What change of position number is this? 8, 9, 10 ????? I have lost count?

Posted by: leaddog2 at September 6, 2004 06:50 PM

So Kerry maintains that, knowing what he now knows, he would still vote for “the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time?”

Interesting.

Posted by: TL at September 6, 2004 07:23 PM

This no plan for the peace makes no sense, particularly after the RNC. The plan is democracy in the Middle East. Now you can say the plan is not well executed but to say there is no plan insults the intelligence of the American people.

Posted by: Rich Blinne at September 6, 2004 08:33 PM

The last few times we had plans for the peace that involved consulting our allies the results were:

1. Communist East Europe

2. The partition of North and South Korea

3. The deaths of millions in Southeast Asia

4. Leaving Saddam in power after the first Gulf War.

Yeah, we want to do THAT again.

Posted by: Rich Blinne at September 6, 2004 08:44 PM

You can tell a Democrat by the way they waffle on about “unilateral US action” and not getting the support of “our allies”.

As an Australian, whose country fought alongside America in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, I find these comments grossly insulting.

Which major countries opposed the allies intervention in Iraq? Germany, France and Russia.

Germany was the agressor that the US, Australia, and Britain fought against in WWI and WWII. They were “allies” after WWII while the US and the rest of Europe provided troops to protect them from the threat of Russia (which had its own score to settle with Germany). Once the USSR collapsed, thanks to US military and economic superiority, Germany showed just how staunch an ally they are, by criticising and attacking the US attempts to protect other people.

They probably learned this from France. After all, France was the major power that collapsed against Germany in two world wars and had to be saved by the US, Britain, Australia and other English speaking countries — something that the French have never forgiven. de Gaulle pulled French troops out of the unified NATO command decades ago.

The only time France has been an ally of the US was during your war of independence. They were an ally not because of love for the US but as part of France’s ongoing rivalry with England. Once the US had the effontery to be more successful than France, and to speak English, you were beyond the pale so far as France was concerned. The central pillar of French foreign policy for decases has been to limit the power of the US. Some ally!

The Russians were of course the US’s main military rivals throughout the decade of the cold war and supported US opponents in Korea and Vietnam. Given recent horrific terrorist actions in Russia, they may be more inclined in future to actually be an ally.

These are the countries that Kerry and his mates want to claim as allies. These are the countries whose approval they want to get before doing anything. In their view, Britain, Australia and other countries that have actually fought alongside the US do not count as allies.

This should tell America an awful lot about the sort of leadership they can expect under the Democrats. What a bunch of wimps!

Posted by: OzMC at September 6, 2004 10:02 PM

It seems like kerry will just about do anything right now to try and save his campaign

There is NO turning back for kerry at this point or is there?

John Kerry
“these are my principles if you don’t like them I have some more”

Posted by: navyvetagainstkerry at September 6, 2004 10:08 PM

Certainly the British, Australian, Polish, Italian, Spanish, etc. troops will appreciate the fact that Kerry considers their participation ‘the phoniest thing I’ve ever heard’.

Perhaps some of their surviving relatives, widows, children can place a call to Kerry’s campaign and thank him for the swift kick in the teeth.

The wrong man, in the wrong election at the wrong time - Kerry is the TOTAL PACKAGE.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at September 6, 2004 10:34 PM

OzMC : Couldn’t have put it better myself.

Posted by: aebrain at September 6, 2004 11:06 PM

OzMC,

Can I hook you up with a 527 funded out of Texas!!!

Posted by: TexasGal at September 6, 2004 11:15 PM

OzMC,

Excellent post… God we love you Aussies! That is more than I can say for the Democrats, though.

Some of us on the conservative side who do see the traditions of our English speaking heritage being carried out time after time, are beginning to wonder where all our “cousins” have gone in our time of need? Your post cheers us greatly. If there are more like you down under… toast ‘em a pint on us Mate! Bravo Zulu!

By the way, Kerry comes from French ancestry and not British roots, as if no one could tell.

Posted by: steve at September 7, 2004 12:32 AM

I am so sick of this. The Bush people need to start calling Kerry on this B.S., loudly and clearly. If Kerry is so convinced that our coalition was not “legitimate,” he should be required to explain himself to the British, Australians, Spanish, Italians, and numerous other countries who helped us.

