Kerry says Iraq war 'was mistake'

[SunWuKong]

stupid. i think this is a bad move and the Bush campaign is going to jump all over it. what is he thinking? he voted for the war, and he previously said that he would have gone to war had he been in Bush's position. all he had to do was be a little bit better than Bush - by default he would win the anti-Bush/anti-war votes, and he could also sway the ones that are undecided. this move does nothing but alienate the moderates who support the war but isn't sure about Bush.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3673952.stm

Kerry says Iraq war 'was mistake'

US Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry has made his most outspoken attack on President Bush over the conflict in Iraq.

In a speech setting out his plans for Iraq's future, he accused Mr Bush of "colossal failures of judgement".

With six weeks to go until the US poll, Mr Kerry seems to have shifted his campaign focus away from the economy.

It is a bold and maybe reckless move to turn Mr Kerry into the anti-war candidate, correspondents say.

Six weeks before the presidential election, the Kerry team appear to have made a strategic decision to up the ante over Iraq, says the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington.

'Chaos'

Previously, the senator had been vague about whether or not he thought overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, our correspondent says.

But on Monday, Mr Kerry - who voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war - said he would not have invaded.

He criticised the president for saying he would still have gone to war knowing that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.

"President Bush tells us he would do it everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious?" he said.

Mr Kerry said the president's decision to go to war had distracted from a greater threat to the US - more terrorist attacks - and created a crisis which could lead to an unending war.

"Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists," he said in his speech delivered at New York University.

"Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.

"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. That was not a reason to go to war. We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

He also reminded his audience that more than 1,000 Americans had now died since the start of the war.

He offered his own four-point plan for handling the conflict:


Get more help from other nations
Provide better training for Iraqi security forces
Provide benefits to the Iraqi people
Ensure democratic elections can be held next year as promised.

These measures could mean US troops coming home over the next four years, beginning next summer, Mr Kerry said.

The Bush campaign has accused Mr Kerry of inconsistency on Iraq and said a change in the middle of the war was not what the nation needed.

"Our troops deserve better than to hear Kerry's campaign pushing pessimism and lack of faith in the mission," Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said, the Associated Press news agency reported.

Another Bush campaign spokesman, Steve Schmidt, said Mr Kerry's goal of pulling US troops out of Iraq in his first term sent "a clear signal of defeat and retreat to America's enemies that will make the world a far more dangerous place".

[yoMAMA]

But still, attacking Bush is better than let Bush attacking them IMO.

[deez nuts]

he's pulling an al gore.

someone stop him quick before he flip flops even more like a fish out of water.

[yoMAMA]

he's pulling an al gore.

someone stop him quick before he flip flops even more like a fish out of water.

Just like George "the war on terror can never be won"...but "oops you guys misunderstood me" Bush.
:rolleyes:

[Emperor_Mike]

The more I look at John Kerry's platform the more doubts I have of his ability to formulate a realistic policy for Iraq. Quite frankly, at this juncture both candidates seem to be muddling through the mess; groping around in the dark, if you will. I really find it surprising that Kerry, after having thrown in his lot for the war in Iraq, would make such a big issue out of the validity of the conflict. To be sure, from the standpoint of international law, it was an "illegal" action, but the Kerry campaign's insistence on harping on how it was a mistake after the senator's "Yes" vote is positively mind boggling. He either should have voted "No" on the war resolution or he ought to have been smart enough to acknowledge that he was part of the initiative to go to war, but it was the Bush Administration's lack of foresight and competence that led to the current situation, and he should have stuck to this message instead of waffling back and forth. With this kind of campaign management, I'll be very surprised indeed if the Democrats win the coming election.

[deez nuts]

Just like George "the war on terror can never be won"...but "oops you guys misunderstood me" Bush.
:rolleyes:


yup. i agree with you 100%. i've always said they're both idiots. bush-isms are just as funny as these kerry flip-flop-isms. if you think i'm an ardent bush/GOP supporter, you're mistaken. i've stated before if bill clinton was allowed to run again, i would vote for him in a heartbeat.

i don't hold blind loyalties or otherwise to either one of them. i have said over and over again the candidate that is gonna get my vote this election is the one that's gonna benefit me, myself and i the most. i've actually cared about the candidate's vision and direction for the country in previous elections. but, the last two elections has been the equivalent of choosing death by shooting squad or death by hanging. when in a situation where you're fucked either way, you gotta look out for yourself.

