And he says "it sounds Grrrrrrrrreat!"
| ELECTION NEWS:|
| ·||Kerry Won't Delay Accepting Nomination|
| ·||Poll Shows Voters Prefer Bush at Barbecue|
| ·||Kerry Seeks More Homeland Funds|
| ·||Election Worries Civil Rights Groups|
| ·||Kerry Holds Big Lead Over Bush in California|
| ·||Ohio Voters Could Hold Key to White House|
| |Candidates' Iraq Policies Share Many Similarities
[ AOL link ]
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON, Ye Olde Fork Tongues
Inside This StoryJump Below:
· Compare the Candidates
· AOL Member QuotesTalk About It:
Post | Chat
Who would do a better job with Iraq?
Can you distinguish between the candidates' stances on Iraq?
|Total Votes: 104,797 |
|Note on Poll Results|
WASHINGTON, May 25 — When it comes to Iraq, it is getting harder every day to distinguish between President Bush's prescription and that of Senator John Kerry.
r...no it's not.
So says, too, the hundred thousand folks who've read this inkwaste and decided to respond to your own poll.
They still differ on some details,
Try almost every detail. Granted, they do both call that country over there "Iraq." And they both printed their respective plans in English. (For sake of argument, we'll pretend that Qerry's ramblings constitute "a plan.") But that's as far as any sharing of substantive details between the two go.
...and Mr. Kerry continues to assert that Mr. Bush has lost so much credibility around the world that only a new president can rally other nations to provide the necessary assistance, a point he made Tuesday while campaigning in Oregon.
"Around the world," in Modern Liberalese (and its backward dialect QerrySpeak), means from the Pyrenees Mountains eastward until you reach the western border of Poland. Known around the real world as Irrelevantland™.
OK, al-Qerry, you seriously think that "rallying" the few remaining nations who aren't already strongly standing with us in this war (47 at last count) is going to somehow help us? How would we go about getting those last three "major" holdouts to change their minds now? By our caving in to France's demands that we don't harm a hair on any terrorist's widdle head until we have 17+ more Security Council resolutions expressly authorizing us to massage his follicles with a good scalp rub (but no further!), and then only after there have been 13+ additional years of ineffectual sanctions? By our bribing Germany and Russian with exclusive rights to lucrative oil contracts in Iraq? What makes you believe even those things would get any of these three nations to actually help us the way the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Australia, Turkey, Philippines, Poland, Netherlands, South Korea, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Singapore, Colombia, Romania, Panama, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Ethiopia, Angola, Albania, Nicaragua, Rwanda, Eritrea, El Salvador, Uganda, Ukraine, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Macedonia, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Costa Rica, Iceland, the Marshall Islands, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, the Solomon Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Tonga, and Afghanistan are helping us now?
Sounds like what you want us to do, Hanoi John, is tow whatever lines France, Germany, and Russia set down for us so we can get them to commit about 50 troops and a few tanks each. What makes you think you'll have any better luck with these three obstinate weasels who are envious of our country and all we've accomplished without their so-called help? Your ability to speak fluent French? Pull-leeez.
But as became evident with Mr. Bush's latest speech on Iraq on Monday night, which followed a detailed speech Mr. Kerry gave on Iraq's future one month ago, the broad outlines of their approaches are more alike than not.
"Detailed"? Let's take a look at what the UBLPAC-backed candidate actually said.
Following Qerry's bald lie that President Bush "declared 'mission accomplished'" (he didn't; although our president did say:
- Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace.
Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.
which were the only two times he used the word "mission" and not in the context of it being accomplished), and Qerry's second lie that "it is not a time for blame" (that's all Hanoi John ever does with his "this administration has failed
—a word he repeated eleven more times just in this one speech), he finally presents
his wonderful "details"
Such as "we cannot depend on a US-only presence" (see list of 47 countries above) but must "build a political coalition of key countries, including the UK, France, Russia and China" (UK - check; those "other nations" - see list of weasels above; China - giving it more secret satellite-guidance technology like Traitor Qlinton did is probably the only way you'll ever get it to "join in this mission"). Next, Qerry wants our "US-only" coalition to install an "international High Commissioner" (à la East Timor—talk about failure!), while imposing some larger foreign military presence across Iraq (that's bound to show the Iraqis we aren't occupying them), and
request beg the UN, would it pretty-please "provide the necessary legitimacy" for it all. That's not, Qerry admits, the total final solution for Iraq. Even more foreign military forces, including those from NATO, will be headed for Iraq. ("Siddiq, I thought we were liberated from military rule." "Just wave your tiny French flag at these passing tanks, Dhakwan, and be quiet.")
