi's extremely capable of policing themselves, and that Kerry was just making a point that it could be done both faster, with more "trainers," and Edwards added even being trained outside of Iraq, for whatever reason.

KMA-628

bodymassage3: you misunderstand.

To a military person, there is a tour of duty. It can be extended (I have been extended, twice), but it is never definite. It shows a lack of ability for a potential commander-in-chief to make any assertions like this.

I am referring to the people that are not already in Kerry's camp (i.e. most military). If he wants to appeal to them, then he shouldn't make comments like this that show his weakness in defense. You know the old adage about people thinking you are stupid, versus opening your mouth and proving it? That is what I am referring to.

You are not in the audience that I am referring to.

bodymassage3

I saw in another thread that you followed the debates. About the comment the President made this morning about Kerry wanting to immediately withdraw troops - do you recall hearing this in Kerry's position last thursday?

guy44

Kerry never said he plans to bring troops home. What he said is, the cost and burden of the Iraq war is overwhelmingly placed on American soldiers. If he is elected, and the rest of the world can hate us just a little bit less, other international authorities can interject and hopefully ease some of the burden. He envisions that his administration would, within possibly 6 months, be able to start reducing troop deployment in Iraq. Remember: troop deployment in Iraq is worse than the Bush administration ever thought it would be, and many of the troops there Stop-loss troops or reservists, people who were never supposed to be there in the first place. He's talking about not forcing soldiers to unretire against their will, not retreating from our mess.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

KMA-628

no, honestly I don't remember.

gmccortney

I agree that it must help troop morale to know when they are going to get to come home, but I also agree that they do know when they are coming home (or at least have an idea). They don’t know if they will have to go back, but the never ending troop rotation deals with the idea that we need our troops to know when they are going home. They do.

If you are concerned about troop morale, then you need to address Pres. Bush’s point that Kerry saying that this war was a mistake hurts troop morale. Not to open another whole can of worms, but this is the point that the Swift Boat Vets have tried to make about Kerry’s anti-Vietnam stuff. I’ll admit upfront that I’m 30 years old and have no interest in or firsthand knowledge of that time period, but I would guess that if I was fighting in Vietnam and heard that the American People thought that I was risking my life for something that was at best a mistake I would have probably had a little more trouble sleeping at night. If I was a soldier in Iraq today and knew that the guy who wants to be President thinks that I’m risking my life for a mistake, I’m sure I would have more trouble sleeping at night.

If that guy became my Commander in Chief and still wanted me to risk my life for what, at that point must officially be a mistake, I don’t know that I wouldn’t seriously consider going AWOL.

OpieCunningham

Is it really so difficult to understand that the act of war was a mistake but now the task is to correct that mistake and is therefore honorable?

Other than the desire to post partisan nonsense - how can anyone question that logic? You may think the war was a mistake, or you may not - neither believe changes the fact that we must do something about the situation.

In essence, if 'that guy' became your Commander in Chief, if you were in the military, you would be tasked with doing the correct thing: fixing a mistake. It's not as if you were being asked to perpetuate a mistake.