Kerry - Resolute At Last

John Kerry, Vietnam war hero turnd anti-war leader, has surprised no one by finally finding his comfort zone in opposition to the war in Iraq.  However, Ms. Zernike of the Times tells us that he might have picked a better time:

When Senator John Kerry was their presidential nominee in 2004, Democrats fervently wished he would express himself firmly about the Iraq war.

Mr. Kerry has found his resolve. But it has not made his fellow Democrats any happier. They fear the latest evolution of Mr. Kerry's views on Iraq may now complicate their hopes of taking back a majority in Congress in 2006.

As the Senate prepared for what promises to be a sharp debate starting on Wednesday about whether to begin pulling troops from Iraq, the Democratic leadership wants its members to rally behind a proposal that calls for some troops to move out by the end of this year but does not set a fixed date for complete withdrawal. Mr. Kerry has insisted on setting a date, for American combat troops to pull out in 12 months, saying anything less is too cautious.

Some of the details provided by Ms. Zernike are amusing:

Senate Democrats have been loath to express their opinions publicly, determined to emphasize a united front. But interviews suggest a frustration with Mr. Kerry, never popular among the caucus, and still unpopular among many Democrats for failing to defeat a president they considered vulnerable. Privately, some of his Democratic peers complain that he is too focused on the next presidential campaign.

...Mr. Kerry's insistence on pushing ahead with his own plan has left the Democrats divided, and open to renewed Republican accusations that they are indecisive and weak — the same ridicule that Republicans heaped on Mr. Kerry in 2004, when his "I was for it before I was against it" statement about a vote on money for the war became a punch line.

...Stepping into an elevator on Capitol Hill late last week, Mr. Kerry was asked whether he was under pressure in the Democrats' meetings to withdraw his proposal. As he insisted he was not, Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, standing behind him, raised his eyebrows, then winked.

In an interview, Mr. Dodd, who is also considering a presidential run, said one danger in the November election was in making Democrats look indecisive. "If the argument comes down to, Is it one year or 18 months, I think we're going to confuse people," he said. "I'm not sure what the value is; I think it hurts us rather than helps."

This Kerry-basher gives new credence to Mickey's theory (June 5) about Ms. Zernike's recent promotion of Kerry's belated effort to rebut the Swift Vets:

Of course. at this point only artificial conventions of objectivity prevent MSM journalists from openly acknowledging that Kerry has no hope of winning the presidency. He's a dead man who doesn't know it, a political zombie refighting a lost campaign by refighting his role in a lost war, long after both conflicts are over. The delusional, obsessive quality of his permanent campaign ("I have the hat!") is something I suspect Zernike--or at least her headline writer--was trying to get across, even though she seems to Lipscomb (and others) like a gullible Kerry sympathizer...

Count me among the "others".

Comments

[Dwilkers]

He's a dead man who doesn't know it, a political zombie refighting a lost campaign by refighting his role in a lost war, long after both conflicts are over.

Ah. So others do realize the truth about Kerry's 2008 campaign.

The Dems aren't going to do Kerry again. Let's talk about Gore.

No? OK Hillbilly then.

No? I don't think so either.

....who then?

[PeterUK]

Many Democrat politicians might have a nasty suspicion,that despite their best efforts,the war in Iraq has been won.It is a abiding fear amongst politicians that they are not on the wrong side of history.

[Lurker]

And didn't Fox News report this afternoon of a 21,000 troop deployment already?

Gee Whiz!

Seems that Bush adm has been one or two or three steps ahead of the dems and they know it.

[Carol Herman]

If the democratic party were a rocket ship, it would be cracking up.

As to Kerry, the "reason" he was the 2004 Party's nominee, is that he said his "lovely wife" was willing to fund his run. Not quite true. She came to dip her hands into the Party's treasury. And, she pulled out $3 million dollars. It led to bad feelings, all around.

Kerry would have done well if he ran in france, though. Where Chirac's in trouble. Sarkosy could do well. But some dame is stealing his thunder. Is anyone following it, though?

I guess it's all these safe seats.

While part of the GOP is hoping that Bush wold be a lame duck. Because then things would be better for the congress critters.

What are ya gonna do? Turns out Connie Chung's singing Memories, have gotten more than 400,000 views on the TUBE replay. While her show went out with less than 200,000 watchers.

The Internet's more alive in replay.

Which presents problems of a different sort for the MSM.

And, Peter, I don't think politicians care all that much for history.

[Lurker]

Hahaha!

Start with MacRanger about Santorum's announcement of Saddam's WMDs. MacRangers has links to other bloggers. Boy, it'll be big tomorrow. And some of the bloggers are smart to anticipate what the left MSM and dems will say but

"Well that isn't exactly true. The fact is that the Administration has been intensily interested not only in this report, but in the content of the tens of thousands of other documents that are being translated and which Ray Robison is covering over at Fox, and which has shown valid and compelling links between Saddam and the Taliban."