After we "personally reach out" to NATO members, they'll feel they "have been treated with respect" and will happily send another slew of occupying troops. (Yay for the "liberated" Iraqis!) But al-Qerry wants us to ease them in at first before we really "open the door" for some real heavy-duty occupying. Of course we'd be "ending the sense of an American occupation" but starting the sense of a massive, UN protectorate-type one. (Yay for Siddiq and Dhakwan!)
Meanwhile, back at the High Commissioner's
ranch overpriced cushy office, this "highly regarded" guy (or gal) will be "charged with overseeing elections, the drafting of a constitution and coordinating reconstruction." Not even Saddam had so much power. ("Keep waving, Dhakwan.") Since he'll (or she'll) have "the credibility to talk to all the Iraqi people" she'll (or he'll) be working with everyone in sight to make sure that Iraq is moving "on the path toward[sic] sovereignty." (Forget that June 30th, business, Dhakwan. It's not like our nation gave you her word of honor or anything.)
As his/her Highness the Commissioner is passing out select oil contracts to Germany, France, Russia, and China, the new and expanded version of Iraq Occupation, Inc. will be training and providing "backup" for Iraq's soldiers and "policemen" (that's sexist Qerry's word).
Any more "details"? (Nope, we're done.)
That is particularly true as Mr. Bush moves toward giving the United Nations more authority, a move long advocated by Mr. Kerry.
It's always safe to assume that whatever al-Qerry has "long advocated" in the past is not the same thing he's advocating today or will be advocating tomorrow or, for that matter, even in the same speech. This "more UN authority" stuff flies dead in the Botox-laden face of his "security force...clearly under US command" and his requiring that the HC "should be directed to work with"—i.e., limited by the decisions of—non-UN "participants." So much for having any real powers. But if reporters Nagourney and Stevenson want to deem this "giving the United Nations more authority," who am I to argue with employees of Jayson Blair
's former funland?
They both support the June 30 deadline for the beginning of the transition to civilian power.
No, they don't. Bush Administration officials say that if the Iraqi government ever wishes us to be gone on or after July 1, then we will leave. That's what normal people mean by respecting a country's "sovereignty." In al-Qerry's parallel universe, that word means a kind of process that you're ensuring you continue to move forward on a path toward, never quite actually getting there. Nowhere near the same thing, Nagourney and Stevenson.
They both say they would support an increase in United States troop strength, if necessary.
Again, no. President Bush has said that if our military commanders there in the field request more troops, he'll approve that request because he trusts their judgment. (Unlike the way Johnson tried to micromanage Viet Nam.)
Beardless Lurch, on the other hand, says he wants more troops there no matter what they request.
Neither has supported a deadline for removing United States troops.
In the sense that Hanoi John never really supported them going over there to begin with, this is technically true. Sure, there are—not one—but two reporters from Ye Olde Fork Tongues writing this stuff. Even so, it doesn't take a foreign policy expert to say how utterly stupid that would be announcing to our enemies how we'll be leaving on such and such a date, whether or not our job there is done. It shouldn't even take what passes for brainmatter in some reporters' heads that neither has supported equally stupid stuff like bungee jumping without a cord. But any more sentences like the one above and people may start to wonder.
Mr. Bush's gradual shift away from what many Democrats have long denounced as a go-it-alone stance is an adjustment to the surge in violence in Iraq, as well as the deterioration of domestic support for the occupation in the wake of the prison abuse scandal.
But there also is clearly a political component at play here, as the White House seeks, while managing its own problems, to create a predicament for Mr. Bush's Democratic opponent. Mr. Kerry this week is beginning a series of speeches in which he will lay out some of his most detailed foreign policy pronouncements.