It should be a part of the campaign ads leading up to the election, to hammer home the point that Kerry wouldn’t know the criteria for a “legitimate” coalition if they were tattooed on his freshly botoxed forehead.

Posted by: Sloan at September 7, 2004 09:00 AM

Rich,

“The last few times we had plans for the peace that involved consulting our allies the results were (here a list of disgraces)” —— Yeah, you as many Americans have this kind of logic reasoning. America is the leader, and all the other allies “puppets” which just have two choices:
1- Being ready to be 100% under USA orders, like the yessir men they are.
2- Being in the opposed side, against USA.
This is because when somebody tries to explain that maybe is not the best moment for an anti-American rising, the people in the allied countries use to say “fu*k off”. The countries which enjoy some certain level of quality of life, don’t like a bit to be flunkies. In fact, any country like to be a flunky, but some of them have not choice.

OzMC

“Germany was the agressor that the US, Australia, and Britain fought against in WWI and WWII” —- Yes, and it is quite ironic to see that the Nazism inventors are now quite more far to the left than USA.

“Germany showed just how staunch an ally they are, by criticising and attacking the US attempts to protect other people.” —— I am totally agree. The German policy should be limited to say “yes sir” with the opportune time intervals. This bastards think that they are an independent country.

“two world wars and had to be saved by the US, Britain, Australia and other English speaking countries” ——- Yes, who cares about the fact that the first allied troops entering in Paris and breaking out the combats with the German occupants where Spaniards who formed the 9th column of the Chad regiment, for instance. The Yugoslavian guerrilla, the partisans, the Russian resistance, the thousands of non-english-speaker people who died during the liberation of France and a half Europe. Has Hollywood talked about that? NO Has the BBC talked about that? NO. So this kind of details can be erased from the History. The Brits, and the descendent of their colonies are just messengers of God. In fact, Jesus was a reported English-speaker

Your Historic comments are illiterate and deformed.

Torpedo,

“Certainly the British, Australian, Polish, Italian, Spanish, etc. troops will appreciate the fact that Kerry considers their participation ‘the phoniest thing I’ve ever heard’” —- In fact, as Spaniard, I thank Kerry his sincerity. I think that it is a basic feature in a world leader, as an American president is supposed to be. The continuous reported frictions between Spanish officers and American ones about the strategies followed about the Shiite issue, are a clear proof. Ask to the Italians, or Polish too. You would be surprised. All was a pantomime.

Steve,

“By the way, Kerry comes from French ancestry and not British roots” —- How was the Ku Klux Klan maxim? A white, protestant and English speaker America…something like that.
So, Kerry has French ancestors and Bush has Brit ancestors…Now I understand the abysmal difference between them: It is believed that a high percentage of the intelligence, is genetically inherited.

Kerry is an intelligent man. All he says sounds reasonable. And he seems a sincerer person. I have the impression that it should be an easier task to make solid alliances if Kerry was the American president. The Muslim terrorism is uniting forces and causes. The western countries are divided, and which is more sad, is that the ones depicts to the other ones. George W. Bush is not suitable as president of the first world power. He is not able to coordinate a simple alliance against the main world menace. It is obvious.

Posted by: VinoTinto at September 7, 2004 10:23 AM

“He is not able to coordinate a simple alliance against the main world menace. It is obvious.”

And what would THAT menace be, pray tell?

The italicized portion Posted by: VinoTinto at September 7, 2004 10:23 AM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 7, 2004 11:04 AM

This menace is the International Terrorism which grows and becomes fatter with each bomb which fails its target, with each “collateral damage”, with each bullet which hits an innocent, and each explosion in the wrong place, and each unjustified invasion which in one hand divides the free countries, and on the other hand fertilizes the Terrorist land.

USA is trying to put out a fire using gasoline.

Posted by: VinoTinto at September 7, 2004 11:16 AM

Vino Tinto, you make some good points , but don’t blow it , please consider the bigger picture, you said
“Yes, who cares about the fact that the first allied troops entering in Paris and breaking out the combats with the German occupants where Spaniards who formed the 9th column of the Chad regiment, for instance”.

Let us consider this statement.

Spanish troops from the Chad Regiment. Not from the Spanish Legion that fought with the Germans In Russia??

Spanish and French Troops, with American Arms, American Uniforms, vehicles , tanks and Ammunition. Who had lived in UK were transported across the channel in US/ UK / Canadian ships.