So now when will the phase 2 investigation report be out? And will the phase 2 investigation match the recently translated documents? Not as long as Eric's working for Hagel.

[Lurker]

Hey, verner, you ever check into any possible connections between Rockefeller and Wilson as well as their trips in 1999 and 2003?

MacRanger seems to imply that we will hear more about Rocky this summer.

[capitano]

...refighting a lost campaign by refighting his role in a lost war..

So? We live for that stuff. Back off and let the man with hat tell his story.

[richard mcenroe]

Dwilkers — Kucinich '08!

[J2]

Mi capitano!

[Lurker]

Read

He said, "P: So do you think the WMD is the central issue regarding Iraq?

Tierney: No, and it never should have been an issue. The First Gulf War -- and I use this term as a convention, since this is actually all the same war -- was a prime example of managing war instead of waging it. Instead of telling Saddam to get out of Kuwait or we will push him out, we should have said to get out of Kuwait or we will remove him from power. As it was, we were projecting our respect for human life on Saddam, when actually, from his point of view, we were doing him a favor by killing mostly Shi’ite military members who were a threat to his regime. I realize that Saudi Arabia, our host, did not want a change in government in Iraq, and they had helped us bring down the Soviet Union with oil price manipulation, but we should have bent them to our will instead of vice versa. Saddam would not have risked losing power to keep Kuwait, and we could have avoided this whole ordeal.

The right-wing media need to keep this up repeatedly.

[richard mcenroe]

"Seems that Bush adm has been one or two or three steps ahead of the dems and they know it."

Because Bush has been bound and determined to do something, like it or not, while the Democrats have been desperate for a reason not to do anything...

[Lurker]

Speaking about Kucinich, he's mentioned in the discoverthenetworks.com site.

[Lurker]

:) Which makes Bush far more accountable and responsible than the sum of all the dems in office, right?

[Lurker]

Sister Toldjah: Jay Rockefeller

I never understood why Rocky hasn't been charged in violation of the Logan Act by now.

[Lurker]

Radioblogger now has the Santorum transcript.

[paul]

I can imagine what it was like for Kerry during 2004:

JFK: Theresa, have you seen my speech for today?

Momma T: Which one? The one's for the party loyalists are on th couch. The one's Shrummy gave us are by the john...I mean toilet. The fiery rhetoric one's are in the safe....

JFK: Just grab them all and we'll pick one out in the limo, but go ahead and flush the Shrummy stuff, the man was a complete loser until he met me.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

Biden came out and virtually said that the 20% of his own party that wants to set a date for withdrawl are nuts and that he doesn't support that idea at all. He was very strong in his statement.

[Specter]

OT - new article about Ned Lamont.

[Pofarmer]

"Because Bush has been bound and determined to do something, like it or not, while the Democrats have been desperate for a reason not to do anything"

Wow, now there's a statement with a lot of truth in it. Pretty well sums up the Clintoon years.

[KM]

Sorta related, "Phased Redeployments Through History."

[clarice]

This is how our two men were treated:
"So what do they say when torture OBVIOUSLY occurs? How do they react when two U.S. servicemen — in Geneva Convention-approved uniforms — have their hearts cut out, their testicles cut off, their penises cut off and stuffed in their mouths, arms contorted and eyes gouged? THIS is torture"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200419,00.html
A really rotten day to be yammering about "redeployment"

[JM Hanes]

With any luck, John Kerry will lead his party to defeat again in '06 without even running for office this time.

[MayBee]

Oh how awful. Their poor families, those poor men.
They joined in 2005 to help free the Iraqi people- that's what they told their families.

[MayBee]

It's too bad Kerry didn't have this clarity in 2004, we might have been spared his candidacy.

He would have been CiC, but now can only garner the support of about 4 of his fellow Senators.

[Bob]

But If I remember correctly, Kerry served in Vietnam... so you would think he has vast experience in these "cut and run" matters.

Any who, this makes Kerry sound like the political moron he is, and makes you think Al Gore is the sane one in the "I was robbed" bunch... well sort of!

[davod]

Did they join in 2005. Seems to be a short time to become a member of the 101st.

[Kate]

It is very scary how close Kerry came to being President of the United States. He is such an internationalist. He wants to rely on Europe, countries that can't even manage their own economies and Muslim populations.

A funny line from the campaign was Mark Stein I think it wsa commenting on Kerry's plan for Iraq, immediately call an international summit.

Stein referred to debate night at "Summit chanted evening". Bush has his flaws and his lack of communication skills has been harmful, but Kerry, give me a break.

[PeterUK]

"nd, Peter, I don't think politicians care all that much for history."

No Carol,it is ever present in politicians minds,they all want their page.

Sung to "THe House of the Rising Sun".

"There was a man in Washington,who wore a Lucky Hat".
"He was cery tall and very thin and looked an utter prat".

