First Swiftboat Vet Retraction...it only took one day...

[Voronwë]

One of the central persons in the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" has retracted his statements. The man was Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam, and actually supported Kerry's 1996 Senatorial campaign.

Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 6, 2004

WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals.

ADVERTISEMENT

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

Remember this commercial was produced by the same group that produced television spots against John McCain in 2000 (running against Bush in the Republican Primaries) - lieing that McCain opposed Breast Cancer research and questioning his military record - John McCain spent 7 years in the Hanoi Hilton.

MOre info on their financing here. CNN.com link


That is of course the reason that McCain came out yesterday and called this ad campaign financed by REpublican supporters of George W. Bush "Dishonest and dishonorable". CNN.com link (FULL DISLCOSURE )

The White House has not answered McCain's call to condemn the ad.

Not shocking, since it would not have been produced without their blessing. it is highly unlikely - in my opinion - people with close ties to the Republican Party like the donors for this 537 group would do something not approved by Karl Rove. One of the 2 big donors is on the board of George H.W. Bush's presidential library fundraising effort according to salon.com.

Again though, this all is an effort to distract us from the real issues. Bad job numbers out today. 60,000 created last month, and June downgraded to +70,000 created. 110,000 have to be created each month to keep up with population growth. Hardly the "Best economy in our history" that campaign surrogates have told us.

We turned that corner!!

[Metanis]

The story gets more interesting. What do you suppose the next installment will bring?

John Kerry is hoping this story will never go away. It's a smokescreen for him. He said on the radio today that he will withdraw 40,000 troops from Iraq within a year if he is elected president. As usual there were no details on how he intends to accomplish this. The reporters were too busy asking for his reactions to this Swivets news to do their job and ask critical questions on methods and policies.

[Crav]

Eh wasn't it that he was going to try to increase the number of active duty troops by 40k, but not use them in Iraq? I would like to see the source for him saying he would withdraw 40k troops from Iraq since he has not mentioned withdrawing troops from Iraq before.

Oh and on the ad itself someone mentioned on MSNBC that only one person in the ad actually served with John Kerry on his swiftboat.

[Voronwë]

i have only heard Kerry talking about adding 40,000 persons to the army. Not necessarily in Iraq, but in general to help stop the backdoor draft keeping guardsmen and reservists overseas for years at a time.

Crav, i think none of hte "Swiftboat veterans for Truth" served on Kerry's boat.

i heard there were 11 total that served w/ Kerry. 1 is dead. 9 appeared with him at the DNC supporting him, and 1 is choosing to stay out of politics but when asked by reporters verifies the historical account that the other 9 support. i don't have a source though for that at the moment.

[Avestan]

One of the central persons in the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" has retracted his statements. The man was Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam, and actually supported Kerry's 1996 Senatorial campaign.

Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 6, 2004

WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals.

ADVERTISEMENT

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

Remember this commercial was produced by the same group that produced television spots against John McCain in 2000 (running against Bush in the Republican Primaries) - lieing that McCain opposed Breast Cancer research and questioning his military record - John McCain spent 7 years in the Hanoi Hilton.

MOre info on their financing here. CNN.com link


That is of course the reason that McCain came out yesterday and called this ad campaign financed by REpublican supporters of George W. Bush "Dishonest and dishonorable". CNN.com link (FULL DISLCOSURE )

The White House has not answered McCain's call to condemn the ad.

Not shocking, since it would not have been produced without their blessing. it is highly unlikely - in my opinion - people with close ties to the Republican Party like the donors for this 537 group would do something not approved by Karl Rove. One of the 2 big donors is on the board of George H.W. Bush's presidential library fundraising effort according to salon.com.

Again though, this all is an effort to distract us from the real issues. Bad job numbers out today. 60,000 created last month, and June downgraded to +70,000 created. 110,000 have to be created each month to keep up with population growth. Hardly the "Best economy in our history" that campaign surrogates have told us.

We turned that corner!!

The white house did condemn the ad and said that if the Democrats would agree to stop all soft money ads, they would support that fully, but until the democrats are willing to take the same action (they are not willing), neither will the republicans.

[Arilain]

Update to this story....

