Posted on 04/07/2004 12:14:33 AM PDT by Stultis
Kerry said, last September, "a specific timetable for self-government – for transferring political power." With the modifier "specific" I think that's tantamount to saying, "by a date certain." At the very least Kerry's current claim that he has "always" been consistent on this is baloney.
Granted that I, along with many other freepers, greatly preferred the original position of the Bush administration: that, although we would push hard and fast lest the Iraqis be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the process and get bogged down, there would be no artificial deadlines, and that sovereignty would only be transferred to a new government constitutionally elected.
Nevertheless, even those who disagree with this arguably premature transfer must recognize that, having agreed to it, America's honor and integrity are now at stake. Certainly Kerry should not be permitted to get away with publicly SMEARING American honor with a black helicopter theory about the sovereignty transfer being a cynical political ploy, nor with UNDERMINING America's foreign policy and sowing fear and doubt among Iraqis with the intentionally and knowingly false implication that American forces are going to "cut-and-run" on June 30th. The later tactic is particularly odious -- even seditious -- since the psychological factor of Iraqi faith in American resolve and constancy is, arguably, the single most important factor in making the transition to democracy there successful.
BTW, in regard to the proceeding, another Kerry quote from the recent Reuters article I didn't post above:
"I think they wanted to get the troops out and get the transfer out of the way as fast as possible without regard to the stability of Iraq," he said. "The test ought to be the stability of Iraq and not an arbitrary date .. it should not be related to the election."
Neither should Kerry be allowed to contradict and suppress -- with his black helicopter theory of the date being tied to the American presidential election -- the public record of how it was arrived at and why it was agreed to. In fact this was (excepting only not being coded in a U.N. resolution) exactly the kind of compromise Kerry himself, and the U.N., and the French, and the Germans, and the Russians, were previously demanding.
Specifically the agreement to an early transfer of sovereignty come out of our negotiations on behalf the Iraqis to secure relief of their debt from the French, Germans and Russians. The Iraqi Governing Council also wanted an early transfer and the June 30th date was the latest they would agree to. The date had nothing to do with the Presidential election.
Kerry is lying about that and he's the one doing so out of cynical, and destructive, political purpose. Personally I don't think it's so much that Kerry wants to dispirit the Iraqis -- although that will certainly be an effect, and the same he had on South Vietnamese in '71 -- as that he wants to create a false impression among the American sheeple that the troops will all be coming home on June 30th. He thinks he can play off the disappointment when that doesn't happen and/or contend the the Iraq policy is a "failure" because our troops are still needed.
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.