The Soviet Red Army that would have been defeated without American trucks. The Partisans in Europe who were supplied with British and American weapons.

Spain is the classic example of a Democracy supporting an Ally, the Spanish were in Iraq, the people voted and inter alia the troops came home.
To me that suggests a willing coalition with people who are allowed to change their minds. I was sorry to see your countrymen depart, but proud that they were able to , proof positive of Western freedom.

To Mr Kerry……..well what’s the point, I don’t exist
my friends who died in Iraq don’t exist, so ….
I believe the colloquial American expression is “…Whatever…”.

Posted by: max at September 7, 2004 11:29 AM

VinoTito you miss my point. It is not that we are saying my way or the highway to our alllies but rather it is very difficult to “plan the peace” when there are alliances involved. In my first and last example the alliances themselves made the peace worse. Our ally the Soviets sucked up Eastern Europe. In the Gulf War we couldn’t march to Bagdhad because that wasn’t part of the deal we struck in forming the alliance.

Sovereign nations have the right to disagree with each other. So, yes, our allies can disagree. But, at the same time so can we. We were attacked and we will respond. You may disagree and that’s your right. We disagree with you and that’s our right. What Kerry seems to miss is that these disagreements are just part and parcel of being a sovereign nation. It is more important for us to do the right thing than to agree. It is more important that your country does the right thing than agree with us. So, there is a middle option between being a flunky and anti-American. You need to know how important combating terrorism is to us (and now the Russians). So, when you decide to be with us or against us remember that we will remember —paticularly the former. That’s what the President did at the RNC, noting the high price our friends paid. We may soon forget those who couldn’t visibly support us (there was also a lot of invisible support such as the Germans staffing the search for WMD who found and tested some of the minor caches of poison gas munitions) but we will never forget those who stood by us.

Posted by: Rich Blinne at September 7, 2004 11:31 AM

My thanks to OzMC. We sincerely appreciate your countries support and sacrifice. I’m glad I don’t understand VinoTinto’s rants. I don’t think he does either.

I will support and vote for the candidate that I believe will make our country the best place for my family to live, work and play in the short and long term.

Posted by: Tom at September 7, 2004 11:51 AM

Posted by: Rich Blinne at September 7, 2004 11:31 AM
What Kerry seems to miss is that these disagreements are just part and parcel of being a sovereign nation. It is more important for us to do the right thing than to agree. It is more important that your country does the right thing than agree with us. So, there is a middle option between being a flunky and anti-American. You need to know how important combating terrorism is to us (and now the Russians). So, when you decide to be with us or against us remember that we will remember —paticularly the former.

Rich,

I concur, however the REASON that Kerry seems to miss this is that it is nearly the dictionary meaning of Integrity…of which he is sorely lacking.

Further, a little historical perspective on the rest of your post:

“It is a greater honor to be right than to be president — or popular, for statesmanship consists rather in removing causes than in punishing or evading results — thus, it is the rarest of qualities.” —James Garfield

“Weasel words from mollycoddles will never do when the day demands prophetic clarity from greathearts. Manly men must emerge for this hour of trial.” —Theodore Roosevelt

“There is only one form of political strategy in which I have any confidence, and that is to try to do the right thing — and sometimes be able to succeed.” —Calvin Coolidge

Posted by: DevilDoc at September 7, 2004 12:45 PM

BTW- An interesting sidebar…did you note the political affiliation represented by each of the above?!

Posted by: DevilDoc at September 7, 2004 12:48 PM

VinoTinto,

You’re very idealistic.

First, you label a US coalition partner a “flunky.” Is a minority partner in a business venture a flunky? You prefer the US to contribute the majority of resources because of its size (as it did in the first Gulf War), but you don’t want the US to hold the majority vote.

Second, there is no anti-American uprising. There’s been an anti-American mindset that has existed for quite some time. Iraq simply provided the anti-American factions a platform.

Yes Germany and France are independant countries. But there’s a difference between France deciding whether or not to join the coalition and actively blocking US efforts to build a coalition (for self-serving reasons).

War is about breaking your opponent’s will. For Kerry to label our coalition partners “phoney” strengthens the will of our opponents. I don’t want Kerry leading my team.

