WP: Kerry Struggles on Iraq Issue

Democrat Not Making Headway Against Bush With Voters

FULTON, Mo., April 30 -- Despite President Bush's failure to find weapons of mass destruction and end the bloodshed in Iraq, John F. Kerry is struggling to present himself as a stronger foreign policy leader who offers voters an exit strategy significantly different from the president's.

The senator from Massachusetts has had only limited, if any, success in capitalizing politically on Bush's national security setbacks and articulating a clear foreign policy alternative for November, according to polls, focus groups and strategists from both parties.

Kerry, who voted for the congressional authorization of the war in October 2002 but quickly became a critic of Bush's Iraq policy, sounded a lot like the president Friday in cautioning against retreat and calling for a continued U.S. lead in securing the region. "We must lead a broad coalition against our adversaries, and we must be a beacon of values as well as strength," the presumptive Democratic nominee said in a speech at Westminster College.

Bush, deftly using the power of the bully pulpit, has boxed Kerry out by essentially adopting the more multilateral approach his rival has favored for two years. "It's a message the president has adopted slowly and in pieces," said Rand Beers, Kerry's foreign policy adviser. "Bush is copying Kerry."

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57792-2004Apr30.html

and gets around to taking away the lucrative deals for Shrubs cronies. Help to pay for the misadventure by revoking the tax cuts to them as well. That might help to separate him a bit. We know Shrub won't go there, but I'd bet Kerry won't either.

You obviously did not read the article, or hear the Kerry speech today. He is saying we cannot leave Iraq in turmoil.

The article makes the point that Kerry is not getting any traction on this issue, because Kerry & Bush are saying the same thing.

understood that his strategy was to relinquish the US power to a higher commission (still to be defined). That could be considered a step out. I definitely mispoke on the get the hell out comment, I was thinking more on the lines of get the hell out of trying to govern the place with a bunch of puppets. Sorry - and yes I did read the article before posting, it reads like just about every other article on his position. Sort of a given in my mind he refuses to pull out.

But it might not be a bad idea to pull back, see if they can't at least form their own govt, sign their own rebuilding contracts without needing our military intervention. He could hold troops ready on the sidelines to help out if things get ugly, preferably by invitation.

The crowd responded wildly to this speech. It's exactly what we need and what anybody with any common sense understands is that it has to do with honest engagement with the rest of the world. Not this bullying and bribing Bush as done. People know it, even if this writer doesn't. Of course, when one's world consists of DU and FR, maybe one's view of the world is rather limited. Nothing personal to you, I don't even know you. That's just an overall observation.

kerry will drop out too (cuz he really doesn't want to run anyway). New dem prez will be....wesley clarke!

or so sez a psychic

a thought... man i needed that

overtime!
I sure like the Wesley Clark part.
Kerry is fine with me to stay of course.

Maybe * will say in June that Jesus, his Lord and savior,talked to him in the middle of the night and told him that he needs to return to Crawford.

I'm with you, I think that he will drop out by June.

it seems to be that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do, but it was just badly implemented . . . at least that's his public position . . . I just have to wonder if he really believes that, or if he's saying it because he believes that it's the best course politically . . .

I mean, Kerry's a smart guy, and I have to think that, deep in his heart, he knows just how wrong this whole Iraq thing is . . . if that's the case, he's taking what I think is a bad position, and one that he really doesn't believe in, based solely on political considerations . . . either that or he really does believe that the invasion was the right thing to do . . . whichever, it's a position that bothers me a lot . . .

I'll certainly vote for him, but I'm very disappointed that he hasn't come out and said "We were wrong to go into Iraq, and our responsibility now is to get out with the least violence and disruption possible. We also have a responsibility to see that the devastation we caused is repaired and the innocent lives we destroyed compensated for in some way." . . . his current position, imo, is either wrongheaded or dishonest . . .

Is the wrong way to go to war. He's said that. At this point, the goal is to prove to the American people that he can get us out whereas Bush can't. Harping on and on about the hows and whys of getting into the war won't help right now. The people are looking for someone who can get us out. And that's what Kerry is offering.

The only way out absolutely requires giving up the control-freak power-mongering stance of the Bush regime, and pulling in the international community to help the Iraqis put their country back together, again. Action towards a promise that Iraq will be a country for the Iraqis.