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
There seems to be a streak of homo-erotic sadism involved in Arab culture.SAS captives reported that they were raped frequently by their captors,and in fact this contingency has been incorporated into training.
This probably does not faze liberals since they can get all that at home.

[Lurker]

Don't forget that "off the record" meeting where Kerry either agreed or said that Bush is a criminal.

Geesch, the way those two US soldiers were tortured is simply awful.

And the lefties will blame it on Bush going to war against Iraq for the wrong reasons.

How many ME countries have signed or agreed to the Geneva treaty?

[Lurker]

A very good article by John Dwyer at AT about the good news post-Zarq that's getting very little press.

[Dwilkers]

You know what's weird?

I have no idea who the Dems will nominate this time around, but the whole Dem party has lurched so far to the left that HillBilly seems moderate when you look at the party as a whole. That's just bizarre.

Hell they're trying to run Lieberman out of the party. He's hardly a right winger. They're nuts.

[Lurker]

Flopping Aces made a post about the WMDs: 1) Those 500 discovered were supposed destroyed as told by Saddam to the world and partially verified.

And a reader said:

"Let’s see…assuming each projectile is equivalent to a 155-mm GB (Sarin) round uploaded with 6.5 pounds of GB, that would be approximately 1477 kg (1.6 tons) of GB Agent. The LD50 for Sarin is about 100 mg percutaneous per 70 kg man, for a total of 14,770,000 lethal doses to the skin, at 50% fatality. That’s more than enough Sarin to kill 7,385,000 people, or the population of Los Angeles, Chicago AND Houston."

So little Sarin enough to kill 7 million or the entire population of 3 metropolitan cities.

Will the dems eat their crow after this? Nah, I don't think so. John Fund wondered about the dem reaction as if they would claim that Rove planted the evidence in Iraq.

If you read the Santorum interview at radioblogger, he said that when the Negroponte letter was distributed at yesterday's meeting, Barbara Boxer totally ignored it by moving on to another subject.

Good cartoon at flopping aces.

Hey! Flopping Aces added Sara's link.

[Cecil Turner]

"If the argument comes down to, Is it one year or 18 months, I think we're going to confuse people," he said. "I'm not sure what the value is; I think it hurts us rather than helps."

And, of course, the only really important consideration is how it helps or hurts Dem reelection campaigns. (And since actually, you know, winning the war would hurt rather than help . . .) Sure, let's elect this guy.

How many ME countries have signed or agreed to the Geneva treaty?

Most all of them have ratified the basic treaty.

[Lurker]

Check Michelle Malkin. Michael Ledeen email:

"Please point out to your readers that Negroponte only declassified a few fragments of a much bigger document. Read the press conference and you will see that Santorum and Hoekstra were furious at the meager declassification. They will push for more, and we all must do that. I am told that there is a lot more in the full document, which CIA is desperate to protect, since it shows the miserable job they did looking for WMDs in Iraq."

Since some of the lefty bloggers have gone out of their way to discredit Michael Ledeen last week, he will be discredited once again.

But I have not seen any reason for Michael Ledeen to be discredited to date.

[Lurker]

Thanks, Cecil Turner! It's the terrorist, regardless of country, that has not signed the Geneva Treaty.

As for North Korea and reports of our own missile system being not 100% reliable, let's make sure that if we miss the missile, it will hit North Korea head on. Shame that their missile will end up hitting our own country (Alaska).

[Appalled Moderate]

Challenge to the commenters. How about engaging the Kerry proposal, found here, rather than ad hominem Tall John. I have no brief for Kerry, who should be running for cover rather than President. But his timetable proposal includes a Dayton Accord type summit, which strikes me as perhaps a good idea.

I am familiar with the argument that a timetable merely emboldens the insurgency. But doesn't a timetable also embolden politicians to refuse to settle their differences and fail to make the compromises that would be necessary if Iraq is not to do a Beiruit?

Let's not talk about the politics of the democrats. Let's see if you guys can talk about the proposal?

[Semanticleo]

Can't say I blame Maguire for hammering on poor Ol' Kerry. If he is truly focused on 2008 (as per Kerry MO), his run will just be pure entertainment for the right. His most recent flopfest was his date 'certain' for withdrawing the troops.

How do you know Dodd is considering a run?
My impression is he either is (since his most recent child was born) considering retirement,
or there's a skeleton in his closet. I wish he would run. He is a savvy operator who has a good grasp of both international and domestic policy. Then again. he's been in the Senate for a long time, and that appears to be an historic handicap.

How is Dr. Mengele Frist doing in his bid?
At least he is 'the devil we know' unlike McCain who has yet to show his real stripes.

[richard mcenroe]

"He is a savvy operator who has a good grasp of both international and domestic policy."

Applying the Semanticleo Rule: Mark Dodd is probably a closet necropedophile who couldn't find Canada on a map.

[Cecil Turner]

Let's not talk about the politics of the democrats. Let's see if you guys can talk about the proposal?

