Sorry, but I couldn’t resist posting this. From kausfiles.com:
‘…last September in a debate with other Democratic contenders in Albuquerque, N.M, Kerry emphatically opposed sending more American troops to Iraq. “We should not send more American troops,” he said on Sept 4. “That would be the worst thing. We do not want to have more Americanization, we do not want a greater sense of American occupation.”’
Seems like for a time he maintained the troop levels were sufficient for their own safety
When Rumsfeld went with less troops, I remember thinking, this is actually the preferred method of troop deployment of the new Democrats. Hi-tech, less of our soldiers in harms way and don’t bomb them to hell first (Powell doctrine).
Kerry’s right, there are already too many Americans there, the occupation should be an international effort. Until we take the ‘American face’ off this effort, we will look like we are imperialists (and under this administration with Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle and their Pax Americana, aren’t we?).
Fewer American troops, and more international troops. That is the move.
Kerry has been saying that NATO and the UN should be involved, and after all this time Bush is gradually starting to adopt Kerry’s positions.
Oops, I just heard on the news that Kerry proposes a temporary raise in troop strength to 150,000, followed by a gradual decrease in US troops as other nations take their place.
So yes, he does think troop strength to go up.
However the situation in Iraq has changed a lot and it’s not really fair to compare his statements on troop strength last Fall to what is happening now.
By the time Kerry takes office, the situation will probably be different than it is today, so lets see how it goes.
…its the secret service guy’s fault I fell down (these relate to 2 falls he had while skiing)
[when Bush fell down] “what did he fall off his training wheels?”
I voted for it before I voted against it
I threw the ribbons away…no they were medals…they were mine…no they were not mine
more troops…less troops
liberal, thats a lie, I’m not a liberal (after 2 rankings put Kerry more liberal then Kennedy)
Bush has done some very…less then optimal things, and if the democrats put someone reasonable e.g. a moderate against Bush I do not know if Bush would survive (quite possibly not) But this guy?
Or is Hillary going to save the dems from Kerry at the convention with a cou de tat (sp?)?
You have such a shitty record under Dubya that it’s basically impossible to say anything positive about Bush’s record or his plans for the future. You have to go negative instead. I understand.
But what can you say that’s good about Bush?
“He has a strong Christian faith”
I really think that is what keeps some of the die-hard desperately trying to hang onto a last shred of dignity under Team Bush… ‘he’s a Christian, I’m a Christian. No matter how bad he screws up, I have to support him’
I’d be happy to vote for someone other then Bush. I’m not a die hard supporter and I begin to see how the conservatives spin things as badly as the liberals. But major fucks up and all, W is more likely to keep us safe from terror then the dems. e.g. During 9/11 they probably violated about a zillion people’s rights, but they probably also stopped other planes from taking off and causing more problems.
How can dems be serious about security and search lil ol ladies as often as young middle eastern males???