Skip to comments.
Kerry Questions Bush on Iraq Deadline
AP ^
| April 6, 2004
Posted on 04/06/2004 2:18:34 PM PDT by Shermy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
To: Shermy
Why doesn't Botoxboy go to Iraq with his fact-finding committee, then come back and tell us what he thinks.
21
posted on
04/06/2004 3:44:50 PM PDT
by
hershey
To: MNJohnnie
I just cannot believe how politically inept the Kerry camp is. In the long run maybe he is ept. If collusion with Iran yields months of disruptions the independents will go to Kerry. Kerry has already flip-flopped on multilateral negotiations with North Korea, signaling to Kim that he can get a better deal with Kerry. Hence Kim took off the table any nuclear negotiations until after the election - depriving Bush of a possible pre-election victory. Why wouldn't Kerry make the same deal with Iran? Could his letters to the Iranians be for any other purpose? They certainly didn't gain him immediate points with any voter constituency.
22
posted on
04/06/2004 3:56:32 PM PDT
by
Shermy
To: My2Cents
It may very well be that "stability" in Iraq is an impossibility,Well I've supported Dubya's actions in Iraq,
and I'm certainly NOT gonna opt for Kerry's "We Are the World" United Nations visions,
but just the same, I think it's time we begin seriously reevaluating the dream of a peaceful, unified Iraq.
I'm leaning toward the mindset that it can't be done,
and that perhaps Iraq should be partitioned as three independent nations along their major ethno-religious groups: Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis.
Yeah, that'll present a different set of problems. But IMHO, those nomadic tribes are just too uncivilized to get along together under one stable government.
To: Shermy
"If all we do is make war against the Iraqi people and continue an American occupation fundamentally without a clarity to who and how sovereignty is being turned over, we have a very serious problem from the long run here and I think this administration is just walking dead center down into that trap," Kerry said. If Johnny Gigolo really thinks we made war against the Iraqi people, he's been smokin' weed again. His irresponsible talk still tends to give comfort to the enemy, doesn't it?
To: savedbygrace
His irresponsible talk still tends to give comfort to the enemy, doesn't it? Whatever he has to do to win he will.
25
posted on
04/06/2004 4:05:26 PM PDT
by
Shermy
To: Shermy
In the radio interview, Kerry also said it was not wise for U.S. officials to try to arrest Muqtada al-Sadr, an anti-American cleric, without taking other steps to control violence in Iraq. U.S. officials announced an arrest warrant against al-Sadr on Monday, the same day that Bush reaffirmed his commitment to the June 30 deadline. Bush also said al-Sadr is working against democracy in Iraq, but Kerry suggested Tuesday that arresting him would work against efforts to build stability in the country.
U.S. authorities have launched a crackdown on the radical Shiite cleric and his militia after weekend uprisings in Baghdad and cities and towns to the south took a heavy toll in both American and Iraqi lives.
"If all we do is make war against the Iraqi people and continue an American occupation fundamentally without a clarity to who and how sovereignty is being turned over, we have a very serious problem from the long run here and I think this administration is just walking dead center down into that trap," Kerry said.
He is a most foul person.
We are making war against the Iraqi people? We ought not even ARREST the leader of the barbarians? Yet he criticizes what he calls a pull out of troops (confusing the transfer of power issue).
This literally made me sick to my stomach, that such a vile thing dares to run for president of this great country---and that evidently almost half of the populace support him.
Wretch
26
posted on
04/06/2004 4:12:29 PM PDT
by
cyncooper
("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
To: snooker
Bush questions Kerry's daisy. Kerry has no answers, only questions. Whose daisy was that?hehehehehehe
27
posted on
04/06/2004 4:25:34 PM PDT
by
cyncooper
("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
To: Willie Green
I don't know that anyone was positively convinced, 100%, that it could be done in Iraq, but that it should be given a shot (no ironic pun intended). Part of Bush's grand design in the war on terror is to create a free and democratic alternative to the kleptocracies in the Middle East, and in the Muslim world in general. Create a place based on western values and institutions which respect freedom. I believe it was and is Bush's goal of attacking the root of terrorism by providing a positive alternative to the despair and madness which make up Middle Eastern societies. Change the equation in the Middle East...that would be the ultimate "war on terror."
Perhaps the goal was a pipedream. On the other hand, maybe it's still possible. As violence flares up in Iraq, what evidence is there that these kooks represent the majority sentiment among Iraqis? Kerry and the Dems would like to use the violence as a pretext to criticize Bush, all the while tossing any hope for real and radical societal reforms overboard for electoral gain. I don't think Bush is ready to throw in the towel. To do so would be to admit defeat in a major aspect to the war on terror. Maybe Bush is wrong to attempt to bring the kind of reforms he seeks in Iraq. Succeed or fail, no one should blame him for trying.
28
posted on
04/06/2004 4:27:32 PM PDT
by
My2Cents
("Well...there you go again.")
To: cyncooper
Kerry also said it was not wise for U.S. officials to try to arrest Muqtada al-SadrI thought a law enforcement strategy in the war on terror was Kerry's preference.
29
posted on
04/06/2004 4:29:01 PM PDT
by
My2Cents
("Well...there you go again.")
To: cyncooper
This literally made me sick to my stomach, that such a vile thing dares to run for president of this great country---and that evidently almost half of the populace support him.Nov. 3rd will be a dark day for America if this guy wins.