[ism]

The only people who this might sway have already decided who to vote for. This is a move for the undecided, who will respond more positively to negative attacks. Rove knows this and has always been in attack mode. It's damn time the Kerry campaign realized taking the "high road" wins nothing. I'd like him to turn it up even more.

[Mr.Lum]

I am going to become govener of Connecticut and annex Rhode Island, organize a state militia, invade that little strip of MA that makes the CT-RI border uneven and declare the Yankee Republic of Connecticut and Rhode Island independent. The Great State of Connecticut's revolution is coming....and Kerry better back me.

[Yeahman]

http://a1216.g.akamai.net/f/1216/955/6h/images2.nordstrom.com/images/store/product/medium/134550.jpg

[thaite]

Kerry's worst contributor to his campaign is himself.

[Yeahman]

He's just asking for it now.

[truMp]

http://a1216.g.akamai.net/f/1216/955/6h/images2.nordstrom.com/images/store/product/medium/134550.jpg

when i first heard the news from my friend..

that is what popped up in my head.

[Bhodi_Li]

He offered his own four-point plan for handling the conflict:

Get more help from other nations
Provide better training for Iraqi security forces
Provide benefits to the Iraqi people
Ensure democratic elections can be held next year as promised.
These measures could mean US troops coming home over the next four years, beginning next summer, Mr Kerry said.
I'm not even going to comment on the reversal of Sen. Kerry's platform or his voting history.

However, is there more to this plan than what is listed? We are continually training ING forces. However, you're taking a force that has no prior service in the military and making them into soldiers. It's hard enough to do with US citizens, not to say Iraqi's. ING is being fielded new equipment as well.

Next, what benefits are Sen Kerry referring to? If it's the basic utilities, that's also being worked. The electrical grid of most Iraqi cities is a disaster. They don't ground anything, and the wiring is not sufficient gauge for current requirements, etc. etc. Sewage and water systems are the same thing. Power plants and water sources are common AIF targets that ING forces are now guarding.

We are already aware of the upcoming elections. It is one possible cause of the increased AIF presence. The AIF have to continue to delegitimize the current government. So yeah, elections are critical, but there's still going to be problem with AIF influence on the voting.

So, I'm not sure how does Sen. Kerry differentiate his plan versus what is currently taking place. If his plan for Iraqi is simply, "I thought it was a mistake from day 1 (actually day 366, since he voted in favor of it as well)" then I'm not convinced anything will change or improve.

[SunWuKong]

I'm not even going to comment on the reversal of Sen. Kerry's platform or his voting history.

However, is there more to this plan than what is listed? We are continually training ING forces. However, you're taking a force that has no prior service in the military and making them into soldiers. It's hard enough to do with US citizens, not to say Iraqi's. ING is being fielded new equipment as well.

Next, what benefits are Sen Kerry referring to? If it's the basic utilities, that's also being worked. The electrical grid of most Iraqi cities is a disaster. They don't ground anything, and the wiring is not sufficient gauge for current requirements, etc. etc. Sewage and water systems are the same thing. Power plants and water sources are common AIF targets that ING forces are now guarding.

We are already aware of the upcoming elections. It is one possible cause of the increased AIF presence. The AIF have to continue to delegitimize the current government. So yeah, elections are critical, but there's still going to be problem with AIF influence on the voting.

So, I'm not sure how does Sen. Kerry differentiate his plan versus what is currently taking place. If his plan for Iraqi is simply, "I thought it was a mistake from day 1 (actually day 366, since he voted in favor of it as well)" then I'm not convinced anything will change or improve.

to be honest, i definitely don't think Kerry's going to do a better job than Bush at managing this war, or vice versa for that matter. either way it'll still be a mess. but i think that Kerry is less of a gun-toting warmonger.

[yoMAMA]

I'm not even going to comment on the reversal of Sen. Kerry's platform or his voting history.