Hate to break it to you, A.M., but the cited article is mostly about the politics of the prosposal, not the merits. (Hence the focus on scheduling, how it affects others' campaigning, etc.) But, if you like:

A deadline gives Iraqis the best chance for stability and self-government, and most importantly, it allows us to begin refocusing on the true threats that face our country.

Au contraire, Monsieur Kerry, a deadline emboldens our enemies, disheartens our allies, and provides the insurgents a schedule for their media-manipulating atrocities. (I'd think it beyond dispute that wars are event-driven, but apparently not . . .) The attempt to distance the Iraq war from the "true threats" is also risible nonsense (though less so after the latest setbacks to Al Qaeda in Iraq). The rest of the proposal is also victory-averse, parroting Murtha's ludicrous "over-the-horizon" brainchild; and touting peace-through-appeasement. Can't say I found it terribly impressive, and I can see why the Dems want to schedule the debate for after prime-time.

And what, just out of curiosity, was your take on Tall John's plan? Would you like to defend it?

[MayBee]

Appalled Moderate- the Arab league is completely disinterested in cooperating in such a summit. Ditto the EU. The flaw in that part of the proposal is this line "to reach a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that addresses".
Convening a summit does not = reaching an agreement. If an agreement were reachable, there would be one.
I'm not sure what you mean by this: But doesn't a timetable also embolden politicians to refuse to settle their differences and fail to make the compromises
But I would say, at the heart of it, the problem is the insurgents are disinterested in settling their differences politically. That opportunity has been made available to them, and they have opted instead to blow up day workers at bus stops.
I think the best thing is for them to be forced to realize- by the strength of the Iraq government- that there is nothing in it for them any more.

[boris]

Timetable = deception.

The proponents all believe it's unwinnable and already lost. Let them vote on that first.

[Sue]

Let's see if you guys can talk about the proposal?

I can't see wasting anyone's time discussing a Kerry proposal. By the time we get the words typed, he will have changed it and there you are...discussing a proposal that isn't a proposal any longer. ::grin::

[Appalled Moderate]

CT:

Yep, I agree the original cite was to a "politics" article. I'm just trying to impose my interests on everyone else. (And prod the host, perhaps, to move on to he policy, and away from Swiftboats and easy Kerry mockery.)

As for whether it is a good proposal -- at this point, I begin to be open, because I do not see that the Bush stay the course policy is accomplishing its objectives. (Glad Zarqawi's dead. Glad the Iraqis have a full government. The leaked State Department memo, though, depicts a society going the wrong direction very quickly in a way it is difficult for US troops to salvage and in a way one man's death won't salvage).

I think, at this point, I'd strongly think about the Dayton Summit thing (though the result of that was the continued partition of Yugoslavia) and how that could be done. As for a deadline -- well, what do we do if Bush's policy continues to not work? Hm? I don't have an answer. The answer your side mostly has is to deny that it's a valid question. I'm trying to work this one out in my head.

(Of course, when Kerry says it won't be viewed as a defeat in the Middle East -- as he did on NPR last night -- he's lying, becsause he surely knows better.)

[MayBee]

Sue- you aren't kidding. His proposal was supposed to be for the end of the year, he changed it to July 2007 to get Feingold on board. So if these dates are that easily changeable, does that mean they are arbitrary (gasp!)?
I think we see who Kerry would have pandered to, and I'm glad he didn't win.

As for the proposal for the summit, he was forever proposing summits during his campaign. As if bringing a bunch of people together makes decision making easier. Look at the UN! Look at the WTO! Decisive measures everywhere!

[MayBee]

AM- you ask for us to address the policy, and then you punt.

[Sue]

Maybee,

I personally smirk when I hear the name John Kerry. I take nothing he says seriously and all I have for him is easy target comments. It is hard to get behind someone who calls in from the snowy slopes of Switzerland to call for a filibuster of a judge that everyone, including fellow democrats, knows is qualified. He is one disaster after another in the making and fun to watch but not worth the effort it would take to seriously refute anything he proposes. Laughing is about all I can muster. ::grin::

[boris]

I do not see that the Bush stay the course policy is accomplishing ...

Eye of the beholder. Anything short of nirvana is quagmire. Bathwater, baby etc.

The perception grows that the only way donks support military action is if they're in control and taking credit. If Gore or Kerry were president for similar circumstances, it would be portrayed by donks and MSM as a major success with a few minor glitches and withdrawal would be out of the question.

The possibilities for the party that benefited from OFF being in control of a ME oil rich nation are endless. Never discount projection as they accuse Texas oilman Bush of wanting that oil.

[Cecil Turner]

As for whether it is a good proposal -- at this point, I begin to be open, because I do not see that the Bush stay the course policy is accomplishing its objectives.

