Sh'ite terrorists. The graffiti states in Arabic 'No more Bush'.
John Kerry didn't have the where with all to be a leader in the Senate, but now he has the ability to lead the United States of America? Where has this clod proved himself? He has a big mouth, he's a smart Alec but what has he done since Vietnam? He was a loose cannon in Vietnam who was asked to leave after his 3rd phony Purple Heart. He was a bon vivant, a womanizer and lone wolf in the Senate who worked with no one to get his legislation passed, thus got no important legislation passed.
If he feels so strongly about things how come he did jack sht in the Senate? How come he was happy to be a "back bencher" who the White House never discussed? (According to Dick Morris)
Did anyone imagine that Kerry would "stay the course" in Iraq? Or even Afghanistan. Terrorism will be opposed with paperwork - arrest warrants and u.n. resolutions. If America is weary of the war, they will choose kerry. Debacles like Fallujah and the continuing existence of al-sadr may make enough Americans weary of Iraq for kerry to win.
I am pinging people who will appreciate this article. Thank you so much!
Kerry: Well, it has to be different from the way it is now. It is not safe today. It is not working for Iraqis. I believe it is critical to our success to have a fresh start. This President, regrettably, rushed to war, without a plan to win the peace, he pushed our allies aside, we've lost our credibility with the world, we need to restore that. And I think I can do that.
Ask yourself, what would "we" do if this were happening in America? Would martial law be instituted? Surveilence cameras? Curfews? Investigation in the background of those in the police force?
As far as not having a plan to "win the peace", we decapitated the government. There is no chance of Saddam or the Baathists (or Al Qaida) coming back to power in Iraq. The media has supported the terrorists who continue to fight. They do not wear a uniform and strike out at civilians, military, and Iraqi buildings and things like the oil industry.
They do not offer a plan to Iraqis to "chase the Westerners out". All they do is deny the inevitable. As I say, the media (Al Jazeera, arab press, Michael Moore, NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, et al) have entertained their notions that they DO have a chance at winning this war.
The "900 dead" ("Bush's fault") list is not a government accounting but the Washington Post includes it on their website. It is an antiwar tool and is prone to error (they need to boost the figures to manipulate emotions). There are people who died in Kuwait and Germany on this list (people who died from incidents that didn't even occur in Iraq, they were just deployed as "part" of the Iraq war effort). The most extreme example was a woman who died while crossing the highway in Kansas while on leave from Iraq. She does not appear on the Washington Post's list (did it ever?) but there is another person who died that same week in a forklift accident in Kuwait that is on their list. I tallied the numbers when I looked at the list on Memorial Day (and Gary Trudeau used his comic strip to publish the names). Over one third of those who died did so not from combat situations but traffic accidents, industrial accidents (like electrocution), heartattacks, pneumonia, drowning, etc. Hardly situations that could be listed as "Bush's fault" but again, the antiwar movement needs to boost the numbers because they are FAR short of the tens of thousands of dead soldiers that they warned us about (as well as the "millions" of dead Iraqis they warned us about).
The media is an accomplice to the continued instability in Iraq and John Kerry's weak legs are not helping either.
An absolutely amazing admission that Kerry's, "plan" is really just Bush's plan with a few more conferences and consultations thrown in to cover his real objective - to pull US troops out of Iraq in a year. He's gonna do what he wanted to do in Vietnam if he had had the power to do so at that time. He will leave tens of thousands of Iraqi "collaborators" to the tender mercies of the Iranian backed mullahs who will move in and take over in the ensuing chaos.
And yet, no media headlines to alert the American people to this planned betrayal.
Of course he's going to withdraw.
He implied withdrawal when he said that the first thing he'd do upon taking office was to Apologize to, well......virtually the whole world. And that includes our enemies. And isn't withdrawal what Comrade Kerry and his neo-communist cohorts of the 60's strove for as an end to the war in Nam? Yup. If he takes the office, we'll see a repeat of Viet Nam. Thugs will move into Iraq just as they did in Nam, and thousands upon thousands of people will be slaughtered. And Comrade Kerry & his cabal of neo-communists will close their minds to the slaughter so they can go on pretending that their evil ideology will bring salvation to the world.