However, is there more to this plan than what is listed? We are continually training ING forces. However, you're taking a force that has no prior service in the military and making them into soldiers. It's hard enough to do with US citizens, not to say Iraqi's. ING is being fielded new equipment as well.

Next, what benefits are Sen Kerry referring to? If it's the basic utilities, that's also being worked. The electrical grid of most Iraqi cities is a disaster. They don't ground anything, and the wiring is not sufficient gauge for current requirements, etc. etc. Sewage and water systems are the same thing. Power plants and water sources are common AIF targets that ING forces are now guarding.

We are already aware of the upcoming elections. It is one possible cause of the increased AIF presence. The AIF have to continue to delegitimize the current government. So yeah, elections are critical, but there's still going to be problem with AIF influence on the voting.

So, I'm not sure how does Sen. Kerry differentiate his plan versus what is currently taking place. If his plan for Iraqi is simply, "I thought it was a mistake from day 1 (actually day 366, since he voted in favor of it as well)" then I'm not convinced anything will change or improve.

Kerry voted to authorize the president to go to war [based on the lies of WMD and imminent threat].

He did not vote to give the president a blank check for going to the war.

[SunWuKong]

Kerry voted to authorize the president to go to war [based on the lies of WMD and imminent threat].

He did not vote to give the president a blank check for going to the war.

small difference, isn't it?

[yoMAMA]

small difference, isn't it?

The differences are only about 100,000 lives.

Certainly no big deal.....

[SunWuKong]

The differences are only about 100,000 lives.

Certainly no big deal.....

wasn't it pretty clear by that point that Bush was going to go to war if given authorisation? i mean, if Kerry was anti-war in the first place, he wouldn't have voted to give Bush authority, regardless of what Bush's decision might be. and besides, didn't he say earlier in his campaign that he would have gone to war, too?

[Faithless]

The more I look at John Kerry's platform the more doubts I have of his ability to formulate a realistic policy for Iraq. Quite frankly, at this juncture both candidates seem to be muddling through the mess; groping around in the dark, if you will. I really find it surprising that Kerry, after having thrown in his lot for the war in Iraq, would make such a big issue out of the validity of the conflict. To be sure, from the standpoint of international law, it was an "illegal" action, but the Kerry campaign's insistence on harping on how it was a mistake after the senator's "Yes" vote is positively mind boggling. He either should have voted "No" on the war resolution or he ought to have been smart enough to acknowledge that he was part of the initiative to go to war, but it was the Bush Administration's lack of foresight and competence that led to the current situation, and he should have stuck to this message instead of waffling back and forth. With this kind of campaign management, I'll be very surprised indeed if the Democrats win the coming election.
I'm sort of with you there on the doubt part.

Kerry lists as one of his points -- Get more help from other nations.

Aint we tried that? What can he do to convince other nations, now, to help? In what sort of way?

Do other countries see US involvement as fucked no matter the president?

[SunWuKong]

Do other countries see US involvement as fucked no matter the president?

i just want troops to pull out as soon as possible.

[Faithless]

i just want troops to pull out as soon as possible.
Same here.

But I wonder if it isn't important to leave after having established some sort of stability. No matter the president, I think this nation has placed Iraq in such a state that we need to leave Iraq on some sort of stable footing.

That I don't think the US can/should do on its own. We will have to involve "Paris" (, Zell).

And if it involves the UN, we're going to have to be conciliatory, and resposible for the physical state of Iraq.

[yoMAMA]

and besides, didn't he say earlier in his campaign that he would have gone to war, too?

That was such a stupid reply by kerry.

[Emperor_Mike]

I'm sort of with you there on the doubt part.

Kerry lists as one of his points -- Get more help from other nations.

Aint we tried that? What can he do to convince other nations, now, to help? In what sort of way?

Do other countries see US involvement as fucked no matter the president?

Behind the curtains negotiations on something or other, I suppose. Trade concessions? I have no clue as I am not part of the global elite.