I disagree, but let's for the sake of argument assume you're correct. Is it smarter to run away from Iraq (undoubtedly providing a major propaganda victory that Al Qaeda will almost certainly use to further attack US interests), or not? There's little doubt that part of the reason AQ felt 9/11 was advisable was our feckless pullout from Mogadishu. If Iraq sparks a similar attack, we stand to lose more (and civilian) lives in an afternoon than the entire war has cost. I don't see this as a close call.

The leaked State Department memo, though, depicts a society going the wrong direction very quickly . . .

The leaked State Department memo has some anecdotals grouped to support an agenda (and gee, the obviously biased leaking of yet another classified document . . . how quaint). What it depicts is the continuing anti-US propaganda from the anti-war left (which I'd submit is the main problem with prosecuting the war).

I don't have an answer. The answer your side mostly has is to deny that it's a valid question.

Not really. "What do we do next?" is a perfectly cogent question. But your non-answer is simply unacceptable. Come up with one, and then we can discuss it. Until then . . .

[Gary Maxwell]

Think about a proposal that is too radical and must be compormised to get the Senior Socialist Senator from Wisconsin on board. What might it take in modifications to get, say 30 Democrats and Licoln Chaffee onboard?

Based on that, I think I dont need to discuss the contents of the proposal.

[clarice]

I can't imagine putting Kerry and"content" in the same room.

[richard mcenroe]

Appalled Moderate — Well, remember, Kerry was also the expert who told us there'd be 5,000, 6,000 refugees, tops, from Vietnam...

[Rick Ballard]

AM,

The US is coming up on a five year anniversary. During that five years no attacks on US personnel or assets have occured except where we determined they would occur.

We have sustained combat losses of less than 2,000 KIA and 8,700 WIA (could not return to duty) during those five years. Perhaps a real debate on time might look at a ten year horizon and ask the question: "Are Americans willing to sustain 400 combat deats and 1,700 severe injuries per year to prevent further 9/11 attacks at a continuing monetary cost of $60B per year?"

I don't consider it to be a particularly high price to pay to keep a sword tip an inch away from the stomachs of the greasy oil tick princes and sheiks who dream of a unified caliphate ruling the world. And I'm encouraging my grandchildren to consider military service as a privilege, duty and honor of a free citizen.

[Appalled Moderate]

Cecil:

In answer to your comments -- there is a point where the losses you sustain by staying are larger than the one's you will get by going. Where is that point? Well, that's the question. Is pulling out worse than losing a war by inches but steadfastly continuing to lose? Are we losing a war by inches? What are the true trends? All questions -- all really beginning to need debate.

As for your fairly easy dismissal of the State Department memo, try some additional anecdotes from:

Salam Pax

The problem with the news is they prefer body counts to any actual flavor of what is happening in Iraq. The State Department report and these bloggers bring us the flavor, and it is very very bitter.

One point to Boris -- if what you say about the media and its impact is true, then my vote for Kerry really was the best decision, if I cared about success in Iraq. I'm sure you didn't mean to say that.

[Appalled Moderate]

Sorry

[Appalled Moderate]

Check Zeyad and 24 steps to liberty for other anecdotes that sound much like the state department memo.

[Soylent Red]

Rick:

Army service age raised to 42. Lot more people to encourage now. I'm considering it.

AM:

The problems with a Dayton accords arrangement are manifold, but at least two glaring one leap out at me.

First, you're going to let Iran and Syria participate in the conference? These are not people I want setting the direction of U.S. policy in the ME. Yugo was, and is, strategically a give away for us.

The second problem is enforcement. We'll still have troops there, even after getting all the signatures. Oh but it would be multilateral enforcement right? Maybe, but no one seems all that concerned with helping us now, and certainly didn't seem all that concerned with helping us in 2003.

Also, enforcement of U.S. sponsored regional peace agreement isn't going to be significantly better received by the Iraqis than if we just do it ourselves. Particularly if such an agreement is made with the participation of mortal enemies Syria and Iran.

[PeterUK]

The John F.Kerry plan,
"For God's sake surrender and withdraw now under a Republican administration...give us some ammunition otherwise the Democrats will never get back in power.

[boris]

AM not what I meant?

Absolutely.

Assume that exact situation ... Kerry as president would view the current situation as successful as would the MSM.

Kerry would also take credit for the dramatic improvement over the manufactured perception of failure he used to win office.

Of course to you this would be better. Perception of "successs in Iraq". Bipartisanship, donk credit but same situation. Totally symbolic.

Now tell us all how to deal with the resentment that we're not good enough to run the country. Even in success we will be discredited.

Then tell us why we who are willing (and have been willing) to doing what's necessary to protect the country should entrust that job to a party that plays politics with it and always avoids the hard choices. Fritters away opportunity after opportunity when in power and only briefly and reluctantly engages when 911 chickens come home to roost.

[Cecil Turner]

. . . there is a point where the losses you sustain by staying are larger than the one's you will get by going.

Prove it. (Rhetorical: I contend it's unprovable.) Again, we lost more in the first attack than the entire war since.