Going it alone with 47 other nations has kept a more than expected surge from erupting into some "plunge into full-scale civil war" which Dhimmicrats and their media accomplices have been predicting, expecting and hoping for since Day 1. As far as domestic support goes, no doubt the constant negative, gloomy drumbeat of only the bad news out of Iraq from that media, and not a peep at all about the already abundant and increasing amount of good things going on there every day, will eventually make people wonder too why "our side's" reporters are sounding a lot more like Al Jazeera's these days than usual. Incentive enough to turn to actual fair and balanced news sources to find out what all is really happening in Iraq.
On the Issues
|"We must supply our military commanders with the additional troops they have requested." -- April 17 speech Read More||"If [the U.S. needs] more troops, I will send them." -- May 24 speech Read More | Audio: Hear It|
Before last week no one but Diddlecrats were
requesting screaming at the top of their moonbatitis-filled lungs for any additional troops. When our military commanders asked that week for the transfer of 3,600 American troops from South Korea to Iraq, their request was immediately approved.
|"NATO agreement to take on this mission should be reached no later than the NATO summit in late June." -- Campaign statement Read More|
Watch Video: Kerry's Policy
|"At the [the NATO summit] we will discuss NATO's role in helping Iraq build and secure its democracy." -- May 24 speech|
Another whopping difference. Al-Qerry wants an agreement in place before the summit even begins. How about that for our going it alone without hearing what our allies have to say first? Kinda invalidates the point of even having a summit, wouldn't you think? What kind of leadership is that? Likely not the kind of tone you want to set for any summit, going into it the way Hanoi John's prescribing. Unless you really don't care about having a productive summit.
The only similarity here is an acronym.
|"The creation of viable Iraqi security forces - military and police - is crucial to a successful exit for us and other international forces." -- Campaign statement Read More||"Eventually, [Iraq's military, police, and border forces] must be the primary defenders of Iraqi security, as American and coalition forces are withdrawn." -- May 24 speech|
Audio: Hear More
Those "other international forces" in al-Qerry's stance include French, German, Russian, and Chinese "peacekeepers." Don't remember seeing their names on the "US-only" coalition's goitalone, 47-nation list.
The fact that Mr. Bush has moved close to Mr. Kerry on some of these questions...
Wait. What's this "some" business? You've been saying all along "the fact is" their two plans are almost completely identical except for a few minor variations regarding the word "France." (President Bush usually likes to just use the acronym CESM.)
...makes it much more difficult for Mr. Kerry to take advantage of what Democrats and Republicans view as the biggest political crisis of Mr. Bush's presidency,
Three thousand Americans and other nationals being slaughtered in under two hours by throat-cutting terrorist hijackers who destroyed two of our nation's tallest buildings and one wing of our Pentagon—and almost the White House and/or Capitol too—cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered a big crisis, political or otherwise, of anyone's presidency. Nonetheless, if he'd caved into the terrorists, and asked over and over again "why do they hate us? what did we do wrong?" like Dhimmicrats and other liberals did, there's no doubt it would've been a supersized political crisis for him and all those in our government real quick. Not that this would've lasted long, to be sure. His impeachment in the House and subsequent conviction in the Senate would've sailed right through the Congress in record time. The only concern afterwards would be who President Cheney would nominate as Vice President.
...by emphasizing differences between them. Mr. Kerry is left to argue that while both men have similar ideas about what to do,
...he has more credibility to do it, given the breakdown in relations between Mr. Bush and many world leaders over Iraq.
France hates us. Germany hates us. Russia just dislikes us a little. Oh, yeah, Belgium really, really hates us. As everyone knows, those four nations are "everybody." Yet Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry speaks fluent French, and probably likes cheese, and definitely likes waffles, and maybe even cuckoo clocks. So that's three of those four he can show his "credibility" to (not that they'd be interested in actually seeing it). Now all he has to do is start drinking copious amounts of Vodka and we'd be all set because no one ever again will make us feel insecure about how, somewhere, some of them might somehow ever, ever hate us.
You want to know real hate. Find and play the Nick Berg video and listen to those "Allah Akbars" before and after the real haters silenced his screams. Listen to the trembling voice of the flight attendant calling from that hijacked plane and describing how one of the passengers was lying dead in the aisle with his throat cut—or her "I see water and buildings...Oh my God, Oh my God" before she too was silenced.