Yet. :biggrin:

Seriously though, getting more nations involved in cleaning up an American mess is going to be exceedingly difficult with the escalating insurgency. The recent decapitation of that Armstrong fellow and (God forbid) the possibility of the other captives losing their heads is hardly going to strengthen the resolve of the key players in NATO or other states to do their part in Iraq. Kerry, like Bush, has no viable exit strategy at this point in time. Right now it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of event. If the US leaves the new Iraqi government to its own devices, you're looking at the possibility of civil war and the rise of another Saddam Hussein or worse, a Taliban-like regime. Stay and foreigners continue to lose their heads, soldiers continue to die, and the cost of the war continues to climb.

As far as Iraq is concerned, it makes no difference who is elected. The next four (or more) years will be an extremely trying time for the United States on the international front. Iraq has become the open sore of American foreign policy and like Spain during the French occupation, it will continue to be a drain on US resources for an indefinite period of time.

i just want troops to pull out as soon as possible.

Sadly, this is not going to happen any time soon. Stability in Iraq at this juncture is like a rotting old frigate disguised with a new coat of paint.

[Mr.Lum]

This war was a mistake. True on that. I want them to fund the CT national gaurd more so we can invade/annex Rhode ISland.

[tommyhtown]

Kerry, like Bush, has no viable exit strategy at this point in time.

I hope both candidates will discuss their exit strategy on the war some time before the election. For the time being, I am in favor of Kerry because Bush already made a huge mistake with Iraq war. He stil hasn't addressed a clear-cut plan to clean up his mess and that is something I have been waiting to hear from my president.

[Martino]

I really don't see much difference in American policies after a change of government. What, put simply, is the difference between a Democrat administration and a Republican administration?

[yoMAMA]

I really don't see much difference in American policies after a change of government. What, put simply, is the difference between a Democrat administration and a Republican administration?

well, the differences are.....

...............


....................



..............................


ummmmmmmmmmmmmm


can't really tell...

:redface:

[SunWuKong]

I really don't see much difference in American policies after a change of government. What, put simply, is the difference between a Democrat administration and a Republican administration?

well traditionally, Democrats want more social freedom and more economic control, whereas Republicans want more economic freedom and more social control.

[Yeahman]

Kerry voted to authorize the president to go to war [based on the lies of WMD and imminent threat].

He did not vote to give the president a blank check for going to the war.
"Even knowing what we now know I would still have voted for the president to have the authority for war." - John Kerry

[Arex]

As much of a flip-flop as this is from what Kerry said just a few weeks back, this is the position I wish he would've taken those many weeks ago when asked the question. I was more surprised at his response then. This may be a flip-flop of enormous proportions, but at least it brings him back into good standing in my eyes. And I'd still rather have someone in the oval office who's willing to acknowledge that the past was a mistake and move forward from there over some ass-clown that simply looks for 1,001 justifications for why the U.S. is never wrong.

As for whether Kerry can actually get foreign help for Iraq, while I wouldn't count on it, I wonder if there are countries out there withholding support until after the election in the hopes that it'll force a regime change here in America. In that case, Kerry being elected will allow America to wipe the slate clean and apologize for burning bridges and being so downright stupid and reckless about Iraq. Then, foreign leaders will no longer need to worry about being aligned with America and they can throw their hat into the ring in Iraq. That's probably wishful thinking on my part, but at least some of them have got to realize that if the U.S. fails here, the whole world's worse off for it, and not just Iraq and the U.S.

[Yeahman]

I think that Kerry has been more in support of the war than anything else. More quotes...

"Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (Looks like Kerry's the one misleading the American people here.)

"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

"We should increase funding by whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win."

"If it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos, that's what we have to do."

"I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable." (This quote is less than a week old)

This may be a flip-flop of enormous proportions, but at least it brings him back into good standing in my eyes.
Yes until his next flip. Or flop. I lost track.

And I'd still rather have someone in the oval office who's willing to acknowledge that the past was a mistake and move forward from there over some ass-clown that simply looks for 1,001 justifications for why the U.S. is never wrong.
But the Kerry did not aknowledge a past mistake. And then he did. And then he took it back. And then...

All 3 of them are unworthy of the presidency; Bush and both Kerrys.

[Bhodi_Li]

All 3 of them are unworthy of the presidency; Bush and both Kerrys.LMAO, it wasn't this confusing when I went to DC with my Close-Up group! But then again, that was the first time that I had ever flown in an airplane, and was 13 years ago now.