All questions -- all really beginning to need debate.

A.M., I used to do a lot of military planning, and am quite familiar with the whole process. The way that works is that the planners come up with different "courses of action" -- which are then evaluated, modified, and eventually agreed upon. Coming up with questions is all very nice; but it doesn't answer the mail. Nearly five years on, we've yet to hear a proposal from the Dems worth the label. And for all the griping about the nuance of every military operation, I've yet to see even a modification that looks like it might be helpful. I agree the debate is well past due, but the vacuum on one side makes it just a tad difficult.

[MayBee]

I don't have a problem with debating what we should do, but I do have a problem with what is happening here. For 3 years most Dems have criticized every last thing GWB has done with regards to this war. They have hammered him on not having the perfect strategy, for not doing this the right way, and for not listening to what others were telling him he was wrong.

But now the time comes to put up their better plan and they can't really do it. They too have disparate views on the correct approach. Not only that, but they can't be honest about the consequences and pitfalls of whatever plan(s) they come up with.

Which to me says perhaps they should have been a little more fair to Bush, the one that had to make the decisions, all along. If at some point they could just say, "we know this isn't easy, and we know you have our best interests at heart, but we think xxxx would work better, " I could respect them.
But they've been chucking rocks at him without any ideas of their own. I don't respect that.

[Cecil Turner]

Check Zeyad and 24 steps to liberty for other anecdotes that sound much like the state department memo.

It also sounds a lot like enemy propaganda. Again, the salient point for me is the obvious motives of those leaking stuff they know they're not supposed to be (SBU information--I incorrectly cited it as "classified" above). And sorry, but to me this is of a piece with those who criticize every action of the US. Taking advice from those who want us to lose, or electing them to office, is less than sensible, IMHO.

And I'm encouraging my grandchildren to consider military service as a privilege, duty and honor of a free citizen.

You wouldn't think that needs saying. But apparently it does.

[clarice]

Cecil, it's obvious why we haven't heard the detailed plan. It is soooo goood that it must be kept under wraps lest the enemy get wind of it and retire from the field of battle ahead of time.

[Appalled Moderate]

Cecil:

Part of the problem is that the administration may have ignored its miltary planners in putting this thing together. There is certainly a lot of -- sorry -- anecdotal evidence acccumulating over the last three years about this. So, the military likely did consider all the questions, and the politicians ignored the military.

Now, as you know, the planners still in the forces are unlikely to go directly to congress and tell their real opinion. The generals who have retired and protested have not really said much that has been reported.

I agree the Dems have generaly been unhelpful. But that tends to be the nature of opposition parties...

[Sue]

Wow, Kerry is gaining momentum. 13 votes for his bill.

[Appalled Moderate]

Cecil:

Not everyone in Iraq is an enemy wanting us to lose if they don't like where their country is. I think you know better than that. Zeyad began his blog as being very pro-American, and has become increasingly afraid and angry as the years have passed.
Salam Pax is his unique, gay self, but he did have he cojones to do his major blogging when Saddam and friends were still around. (He did not mourn Saddam's passing)

Don't put yourself in a cocoon, Cecil. You need to reflect things aren't looking so swell on the street level in Iraq.

[MayBee]

But that tends to be the nature of opposition parties...

Where does this opposition party talk come from? They are elected to represent their constiuents and to try to formulate the policy they believe in. Nobody elected them to oppose the majority. This isn't a parliamentary system.

[Cecil Turner]

Part of the problem is that the administration may have ignored its miltary planners in putting this thing together.

Name one (in the chain of command during one of the operations, please, not some armchair quarterbacking former general or support pogue (<--not that there's anything wrong with being a support pogue)). AFAICT, there're no credible allegations, let alone "evidence."

I agree the Dems have generaly been unhelpful. But that tends to be the nature of opposition parties...

It's not supposed to be (at least in wartime). And it's killing them, politically. As it should . . .

I think you know better than that.

Sorry A.M., but this war is now largely a propaganda effort, and despite protestations to the contrary, those who spout enemy propaganda are not on our side.

[PeterUK]

"Part of the problem is that the administration may have ignored its miltary planners in putting this thing together."

Yes this invasion seems to have been put together without the aid of any military personel whatsoever.

[clarice]

Should have paid much more attention to Wesley Clark, the Clausewitz of Kosovo..or the folks who promoted Karpinski and determined that we needed monstrous tanks suitable for crossing the Hungarian Plain to fight modern wars.

[PeterUK]

Does anyone honestly think that an ordered withdrawal would be permitted? This would provide an opportunity for the biggest propagana coup for decades.It would shape US and Western foreign policy for the forseeable future.
This would be seen as demonstrably driving the West out of the Middle East,there are innumerable factions who would move heaven and earth to have pictures of helicopters lifting off the Baghdad Embassy roof.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
I think that is von Halfwitz,Carl's cousin.

[Dwilkers]

Its silly.