The reporter that wrote that story is now being sued by the Veteran he said recanted for misrepresenting and flat out lieing in that article. Also in the reporters book on John Kerry the incident that is described of the naked unarmed vietcong is talked about on page 102. The reporter is also due to release the Kerry-Edwards Campaign book.

[Voronwë]

The only thing i have heard the White House say is "they will never make an issue of Kerry's military service".

but that is not the same thing as condemming the article.

Arilain, source that please =)

[miir]

The white house did condemn the ad

Au contraire.


"Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonourable" and urged the White House to condemn it as well.

The White House declined./"

and

"White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to condemn the ad."

[Metanis]

I would like to see the source for him saying he would withdraw 40k troops from Iraq since he has not mentioned withdrawing troops from Iraq before.

I heard this statement during an ABC Radio News update while driving in my car this morning. It was in the form of an excerpt from a Kerry speech which he supposedly made in the last day.

I have searched the news sites for any confirmation and I can't find any. It's possible I didn't hear the segment correctly. Please give me a day or two for things to surface on the internet.

[Winnow]

This is outrageous!

I am formally distancing myself from the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. The Bandit is also on shaky ground!

It's pure genius if Kerry pulled this one off himself. I give him points if he was smart enough to do something like that.

[Avestan]

The white house did condemn the ad

Au contraire.


"Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonourable" and urged the White House to condemn it as well.

The White House declined./"

and

"White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to condemn the ad."

Selective quoting my friend. They said they would not condemn the ad until the democrats comdemned all of the soft money ads on their side. McClellan said that the White House would be more than happy to condemn ALL soft money ads if the Democrats did the same. They refused.

[miir]

Selective my ass.
Those are exact, full 'paragraph' quotes from a Canadian and an American newspaper.



At least it's a lot more fucking accurate then you talking out your ass saying they did condemn it.

[Truant]

The white house did condemn the ad

They said they would not condemn the ad

Call it selective quoting. I call it, not knowing wtf you are talking about.

[Sirton]

Just some sources since it was asked.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... _of_kerry/
Boston Globe Article by Michael Kranish

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 40-2404906
Kerry-edwards
by Michael Kranish
Kerry-Edwards Campaign book.


http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite. ... t_aff.html
Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit


http://drudgereport.com/dnc89.htm another source with the links.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/ ... index.html
Another source from CNN

[Voronwë]

one interesting piece of video that aired in the 8pm hour on CNN was Mr. Elliott praising John Kerry over this exact incident in 1996 at a campaign appearence.

Sirton posts a very valid concern that the author of the Boston Globe piece is writing books on/for Kerry.

Anyway, i think we haven't heard the last of this =).

[Thess]

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/randi ... change.mp3

rofl

[Voronwë]

The Boston GLobe is standing by their story.

Globe Editor Martin Baron released a statement saying "the Globe stands by the article. The quotes attributed to Mr. Elliott were on the record and absolutely accurate."


The Drudge report is wrong about KRanish having ties to the Kerry campaign.

At the same time, Drudge also erroneously reported that Kranish, a 20-year Globe veteran, had written the introduction to a Kerry-authorized campaign book, "Our Plan for America: Stronger at Home, Respected in the World."

In fact, Baron said, Kranish had no connection to the Kerry campaign book and did not write its introduction.

The source of the confusion is that Kranish did participate in a Boston Globe unauthorized biography of John Kerry. Basically, people who have been covering him for years as senator of Mass. pooling resources and putting together a book.

The Globe book, "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography," is an unauthorized biography. The work draws on extensive interviews with the candidate, all conducted before 2004. After he emerged as the presumptive Democratic nominee, Kerry declined to cooperate with further interviews.

Amazon, the online bookseller, apparently contributed to the confusion with a listing for the Kerry-approved campaign book indicating Kranish as the author. PublicAffairs' officials said yesterday that Amazon had agreed to revise the listing immediately.

Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan said Kranish had no connection to the campaign.

So anyway, Elliott was videotaped in 1996 at a campaign appearance for Kerry supporting him and supporting his heroism regarding the Silver Star. I believe he also signed paperwork in 1969 commending Kerry for his excellent service. According to the Boston Globe, he retracted his statements in the Swiftboat Vets commercial.

