Skip to comments.Kerry Says Bush Should Have Transferred Authority Over Iraq to the UN After Baghdad Fell
Posted on 10/01/2004 12:32:56 AM PDT by BJungNan
Kerry Says Bush Should Have Transferred Authority Over Iraq to the UN After Baghdad Fell
(Excerpt of Transcript: Debate #1) - GoGov.com
KERRY: The United Nations, Kofi Annan offered help after Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that and did what was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run.
Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better.
LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.
BUSH: Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there's 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops.
And I honor their sacrifices. And I don't appreciate it when candidate for president denigrates the contributions of these brave soldiers.
You cannot lead the world if you do not honor the contributions of those who are with us. He called them coerced and the bribed. That's not how you bring people together.
Our coalition is strong. It will remain strong, so long as I'm the president.
In my book, this qualifies as a gaffe
Yeah and John F*ckin' NEVER mentioned how his precious UN high-tailed it out of Baghad after the murder of Sergio Mello. That was last summer.
Yea right, Like the UN could handle it, we would end up taking the lead anyhow...
I'll bet he did
BTW .. how's the Oil for Food investigation going?????
A shame that the Italian American voters won't get ticked off at Kerry slamming them for fighting in Iraq.
Exactly! And this is why the UN can not be in control. Oil For Food (and weapons, and bribes, and oil for oil) was exactly what we got the last time they were "in control" in Iraq.
Lead: Bullets from or for firearms; shot: pumped the target full of lead.
Context is everything.
Maybe he wants to help the UN, French, Germans and Russia cover the oil-for-food scandal. I sure hope people disect what he really said in between pontificating.
People don't trust the UN. Moreover, they don't believe Kerry himself trusts the UN.
In that sentence lead is fine...Either way we would still be doing the dirty work.
No, no, you're misunderstanding the Senator! See, foreign troops and indigenous troops will *help* Iraqi operations, but if we use them in Afghanistan, they'll HURT the effort! Why the difference? Uhhh.... [/sarcasm]
Kerry is arguing it's not a real alliance because so few other troops are committed. But there are actually quite a few. And he wishes to overlook the various areas of responsibility, where the British, for example, were in Basra.
He's simply saying that the only countries that matter are our historical enemy, the Soviet Union, another in Germany, and now our new enemy, the Chirac French. Kerry is saying that without them, and perhaps without his friends in Red China, there can be no Alliance worth the name.
There were so many things the President could have said and should have said. But he's afraid of offering the least offense. That's why he won't say - Kerry is Unfit for Command. And that strategy clearly harms the Bush Campaign. I think he'll win regardless. But it's a foolish strategy. His father tried to 'campaign above', rather than speak honestly about Clinton. You think he might have learned.
Wow, good point. We should have used American troops in Afgahnistan but turned everything over to the UN troops when it comes to Iraq.
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.