Finally, to say Kerry is more intelligent, reasonable, and sincere and therefore would “coordinate a simple alliance against the main world menace” showcases your very idealistic and simplistic view of how the world works. Geopolitical forces (interests, power and leverage) must be taken into account, to say the least. You don’t believe that France was really concerned with Iraqi civillian casualties do you? In fact, the LA Times recently reported France responding “definitely not” to the question “would you have gone to war had Kerry been in office?”

Posted by: newguy at September 7, 2004 01:09 PM

Max,

“Spanish and French Troops, with American Arms, American Uniforms, vehicles , tanks and Ammunition. Who had lived in UK were transported across the channel in US/ UK / Canadian ships” ——- Yes, this is totally correct. But what the most of you forget, is that you putted the material, arms and vehicles, and this “non-english-speaking” combatants, putted their blood and their life. The American combatants too. But there is a great and sad difference. The “non-english-speaking” combatants, who also suffered and died, are always ignored.

Rich,

“In the Gulf War we couldn’t march to Bagdhad because that wasn’t part of the deal we struck in forming the alliance” —- I think that to keep Saddam ruling Iraq was a very intelligent decision.

Apart from that, for making a solid multinational alliance, you need to hand over some times. We learned this during the construction of the European Union. And we are starting to be messed again because of this issue…USA NEVER hands over.

And for you, Tom, lets see whether you understand this:

Your family (and mine), NEVER will be safe while in the world a lot of families living in the ignorance and the poorness, are killed by mistake, tortured and thrown to the desperation. How many parents have heard us naming their killed sons “collateral damages”?. Each day, more and more people hate your family and my family.

Newguy,

I am not idealistic, Spain or France or Germany, are not angels. And Kerry defends the ideals which are better to get more votes, this is clear to me. But I think Kerry is more intelligent than Bush and more reasonable. I am not American, and I am not going to vote there. You have to decide, and you will decide. I just give my opinion, which I think coincides with the popular feeling in my country, which is a supposed allied country. Of course the American voters are going to do what they want. But the Bush government does not admit dissentions. And this induces a “flunky feeling” in the allies. Very important countries, ie. Germany and France, are out of the game since the beginning. And this is a bad news for the free countries.

Posted by: VinoTinto at September 7, 2004 02:50 PM

Vinotinto.

Help me with the logic: France and germany decline the honor of participating in the Iraq war and somehow this is due to Bush “not admitting dissent”?

France and Germany did what was best for them, we did what was best for us. As has been stated elsewhere France did far more than simply say no, they tried to stop us. Even today, even with Kerry in the White house, The sainted French would still oppose and Iraq effort.

So vino does that mean that if France says no it means we can’t do what we want?

We disagree with these “allies” how does that make Bush less of a statesman? It just doesn’t pass the smell test vino.

Posted by: skip at September 7, 2004 03:27 PM

Back to Kerry, this guy has just changed again, right? Wasn’t he just saying he would have done the war?

The problem is this: Kerry changes his rhetoric but never offers anything positive. So John, what would you do differently? How would you handle the global threat to civilization that Islamic terror has become?

Posted by: skip at September 7, 2004 03:31 PM

VinoTinto,

Oil 4 Food and UNSC members violating the very Iraqi containment resolutions they ratified aside, Chirac and Shroeder abstained from joining the coalition for political survival reasons. Chirac actively obstructed US coalition efforts for geopolitical / economic reasons. No matter how intelligent or reasonable Kerry may appear it would have had zero effect on the Franco/German position.

Bush’s “your with us or against us” message was directed at the ME regimes that incubate terrorism. This may have heightened an already “flunky feeling” in Europe, but didn’t create it.

I’ve seen the effect that scholarly Presidents of the past have had on terrorism. What I hold in the highest regard is that Bush chose a road (to invade Iraq) that is the last road any pollitical advisor (Rove included) would recommend. I want my leader to think — and act — long-term.

Posted by: newguy at September 7, 2004 03:49 PM

Posted by: VinoTinto at September 7, 2004 02:50 PM
But I think Kerry is more intelligent than Bush and more reasonable. I am not American, and I am not going to vote there. You have to decide, and you will decide. I just give my opinion, which I think coincides with the popular feeling in my country, which is a supposed allied country.

Well, let’s see:

December 15, 2003, in a speech at the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles, Dean said that “the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer.” Dean also said, “The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at the extraordinary cost, so far, of $166 billion.”