[yoMAMA]

"Even knowing what we now know I would still have voted for the president to have the authority for war." - John Kerry

I don't know what he was smoking....

:rolleyes:

[Yeahman]

Just saw this...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/politics/trail/06TRAIL-MALAPROP.html?ex=1252296000&en=aeeccbb0b41dc233&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
"Everybody told me, 'God, if you're coming to Canonsburg, you've got to find time to go to Toy's, and he'll take care of you,'" Mr. Kerry said, dropping the name of a restaurant his motorcade had passed on the way in. "I understand it's my kind of place, because you don't have to - you know, when they give you the menu, I'm always struggling: Ah, what do you want?

"He just gives you what he's got, right?" Mr. Kerry added, continuing steadily off a gangplank of his own making: "And you don't have to worry, it's whatever he's cooked up that day. And I think that's the way it ought to work, for confused people like me who can't make up our minds."
Can we call this a Kerryism?

[Azn Retribution]

needs an obvious tag.

[Chu Chi]

well, the differences are.....

...............


....................



..............................


ummmmmmmmmmmmmm


can't really tell...

:redface:

Thank you, my feelings exactly. This is why I find John Kerry so underwhelming. It took him all this time to say what has been clear from jump street. What was he waiting for? John Kerry is nothing more than "diet George Bush".

"how can you kill John Wayne when you want to be John Wayne" --Amiri Baraka

[SunWuKong]

Thank you, my feelings exactly. This is why I find John Kerry so underwhelming. It took him all this time to say what has been clear from jump street. What was he waiting for? John Kerry is nothing more than "diet George Bush".

but that's all that he needed to be, in my opinion, and it was the smart thing to do. he wins all the anti-Bush voters by default anyway. he's not going to win the undecided votes by taking views that are so opposite from Bush. he needs to be moderate, and basically just a little bit better than Bush, to win the undecided votes.

[yoMAMA]

I think Teresa Heinz Kerry is also a major liability for Kerry, she's just not very friendly.

[Arex]

^--- But to this day, Kerry still remains his own biggest liabiliity because of shit like this. It still astounds me that the race is so close, despite all the antics of that clown in the oval office. Personally, I think the American people are being too picky. Kerry may be Bush-lite, but Bush-lite is still better than Bush. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to choose between two shitty candidates. But in that same perfect world, Bush would never have been elected in the first place.

[SunWuKong]

^--- But to this day, Kerry still remains his own biggest liabiliity because of shit like this. It still astounds me that the race is so close, despite all the antics of that clown in the oval office. Personally, I think the American people are being too picky. Kerry may be Bush-lite, but Bush-lite is still better than Bush. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to choose between two shitty candidates. But in that same perfect world, Bush would never have been elected in the first place.

it's probably more difficult for you to understand why there are so many Bush supporters, because you live in a city and most urbanites are Kerry supporters. you'd probably get a better perspective of Bush supporters if you went to the midwest.

[Chu Chi]

but that's all that he needed to be, in my opinion, and it was the smart thing to do. he wins all the anti-Bush voters by default anyway. he's not going to win the undecided votes by taking views that are so opposite from Bush. he needs to be moderate, and basically just a little bit better than Bush, to win the undecided votes.


Point taken; but given a choice between sleeping with a woman who is whining and annoying, and a "shemale", I'll always choose the real thing.

CC

[yoMAMA]

Point taken; but given a choice between sleeping with a woman who is whining and annoying, and a "shemale", I'll always choose the real thing.

CC

Good one.

:biggrin:

[SunWuKong]

Point taken; but given a choice between sleeping with a woman who is whining and annoying, and a "shemale", I'll always choose the real thing.

CC

the choice is not really between a whiny woman and a shemale. would you rather sleep with a shemale (Kerry supporting the war) or a man (Bush)? that's why Kerry only needs to be Bush-lite.

[Yeahman]

I think Teresa Heinz Kerry is also a major liability for Kerry, she's just not very friendly.
I actually kinda like her.

I don't think Kerry is Bush-lite. What makes him lite? He isn't as commited as Bush? I'm vote for ABBB because, I want to Bush to pay for his mistakes, not because I think Kerry is any better. He isn't.