Then try to compare that to the so-called hate emanating from a few envious former allies who let us down (not the other way around) when we needed their help the most to ensure that Saddam Hussein would no longer ever be a threat or hindrance to us in any way as we hunted down and completely destroyed all our terrorist enemies, including the ones he supported. These former friends, whose native soil is literally filled with many, many times more fallen young American men and women who fought and died liberating their countries from another brutal dictatorship, than all the brave defenders of our freedoms who've sacrified everything for our own and another people's liberty, have no justification whatsoever for "hating" us. Anyone who says he's concerned about whether they hate us or not is only trying to find a justification for that hatred himself.
Mr. Kerry has negotiated the shifting sands of Iraq for more than a year now. Some Democrats said that their candidate would just as soon stand back and not engage Mr. Bush on the war, allowing the president to struggle with setbacks, while avoiding making himself a target should Mr. Bush attempt to suggest that he is not supporting the troops.
That's right, Qerry. Offer nothing constructive, Just more of those "this administration has faileds," while those in your own party who would despise you, except for their need to use you in their AnyoneButBush campaign, wring their hands over how they might get away with replacing you with a "more viable" candidate at the first opportune moment. That's what your party stands for. Beat Bush! "We will win! We will win!" it shouted, and "Fritz! Fritz!" at the memorial service of another senator whose own words, sadly, no one in your party's leadership seems to want to hear anymore:
- Politics is not about winning for the sake of winning. Politics is about improving people's lives.
The only positive thing that can be said about his death now is that he is no longer here to witness what your party—the one he loved and devoted himself and his passion for doing right to—has become in its final, ugly years.
So sit back. Enjoy this media driven ride. Just don't expect any of them to come to your rescue after they plunge your car off the bridge and leave you struggling for air as they swim off and let you finally drown.
Kerry asserted that it would take a new president to... re-establish battered relations with former allies.
But as Mr. Kerry is well aware, there is a growing antiwar segment of the American electorate. And there is likely to be an antiwar candidate on the ballot, in the person of Ralph Nader, the independent candidate who has called for an withdrawal of American forces.
In another sign of the complication Mr. Kerry faces, Al Gore, one of the party's severest critics of the war, is to deliver a speech in New York on Wednesday that is expected to call for the dismissal of top administration officials and assert that Americans have been put at risk at home and abroad by Mr. Bush's foreign policy. (See Story From AP)
Now how did The Slimes get advance notice of what was in Gore's speech? Yeah, silly question. Letting it know he's going to bash our president and call for the resignation of practically his entire cabinet, as well as speak out against a war we're right in the middle of trying to win (albeit the New Yuk Times isn't really hoping that we do because that might shine too much of a spotlight on the futility of its beatbush! series of reports), was the only way Gore could pique its interest enough for it to finally send someone to cover one of his speeches. Being that its anti-win the war editorial policy nicely matches up with his own now, and all.
"He's caught between what would be politically advantageous, declaring a timetable for getting out, and what he knows is the reality on the ground, which is that we need more troops," said one adviser who Mr. Kerry relies on heavily. "And the internal debates have often been between the camps in the campaign who want a clear break from the Bush policy and those who want to portray Bush as largely incompetent in executing what strategy they had."
Such a positive message! Voters surely will be falling all over themselves flocking to it.
How about this: Send in 200,000 French troops and give them a timetable of 10 days to surrender to the first Iraqi military patrol they stumble across. The new Iraqi army can show its sovereign militariness and the French their incomparable surrenderingness all at the same time.
Mr. Kerry's advisers minimized the extent to which Mr. Bush's shifts had made him less vulnerable to criticism on Iraq, and disputed the notion that Mr. Kerry has not, or could not, draw differences with the president on this issue. And they noted a series of recent polls that show both a drop in support for the occupation of Iraq and concern over whether Mr. Bush has a plan to end it, arguing that the issue was more of a problem for Mr. Bush than it was for Mr. Kerry.
Messrs. Nagourney and Stevenson must have interviewed these advisors before our president's speech. Still, they found all that beatbush! strategizing
You Said It
T2 Farmer Says:
"We need to stay the course that President Bush has laid out for Iraq."