30
posted on
04/06/2004 4:30:34 PM PDT
by
My2Cents
("Well...there you go again.")
To: My2Cents
This guy gives new meaning to the word SEDITION
No that would be Ted Kennedy, John Kerry's attack bitch.
31
posted on
04/06/2004 4:47:58 PM PDT
by
MNJohnnie
(Vote Bush 2004-We have the solutions, Kerry Democrats? Nothing but slogans.)
To: Shermy
In the long run maybe he is ept. If collusion with Iran yields months of disruptions the independents will go to Kerry
Doubtful analysis. Watch the polling data. Most Americans do NOT think we should follow the Kerry perscription to cut and run from Iraq. This sort of strategy lead to a Nixon landslide in 1972 against McGovern. Why do you think it will suddenly work this time for Kerry?
32
posted on
04/06/2004 4:50:35 PM PDT
by
MNJohnnie
(Vote Bush 2004-We have the solutions, Kerry Democrats? Nothing but slogans.)
To: Willie Green
I'm leaning toward the mindset that it can't be done,
and that perhaps Iraq should be partitioned as three independent nations along their major ethno-religious groups: Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis.
Yeah, that'll present a different set of problems. But IMHO, those nomadic tribes are just too uncivilized to get along together under one stable government.
Because a few thousand die hard baathist and Shunni fanatics attack our troops you want to bail on the whole enterprise? Since when did Americans become such quitters? The minute things get a little tough we should just throw in the towel?
33
posted on
04/06/2004 4:52:21 PM PDT
by
MNJohnnie
(Vote Bush 2004-We have the solutions, Kerry Democrats? Nothing but slogans.)
To: MNJohnnie
Doubtful analysis. Watch the polling data. Most Americans do NOT think we should follow the Kerry perscription to cut and run from Iraq. Kerry won't say cut and run. He'll has and will blame Bush for not bringing in the UN - a UN who has no interest in Iraq except to recover some documents to shred. Kerry has and will say that Bush failed to bring in "key allies", ie, France and Germany, as if their troops would make the situation any different.
The rough edges of the French excuse is already being tailored by Kerry - note the recent claims by Chirac's pals they told Condi Rice whatever...
It's all part of a plan.
This sort of strategy lead to a Nixon landslide in 1972 against McGovern.
Kerry's strategy arguably led to a Nixon victory in 1968. Nixon's message to the South Vietnamese to put peace talks on hold and thereby exacerbate the war there.
34
posted on
04/06/2004 5:02:06 PM PDT
by
Shermy
To: Shermy
In the Republican stronghold of Cincinnati, Kerry touted his pledge to create 10 million new jobs if elected. His rally was interrupted by about a dozen people near the front of the crowd who shouted and clapped flip-flops above their heads a reference to Republican claims that Kerry has changed his position on Iraq, taxes and other issues. *********************************************************** Nice to see people using flip-flops to protest Kerry!
35
posted on
04/06/2004 6:13:40 PM PDT
by
JulieRNR21
(One good term deserves another! Take W-04....Across America!)
To: MNJohnnie
Because a few thousand die hard baathist and Shunni fanatics attack our troops you want to bail on the whole enterprise?Nobody said anything about bailing out.
Merely expressing my opinion that it may be more feasible to construct three new separate and independent nations than to patch together a fractious and unstable, unified Iraq.
To: Shermy; All
I've got to tell you, i find Kerry's politicization of national security really disgraceful--in another time he would be have been charged with treason ....
To: dirtboy
I might not be the brightest bulb in the pack, but wouldn't it benefit al-Sadr and others if the deadline is not honored and pushed back?
Wasn't that one of the reasons in the last tape from the terrorists that they are trying to do all in their power before the Iraqis take over, because they'd have no justification for keeping up their cause.
If only the democrats could think this through. /sarcasm
38
posted on
04/06/2004 6:30:55 PM PDT
by
swheats
To: dirtboy
Sometimes I simply cannot believe what comes spilling out of Kerry's yap.Well, he probably figures that if we just leave al Sadr alone, he'll continue to consolidate his power base and become the next strongman to replace Saddam as Iraq's dictator, once he gets us to cut and run. This would be a good thing from his perspective, as it would allow Chirac, Kofi and Co. to pick up their grubby little deals right where they left off.
39
posted on
04/06/2004 6:35:17 PM PDT
by
CFC__VRWC
(AIDS, abortion, euthanasia - don't liberals just kill ya?)
To: My2Cents
Part of Bush's grand design in the war on terror is to create a free and democratic alternative to the kleptocracies in the Middle East, and in the Muslim world in general.A laudable, although dubious, goal.
As I said, I support his actions in Iraq,
but that is despite my skepticism of his ability to create a new Iraqi government.
As far as I'm concerned, the whole affair is simply settling unfinished business. I have no problem with that.
Saddam signed his own death warrant when he invaded Kuwait,
and it took us far to long to remove him.
What the Iraqis put in his place is their business, not ours.
Our only real interest in the region is the oil,
otherwise, we'd ignore regional feuding just like we ignore the Hutu and Tutsis.
And the Administration would have much more credibility in my eyes if serious efforts were underway to reduce our national dependence on imported fuels.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson