Posted on 10/05/2004 11:01:05 PM PDT by kattracks
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president.The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops.
"Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that," he said. Asked about that statement later, Mr. Kerry said, "When I was referring to that, I was really talking about Germany and France and some of the countries that had been most restrained." "Other countries are obviously more willing to accept responsibilities," he added, as he took questions from reporters in a school yard in Tipton, Iowa.
[snip]
"Ambassador Bremer differed with the commanders in the field," campaign spokesman Brian Jones said. "That is his right, but the president has always said that he will listen to his commanders on the ground and give them the support they need for victory."
National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack declined to say what advice Mr. Bremer gave the president, but said Mr. Bush honored all requests from the "chain of command." Mr. McCormack described the chain of command as commanders in the field and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
"President Bush made it clear whatever commanders needed they were going to get and that is what happened," Mr. McCormack said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
I am saddened, deeply saddened, that John Kerry is such an utter, miserable failure when it comes to building vast broad coalitions of yellow, spineless weasels.
I guess the French and Germans weren't among those "world leaders" who told Kerry they wanted him to win.
didn't take you saying so JKerry!!! We already KNEW THIS!!! You see, President Bush TRIED it already.!!!!!
BTTT
Which is why Kerry doesn't want to tell us what his big plans to fix everything are until after he's elected.
As far as I'm concerned, the President's position expressed at last weeks debate was concise and unambiguous.
WOW! BUSH NEEDS TO REMEMBER THIS FOR THE FRIDAY!
So what's left for Kerry's allies? Does Kerry intend to hand out government contracts to those unwilling to commit troops?
Let's review his "skills"...
1. Calls Bush's "Coalition of the willing" the "Coalition of the bribed and coerced."
2. Sends sister to tell COALITION PARTNER Australia, ahead of Australian election, that working with America has made Australia LESS SAFE, more likely to be target.
3. Says IRAQ's Prime Minister is a LYING PUPPET.
4. Suggets he can vouch for France & Germany participating if he wins. France & Germany say, in effect, "WTF? Go to hell, Kerry!"
5. DEMEANS LOSSES of 800 Iraqi and COALITION forces.
6. ANGERS PARTNER POLAND with denigrating comments.
7. Proposes solution on Iran... Iran says, basically, "GO AWAY we don't want foreign energy DEPENDENCE like America has."
8. Can't explain how a "Global test" does not equal "Global VETO."
9. Uses Gulf War I coalition as example of DOING IT RIGHT, but hides that he voted AGAINST that very coalition when he had the opportunity.
Wow. And I've only scratched the surface. He's doing FABULOUSLY!
The man attempts to conduct policy from a point of HINDSIGHT rather than FORESIGHT.
Couldn't agree more. This has probably done more to discourage me as I look toward the future than anything.
Another Kerry Plan in retreat ...
Let's see, we already have the U.K., Australia, Poland, Italy, and more than two dozen other countries with troops on the ground, plus other countries are supplying intelligence and logistical support (and possibly financial, as well). Then we have France and Germany saying they won't send troops, no matter who is in the White House.
So who is left? Is Kerry promising to get the Belgians on our side? Lichtenstein? Andorra? Who? And without this self-delusional fantasy masquerading as a foreign-policy substitute for the Bush Doctrine, what does Kerry have left to hang his hat on?
And lastly, why did Kerry admit this after the foreign policy debate given the fact that the Germans and French made their positions public the week before? Someone needs to pose that question to Kerry in a public forum and make him squirm for all the electorate to see
But of course, we know his answer to these and all other questions: HALLIBURTON!!!!
All Kerry has to do is promise to place these Franco-German troops on the Israeli border. With the correct "blame the Joos" strategy, the French and Germans are bound to help.
The title, "More Reasons Why W Won"
;-)
Translation:
"I am a liberal/pacifist/transnational progressive who plans to hand America the same ignominious defeat I helped engineer in Vietnam, while at the same time abandoning hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to slaughter by jihadists, just as the Cambodians were slaughtered through my efforts -- but you, my MSM enablers, know damn well I can't say that, so spin this."
Build a wider coalition before the war, build a wider coalition after the war, blah blah blah. Who? Who are they talking about when they say that? Does anyone truly believe that France, Germany and Russia would have come aboard with more Kerry UN debates, instead of the 2 year 12 UN resolutions "rush to war" with which they label our effort? We all know why they didn't participate, because they had tons of $$$ at stake with their business dealings with Saddam and with the UN corruption. They didn't have the fortitude to do what was right then and they still don't. Who is Kerry kidding?
Thanks for posting this. BTT!
They are a friendly staunch ally.
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.