THEN:
December 16, at Drake University in Iowa, Kerry asserted that “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.”

(BTW- FINALLY, something in which I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with Senator Windsock!!!)

So, what EXACTLY does that say for (1) Kerry’s intelligence and (2) YOUR intelligence…reasonableness notwithstanding. THANK GOD, we have more than enough of your ilk already. Frankly, your opinion is valued about as much as the ‘popular feeling’ in your country…AND NEARLY as much as your supposed allied country’s contribution TO it’s alleged allies.

Zilch.

Posted by: DevilDoc at September 7, 2004 04:35 PM

We never turn over anything. Silly me I forgot that we are currently occupying France and Germany and Japan. The turnover of sovereignty (oops, be very very quiet here because we turn over nothing) is actually going quite well. Note this from an Iraqi blogger:

“The announcement mentions that the senior clerics had tried hard to convince Muqtada to give up his plans and warned him many times that he shouldn’t disturb the peace near the holy shrines but he refused to listen and insisted on adopting the wrong choice of violence , therefore he’s responsible for desecrating the holiness of the shrine and also for the destruction and the casualties among civilians in Najaf.

The clerics in their announcement severely attacked the “religious court” of Muqtada saying that:
“this court is not related to Islam in any way and that those involved in the killings and torture must be sued and punished according to the law”.

The announcement also mentioned that “Hawza urges the relatives of the victims of this court to report any evidence or information they have to uncover this terrible crime to the public opinion and to expose the criminals who use Islam as a cover”.

This announcement coincided with two days of demonstrations in Najaf; the people of Najaf went to the streets carrying signs saying “Side by side with our brothers in the IP and ING to bring peace to Najaf” and other signs that show support to the Iraqi goverment and rejection to the illegal existance of militias.

the people marched toward Muqtada’s office in Najaf and surrounded it asking the men inside to leave Najaf.

From all that it’s clear that Najafis are trying to seize the opportunity to declare that Muqtada and his followers are no more than unwelcomed intruders who murdered hundreds of Najafis in the name of protecting Islam and Najaf.

Another good point in this announcement is that in included a confession from the Hawza that no one is above the law and that it’s law, not Shari’a that must govern this country.”

Vladimir Putin also seems to be starting to understand that European appeasement is not the correct approach for dealing with terrorism.

Finally, VintoTinto your comment about it better to have Saddam arround after Gulf War I I find extremenly offensive given the genocide of the Kurds, Assyrians, and Shias. We told them we would protect them, they just needed to rise up. They were then slaughtered. I am actually surprised how fast we regained their trust. We certainly didn’t deserve it.

Posted by: Rich Blinne at September 7, 2004 05:13 PM

>IKerry is an intelligent man. All he says sounds reasonable.

He sounded pretty reasonable to me too. In ‘71.

Now I have 2 millon dead and the boat people on my concience and he don’t sound near so good. Not good at all.

I don’t want reasonableness. I want Zell Miller. If Zell is voting for Bush so am I.

Posted by: M. Simon at September 7, 2004 05:19 PM

Kerry has said Nothing about Beslan.

Why?

Posted by: M. Simon at September 7, 2004 05:25 PM

Vino,

At this stage of the war Americans are coming to realize that putting out fires with gasoline may not be te best option.

Perhaps we could use atomics and simply blow the fires out.

That’s the ticket.

Posted by: M. Simon at September 7, 2004 05:31 PM

M. Simon that’s not completely true. While I haven’t heard it in a speech on this the following is on Kerry’s web site:

Senator John Kerry released the following statement today:

“Teresa and I are deeply saddened by the tragic deaths and injuries of so many young schoolchildren, their families and teachers at Middle School No. 1 in Beslan, North Ossetia. Our prayers and sympathy are with the people of Russia in these days of immense grief.

“The tragedy in Beslan follows a horrific series of terrorist attacks in Russia. Americans stand united with the people of Russia against terrorism and share the Russian people’s grief and mourning at these senseless deaths.”

Note that there is nothing about how the WOT would avenge the deaths of these children. Americans (presumably here as individuals) stand united but what about America (as a government) stands united and we will find these Chechyn b*st*rds wherever they are and destroy them.