Kerry wants to set a timetable to withdraw. Great idea, They just formed a new government. They now have over 200k police. Their military is just getting strong enough to play a role. So we should withdraw now? I think not. And it isn't going to happen anyway. Bush isn't going to withdraw - its a pointless argument. The question should be what can we do to increase the chances for success.

And I love the part about mistakes. We invaded a closed society on the other side of the world. We didn't have every single thing right. We didn't know the electrical infrastructure was broken down.

Wow what a failure - not. I don't have the expectation that military guys have a crystal ball.

We shouldn't have disbanded the army. That one seems to have become conventional wisdom. Maybe, maybe not. We have no way to know what problems we'd have on our hands if we'd left a standing Sunni army running around with all their weapons. But boy oh boy its fun to say that was a mistake.

There's nothing for us to do now but wait and hope they get it right over the next few months. Bitching about "mistakes" and talking about timetables is unhelpful at best. It is politics, pure and simple.

[boris]

It would shape US and Western foreign policy for the forseeable future.

It could be worse than the withdrawal from Bosina !!! ... oh wait ...

[clarice]

PUK, von Halfwitz sounds a suitable addition to the TAC repertory company..along with Sec Def Unbright.

[PeterUK]

Sec Def Unbright I like that...perhaps Agent Orange of the CIA and Colonel Quagmire of the Dental Corps,both MSM Iraq pundits.

[clarice]

Add Generals Zinnia and Chinsockey and we have a cast worthy of Soylent's talents.

[topsecretk9]

oh dear...klo says...

86-13 [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Was the Senate vote on the Kerry amendment.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
We must add the dashing young naval Lieutenant Johnny Own-Hornblower.

[Gary Maxwell]

Like I said what modifications would it take to bring even 30 Democrats and Lincoln Chaffee on board? Clearly a lot more than Kerry was willing to propose. Now mind you that 31 votes out of the Senate aint even a 2-1 whupping, but its a hell of a lot more than this moronic proposal got. And the only person pushing it wants to tell us he is a "moderate". Perhaps in Massachusetts or France.

[clarice]

Gary, allahpundit (Hot Air) says the Senate rejected both the cut and run resolution and the cut and jog one.

Boston-sur-le-mer is how we should refer to it from now on, I think.

[Extraneus]

I know they have the power of the purse, but is Congress even authorized to declare surrender?

[Jane]

>I know they have the power of the purse, but is Congress even authorized to declare surrender?

That was my question too; I figured this was a show vote - brought up by the repubs more than anything else.

[Rick Ballard]

Cut 'n crew -

Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Wyden (D-OR)

The only Senator who voted Aye and has a contended race is Menendez. Kean should send Kerry a thank you note.

[azredneck]

Let us not forget that Iraq now has a government and it became their responsibility to propose the timeline by which we 'redeploy'. They've done just that, and it looks very much like that planned by the Bush admin.
Historically, remember too that we stayed to support the new German gov't for a year or three. It was my great honor a couple of years ago amidst a flurry of 'cowboy Bush' comments to be thanked by my German tour guide for being part of the human wall, pre-Berlin wall, when he was just a baby. He understands that if those of us who served hadn't been there, the reunification of Germany would have been controlled from the East rather than the West.
If we can get that from Iraq, we will have won--and far more than a 3 year combat!

[Neo]

John Kerry will join Warren Zevon's "Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner" (cue music here) as a political zombie.

[Gary Maxwell]

Wouldnt Zevon's "Send Lawyers, Guns and Money" be a better fit for Tall John right now? Off the Excitable Boy album natch. May good rest the Excitable Boy's soul.

[Bruce Hayden]

Extraneus

Congress may not technically have the power of surrender, but they showed that they had the de facto power in 1975.

[Mike]

"Some of the details provided by Ms. Zernike are amusing"

Actually I think 'amusing' may be the best current description of Kerry. If he wasn't so ridiculous, he'd probably make me upset. As it is, he's just fun to laugh at.

[Pete]

Kerry righly deserves to be ridiculed for his resolution and the amount of time it took him to zig zag and flip flop to wherever he is now.

However Iraq is still a very risky proposition for the Republicans to run on since they cannot control the events on the ground.

It was Rumsfeld who was the first "cut and runner" when he pooh poohed Shinseki's statement that we would need in Iraq something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld severely underestimated what it would take, they both publicly disagreed with Shinseki, and we are paying for their mistakes.

Here is another interesting excerpt from
www.denverpost.com/excerpts/ci_3685136

"Greg Newbold, the three-star general who served as chief operations deputy for the JCS, had the main assignment for the session. He was to outline Central Command's OPLAN 1003-98, the military's contingency plan in the event of a war with Iraq.

Newbold was armed with a pile of slides as the generals and Rumsfeld sat around a conference table. As Newbold outlined the plan, which called for as many as 500,000 troops, it was clear that Rumsfeld was growing increasingly irritated. For Rumsfeld, the plan required too many troops and supplies and took far too long to execute. It was, Rumsfeld declared, the product of old thinking and the embodiment of everything that was wrong with the military.