"How do you achieve the stability? You need to have more people involved in the process."
And how do you evade responsability for failure. By getting as many people "involved in the process" as possible.
Thanks for listening to that NPR propaganda piece and downloading, transcribing it. Your analysis is frightening and absolutely on target. Kerry's delusional. If he becomes President, lethal events will overtake us in short order. He'll blame Bush as more and more Americans die. He'll beg terrorists and anyone else we've 'offended' to take whatever they want. What they want is a big hole in the ground from sea to shining sea, and Kerry will appease, appease until it happens.
Presumably, before we got to that point, Kerry's advisers would knock some sense into him, or we'd impeach him, but essentially, we'd be playing catch up and it would be too late. How would he apologize to millions of dead Americans and whoever's left standing?
Edwards is Kerry's lapdog and it shows. This entire interview is scarey. I can't figure out how Kerry connects what he wants to happen with reality. These 'allies' who'll send hundreds of thousands of troops to defend places where they have no interest? Why should they when through the UN, they will bully the US to do it? Goodbye sovereignty, goodbye.
Tacitus on Red State takes on Kerry's Disengagement plan for Iraq and tears it to shreds. Cool, saves me the trouble, although I do feel the need to pile on to correct some Kerry myths ...
Kerry: "If I get other countries involved in the training of troops" ... NATO begins training Iraqi forces
Kerry:"You need to have more people involved in the process" ... 31 Member Coalition in Iraq
Riyadh, July 29: Colin Powell held talks in Jeddah with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal to discuss possibility of deploying a Muslim force in Iraq
Kerry:"We have not seen this Administration do the statesmanship" Powell in Brit Hume interview: Now in the last year or so, I have worked on, I think it's four or five -- I don't I can get that count for you -- resolutions dealing with Iraq before the United Nations. And every one of them was passed unanimously: 1483, 1500, 1511, 1546.
Tacitus rightly puts his finger on the gaping hole in Kerry's plan: The goal is to reduce our commitment, not achieve victory. That means, when the Europeans fail to pony up troops, when things get wobbly, when needs are greater than planned commitments ... Kerry will be bugging out. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's my substitute for an essay on what that means, courtesy of http://polipundit.com
what IS this crap about nato? do these doofuses really believe these entities have ANY function or power in the world other than us? geez, they are so stupid. this is part of their "secret plan' i suppose.
Check this out. O'Neill Kerry debate 1971
http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Debate2
MR. CAVETT: No one has said that there'll be a bloodbath if we pull out, which is a cliche we used to hear a lot. Does either of you still think there would be a –
MR. O'NEILL: I think if we pull out prematurely before a viable South Vietnamese government is established, that the record of the North Vietnamese in the past and the record of the Viet Cong in the area I served in at Operation [unintelligible] clearly indicates that's precisely what would happen in that country.
MR. O'NEILL: I'd say that their record at Thua, at Daq Son [phonetic spelling], at a lot of other places, pretty clearly indicate that's precisely what would happen. Obviously, in Thua, we've discovered, how many, 5,700 graves so far, at Daq Son four or five hundred.
MR. KERRY: The true fact of the matter is, Dick, that there's absolutely no guarantee that there would be a bloodbath. There's no guarantee that there wouldn't. One has to, obviously, conjecture on this. However, I think the arguments clearly indicate that there probably wouldn't be.
First of all, if you read back historically, in 1950 the French made statements – there was a speech made by, I think it was General LeClerc, that if they pulled out, France pulled out, then there would be a bloodbath. That wasn't a bloodbath. The same for Algeria. There hasn't been.
I think that it's really kind of a baiting argument. There is no interest on the part of the North Vietnamese to try to massacre the people once people have agreed to withdraw. There's just no pur- –
___________________________________
Interesting that Kerry could conceivably single handedly cause the U.S. to lose not one but TWO wars. If he is elected and publishes a timetable to pull out of Iraq.