"John Kerry as a Democratic candidate for president has said more about how to fix Iraq than the sitting president, the commander-in-chief, the person who lead the nation into this war," said Stephanie Cutter, a senior Kerry advisor.
(Misstephanie Miscutter, misyou misforgot misa misprefix missomewhere misin misthere.)
Want to "fix Iraq" and good? Just turn everything we've accomplished so far—like getting electricity running throughout the country and refurbishing the rest of its economic infrastructure—over to an inept, corrupt, Sex-for-Food starved UN, and see how long before it all goes back to pot. Or allow some international, interagency, interceding, interposing nightmare of an ineffectual force—whose complexities would make Hilldabeast's Healthscare network of intermingled bureaucracies look streamlined—roam about the countryside for a few months and the Iraqi people will be pleading for the much simpler form of brutality of their former dictatorship.
In a speech last month, Mr. Kerry said the goal of the United States should be to bring about "a stable, free Iraq with a representative government, secure in its borders." That position is broadly indistinguishable from that of Mr. Bush.
It's also broadly plagiaristic. Should al-Qerry be getting advice from Senator Biden?
The differences, as they exist, are relatively minor.
Make up your "minds." Your flip-flops are almost as worn out as Qerry's.
Mr. Kerry has called for NATO to take a major role in Iraq, freeing up American troops and providing an opening to attract military support from non-NATO nations like India and Pakistan.
Ah, yes. President Bush's proposed mixing up of the military forces of these two nuclear-armed adversaries right in the middle of a nearby war zone. Almost forgot about that "relatively minor" difference in the two plans.
Mr. Bush has left open the possibility of a larger role for NATO, but has not pressed hard for such a change, and administration officials are skeptical that Europeans have any desire to contribute more assistance than they already have.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Tuesday that Iraq would be discussed at the NATO summit at the end of next month in Turkey, and that 16 of the 26 NATO member nations are already involved in Iraq in some way.
See? Qerry wants an extremely large NATO presence in Iraq as soon as possible, and President Bush says not so fast. No differences exist here either.
More From The Times
· Tracing Berg's Odd Path
· Aspirin May Prevent Breast Cancer
· The Stress of Business Travel
He said that NATO has not ruled out an expanded role in Iraq, but that there is no consensus on what that role would be.
"We should not go into this, as some critics have, thinking that, you know, all you have to do is go to NATO and there is a huge body of troops waiting there just to be asked," Mr. Powell said.
Better not tell Hanoi John that there isn't. It might upset his "plans."
Mr. Kerry has also called for the establishment of a United Nations high commissioner to oversee the political development of Iraq and the rebuilding efforts. Mr. Bush has more or less embraced the need for the United Nations to authorize a multinational force led by the United States - a position long pushed by Mr. Kerry - but has signaled no support for putting additional direct power in the hands of a United Nations commissioner.
"More or less" apparently has the same meaning as "no difference" in libberish. Must make a mental note of that for future reference.
The core of Mr. Kerry's argument is
a meaningless assortment of garbled nuances
...that Mr. Bush is now viewed with such low regard in Europe
Also, "France and Germany" means "Europe." (Oh, plus Belgium.) But doesn't include United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Netherlands, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Iceland, and—before al-Qaeda bombed Madrid—Spain.
...that it would take a new president to put together an international coalition. Mr. Kerry asserted that it would take a new president to "clear the air" and re-establish battered relations with former allies.
Trying to "clear the air" with the French might prove extremely difficult, however (if not outright impossible). Introducing them to the American concept of daily showering could backfire and wind up offending them more instead.
News in a Flash
See headlines in just 90 seconds from ABC News.
Administration officials have been dismissive of Mr. Kerry's idea of putting a United Nations high commissioner in Iraq. They have argued that the Iraqis do not want the United Nations in power any more than they want the United States in power.
"This is not East Timor," one senior administration official said, a reference to the breakaway Indonesian territory where a high commissioner was put in place.
May 26, 2004
Our mission also includes making sure they stay liberated. The Iraqi people still have that empty feeling and foul taste from the Ululating Numskulls' oil-for-food program stuck in their mouths. Throwing them to the wolves of a EuroUNion-run protectorateship —leading there to a very real quagmire—would be saddamistically cruel.
Comments (registered users)
Post a Comment