I'm on board with his plan. I saw him on cable making the speech.
I believe in my heart that he will do his level best to bring this country back together.

I believe in my heart that he knows this is a stupid war,he doesn't have to say it out loud.

Remember, ABB. That means he has to give to his base,that's us.
He also has to reach out to the Repubs, Naderites and new voters.
Let him say what he has to say to get elected and clean up this sorry mess.

We Democrats should learn a lesson from the Repubs. Stick with their candidate, as my man Bill would say, "until the last dog dies."

The Repubs even held their noses to get that no good Arrnole elected. That gave them more than a leg up in California for the future.

KEEP OUR EYE ON THE PRIZE

Kerry/Clark



:yourock:

How we did it was like a cartoon. Now who's fault is that? George or the people he listened to? My guess is George and George&Co. Now, we need someone who can pull us together, someone with the long view that Perle and Wolfowitz thought they had. We need someone who can step back, not look at the small print and pull the country together for the long haul. George&Co are essentially bankrupt, as well as corrupt.

We need the vision thing.

first by blindly voting for a War Resolution that gave the President boundless authority with no Congressional oversight. He digs this hole even deeper as he proposes to send more troops to Iraq when President.

Eventually Kerry will have to remove himself from this hole to win, but the deeper he digs..the harder it becomes to climb out!

did not give "the President boundless authority with no Congressional oversight".

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

It is clear from this section that Bush violated the IWR, and if you want to blame someone, blame Congress for not forcing him to adhere to it. Since the Republican Party has the majority in Congress, it would be accurate to place most of the blame on them.

Do you have a cite for where Kerry has proposed "to send more troops to Iraq when President"?

the President should receive all of the blame or credit when it comes to our national security.

But it is foolish to trust any President to enforce guidelines or to demand that Congress controls how any of the off budget dollars in Iraq are spent. What is not clear from this resolution is who allocates the money and who reports to members of Congress. Merely reporting to the Speaker and to the President Pro Temp is not the same!

I have already provided a link for your question above. Hopefully, like Clinton's bogus middleclass taxcut promise in 1992, it was just a political mistake and not part of a serious agenda.

The U.S. and other nations have an interest in helping Iraq, but not in holding or sharing power in Iraq.

"True leadership means sharing authority and responsibility for Iraq with others who have an interest in Iraq’s success. Sharing responsibility is the only way to gain new military and financial commitments, allowing America to truly share the burden and the risk."
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/

It ticks me off no end for ANYONE to claim some of the WaPo absurd positions re: chicken and egg about the Iraq war. The Busheviks have consistently done a bait-and-switch routine on foreign policy. Here are just 2 examples (among many):

1. Give us unfettered war powers and we'll pursue all diplomacy;
BUT INSTEAD they had been planning the Iraq war for 13 months.

2. Ok, we'll go to the UN kicking and screaming to get allies;
BUT INSTEAD they offer an "alliance" deal so very easy to refuse because BushCo wanted NO PARTNERS, just obliging servants under its command.

Actually, the reason the positions of Kerry and Busheviks are closer is only because given the colossal failures, these idiots are inching their way BACK (after 18 months) to the disingenuous rhetoric they initially offered for the bait.

And the effin' media is too lazy to do an honest timeline and policy analysis!!!:grr:

and officially endorse it at the convention in Boston...

:bounce:

his Iraq plan is unoriginal and uninspiring. Essentially more troops and then dump the whole mess on the UN. He needs alot more creative thought on this issue.

1) Be sort of non-committal until the election, with a vague plan to get out but not much more.
2) Win election.
3) Wait a few weeks or months until the Republicans and the right wing media start baying at him about "his Iraq war".
4) Take their advise and get out quick right then.

The beauty of this plan is that it hinges on the conservative press doing an Orwellian 180 degree turn about the war as soon as a democratic president is in power, which is pretty much assured.

Although, this sort of scenario is not how a democracy should work.

With Kerry in office they would be the first ditching Iraq without any consideration of patriotism, lives of those they sent to Iraq, democracy in an anarchy they created, or what future Iraqi generations shall think of America.

Sadly history has demonstrated that Repigs have all the fun rolling around in the mud, and Democrats are always elected to clean up those messes left behind.