Myers asked Rumsfeld how many troops he thought might be needed. The defense secretary said in exasperation that he did not see why more than 125,000 troops would be required and even that was probably too many. Rumsfeld's reaction was dutifully passed to the United States Central Command."

The problem with Iraq is that Bush created a mess but there is no easy way out. The sectarian violence continues, and the three ethnic groups have not shown that they are one happy family under one big tent. And whenever we leave Iraq, al qaeda can always declare "victory" - so that does that mean we stay in Iraq forever?

However justified the ridicule of Kerry is, it does not solve the Iraq problem.

[Extraneus]

So what exactly is the Iraq problem? I've heard about "sectarian violence" or that the three ethnic groups can't live nicely together, or from Murtha that they're having a civil war (which we should let them "sort out"), but is any of that really the case, or is it that a subset of one of the ethnic groups -- the minority one that used to rule the place and doesn't anymore -- is causing all the flashy violence? I really don't have a good grasp of who's who in this problem, and I don't think I'd trust the major media to explain it to me. Anyone have a decent link to an explanation of what the "problem" really is?

[Gary Maxwell]

Here is a real shocker. A subordinate when asked to perform a task, asks for the moon and stars in allocated resources. When told no, trim it down, I am sure he was asked, can you accomplish the mission with the resources you are now provided? To which I am also certain, the Sec of Defense got a strong affirmative. Otherwise someone else would have been given the task.

[Gary Maxwell]

And exactly how is the Bosnian problem being resolved? Cuz its about the same I think, and we aint getting a lot of help there from allies or the braintrust that is the Democrat party, either or.

[PeterUK]

"It was Rumsfeld who was the first "cut and runner" when he pooh poohed Shinseki's statement that we would need in Iraq something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers."

Pete,I can see you standing in mid air,but I can't see what is holding you up.

[clarice]

Extraneus, Instapundit has a snippet and link on the very point this afternoon BTW the Kurdish area is now a virtual paradise in the ME.

[maryrose]

If dems don't have anything better than cut and run they deserve to be voted out of office. This is a disgrace-not a single positive workable idea for furthering victory/ An absolute dereliction of duty on their parts.
Can't wait for Jeffords to be gone-talk about dead weight. And he got SOOOO much from switching. Not.

[Rick Ballard]

"However Iraq is still a very risky proposition for the Republicans to run on since they cannot control the events on the ground."

How true. It would take someone with a little guts to see that type of proposition through to the end wouldn't it? Surrender does have the benefit of certainty of outcome.

Vote Democrat - Remove the Uncertainty!!

I think you've got a contender there, Pete - you'll get the vote of every gutless loser in the US.

But then, you've already got their votes, don't you? Still not quite a majority but with the right propaganda effort it might still do the trick.

[Cecil Turner]

Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld severely underestimated what it would take, they both publicly disagreed with Shinseki, and we are paying for their mistakes.

Ah, the support guy's view. More importantly, the guy in actual command publicly disagreed with him:

Mr. Chairman, that actually is not as hard to answer as it might seem. We have about 145,000 troops in there right now. As I have talked to commanders at every level inside Iraq, one finds that -- that that footprint appears to us on the operational side to be about what that footprint needs to look like. There has been suggestion that perhaps there should be more troops. And in fact, I can tell you, in the presence of this secretary, that if more troops are necessary, this secretary's going to say yes. [emphasis added]

Here's a recent quote:

And so the suggestion that the secretary of defense had a notion and took it forth to the members of the military and said, here's what we're going to do, well, that simply didn't happen.

From the same interview, concerning Newbold:

But one-on-one, face-to-face dialogue, wherein we discussed the puts and the calls associated with Iraq planning, certainly did take place. And I must tell you that I don't recall Greg Newbold having been involved in many of those sessions.

For Rumsfeld, the plan required too many troops and supplies and took far too long to execute.

And now we get another support staff general (cited by armchair quarterbacks). Meanwhile, here's what Gen Franks said about that plan in American Soldier:

When I'd completed my summary, it was the President's turn to ask the questions. "What do you think of the plan, Tommy?"
"Mr President, it's outdated. It calls for troop levels of at least four hundred thousand, which would require a very visible six-month force build-up. That would definitely eliminate operational surprise."
"I understand," the President said.
"Sir," I continued,"not only is the Iraqi military smaller than it was in 1991, advances in our precision weapons and command and control make our forces much more capable than they were then . . ." [p 541-2, emphasis added]

Sorry, but if that's the best you've got . . .

[PeterUK]

Mr Ballard,
There would seem to be a nice little business venture in unprinted flags,cut unit costs,leave them white.

[PeterUK]

It is always a source of amusement,that the generals who didn't fight the war are given more credence by the left than those who did.