Posted by: Rich Blinne at September 7, 2004 05:41 PM

Predictably, now that we have reached the 1000 death total the following is on Kerry’s web site:

“Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq. More than one thousand of America’s sons and daughters have made the ultimate sacrifice. Our nation honors their service and joins with their families and loved ones in mourning their loss. We must never forget the price they have paid. And we must meet our sacred obligation to all our troops to do all we can to make the right decisions in Iraq so that we can bring them home as soon as possible.”

Contrast this with the President:

“And I have met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag, and said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved. I am awed that so many have used those meetings to say that I am in their prayers ? to offer encouragement to me. Where does strength like that come from? How can people so burdened with sorrow also feel such pride? It is because they know their loved one was last seen doing good. Because they know that liberty was precious to the one they lost. And in those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation: decent, and idealistic, and strong.”

Posted by: Rich Blinne at September 7, 2004 05:49 PM

Rich,

Finally. Something from Kerry. But on the www not in his own voice. And only four days late.

I’m really encouraged by Kerry now. So I’m voting Bush.

Posted by: M. Simon at September 7, 2004 05:52 PM

VinoTinto

You make a good point about non-English speaking troops. But check out the contribution of the ANZAC troops in both WWI and WWII. They consistently, year after year, were burdened and performed all out of proportion to their numbers.

As for your other points, I agree you seem a little idealistic, but I appreciate your engagement in a constructive conversation. I think many Europeans just don’t understand the United States. They see the power, but they don’t see the underlying purpose of the power (see the Gadsden flag). GWB’s push for freedom in the ME is ultimately the most constructive, humane approach to the problem, even if short term there is more violence and conflict than we would like. Clinton’s (and Kerry’s) “ignore it and it will go away” approach only leads to worse problems later (see WWII). And please, once again, Saddam was attacked because he was a scoff-law, and only indirectly because of 9/11. As a result of his defeat in GWI he agreed to DOCUMENT that he dismantled his WMD programs. He was dicking around with the UN, and others, like Qaddafi, were watching. It isn’t a coincidence that Qaddafi gave up his WMD program once he saw Saddam’s fate. And just today Assad is putting out feelers to Israel about resuming negotiations. He must think W’s reelection is looking pretty good.

OzMC

Screw Kerry. Most of us are honored that Australia is standing with us. Anyway, a country that plays your berserker brand of football is our kind of folks.

Posted by: Jack Okie at September 7, 2004 06:44 PM

VinoTinto

A little off thread, my apologies, we have not even said “Hello” and we are here cossing swords. Firstly welcome , your views, with which I largely disagree,
are a valuable contribution to the debate. For which many thanks.
For better or worse, your opinions reflect those of many others, and they must be considered here at what is a historical site.

I consider it a privilege to know that via the US Congresses’ library our voices may well be heard centuries from now as they research the history of this period. I am glad that your views will be heard as well.

A small question, What are the views of the Spanish people when OBL (or his successors) reestablish the Caliphate up to the Pyrenees??

Posted by: max at September 8, 2004 08:32 AM

With John Fraud Kerry running around calling weaker countries who are doing their best to be part of a coalition of the willing “Flunkies”, and a “joke”, just how many Allies do you think John Fake Kerry will have?
France? Do they even have an army? Now there is a JOKE!
Germany? Not likely, what army they have, they can’t afford to deploy, as is the case of France as well; in case John Flipflop Kerry forgot, France and Germany are bankrupt failed socialist countries, so who will flip the bill in a Kerry coalition?
Who will supply troops in a Kerry coalition?
Kerry would have to supply the troops, and even more of them because he has insulted the coalition members we have now, so they will likely withdraw their troops, and Kerry would have to supply even MORE US troops.
That wouldn’t be a likely scenario however, because Kerry would withdraw all the troops, creating another Vietnam, where after kerry illegally met with the enemy and got their “promises” not to invade, the moment the US troops were out, the massacre of millions began.

This is what Kerry wants to do again, he said so. You can bet that if Kerry were to win, the coalition would immediately pull their troops so Kerry doesn’t abandon them and leave them to die.

All kerry has said is fluff. No plan, no thought whatsover when into what he said. Kerry has no game what so ever. He is what he has always been, a liar and a traitor.

Posted by: Nathan at September 8, 2004 12:03 PM

Related cartoon here

Posted by: CERDIP at September 8, 2004 01:26 PM