"The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is not something not to be looked down upon but it was an act of courage. And the whole outfit served with honor..."[T]here was no question that it was above and beyond anything that we had seen down there in that case at that time frame...It just so happened that this one was so outstanding that the Silver Star was eventually awarded."

And here is the Pentagon paperwork:

"In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion, while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several KIA. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program. During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).

[Voronwë]

According to http://www.JohnKerry.com

Roy HOffman , a guy who in the Swiftboat Vets commercial says:

"John Kerry has not been honest."

"Hoffman acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally."

THe take home point about all of this in my opinion, is that a lot of veterans felt Kerry fucked them over testifying to the Senate. And they are 100% entitled to that opinion.

Regardless, making a commercial that your real beef with Kerry is what he said after the war, but making it look like you are disputing what he did in the war is dishonest. And that is what this is really about.

[Winnow]

According to http://www.JohnKerry.com

Solid unbiased source there : )

It's funny on that site that it's claimed that Bush/Cheney are running a campaign that attacks them while Kerry is doing the same thing. I remember the very next day after Kerry, in his convention speech, asked Bush to look to the future and run a clean campaign, Kerry bashed Bushs new campaign which was focused on the issues.

Both candidates are equally sleazy although most will turn a blind eye to one or the other and only notice the opposing candidate doing it.

[Thess]

10 minutes after Kerry's speech, I went to http://www.georgewbush.com and their was a huge attack on Kerry.

Edit: Of course George Bush was sleeping at that time, so was more his campaign then him.

[Avestan]

Selective my ass.
Those are exact, full 'paragraph' quotes from a Canadian and an American newspaper.



At least it's a lot more fucking accurate then you talking out your ass saying they did condemn it.

Is it really difficult to understand that both sides do this and that frankly the democrats do it a lot more. Moveon.org and 10 others are all funded the exact same way and there are multiple lawsuits filed to shut them down because they are all using a loophole in campaign financing to put these ads up.

The white house said that they would fully condemn all soft money ads including this one if the democrats would do the same, but they would not because they know that they engage in the same thing 10 times over. Is that too hard to understand?

[Pherr the Dorf]

Selective my ass.
Those are exact, full 'paragraph' quotes from a Canadian and an American newspaper.



At least it's a lot more fucking accurate then you talking out your ass saying they did condemn it.

Is it really difficult to understand that both sides do this and that frankly the democrats do it a lot more. Moveon.org and 10 others are all funded the exact same way and there are multiple lawsuits filed to shut them down because they are all using a loophole in campaign financing to put these ads up.

The white house said that they would fully condemn all soft money ads including this one if the democrats would do the same, but they would not because they know that they engage in the same thing 10 times over. Is that too hard to understand?

You actually beleive the White House would base an election on the actual issues? They are not that stupid, the fact is the economy still looks like shit, despite SS being a centerpeice of his 1st platform he hasn't even approached the issue, the prescription drug card is a fiasco, the gap between rich and poor continues to climb while the middle class continues to shrink, we are sinking deep in debt, so deep the ceiling will have to be raised 5 weeks before the election and oil prices are at an all time high. (I will add I don't think things would have been much better with gore, it's a cyclical thing to some extent with some pisspoor decisions thrown in) Trust me the White House needs a dirty campaign.

[Avestan]

Lets just stay on topic. This thread is not about the economy (I would love to argue that one elsewhere). This thread is about a soft money ad that the white house does not support. They offered a complete condemnation if the democrats would do the same towards like ads and groups. All I am saying is that the issue is a long shot from the white house simply refusing to condemn a single ad.

They have said that they will not attack Kerry on his Vietnam service and they have stuck to their word on that. If the democrats want this ad to disappear, all they have to do is stop the same kind of ads on their side, but the chance of that happening is zero because frankly, the democrats need those soft money organizations so they can get around campaign finance reform laws.

[Kelshara]

Avestan you said in an early post on this thread:

The white house did condemn the ad and said that if the Democrats would agree to stop all soft money ads, they would support that fully, but until the democrats are willing to take the same action (they are not willing), neither will the republicans.

The first part (about the White House condemning it) is obviously not true as you yourself have argued against it in later posts. You were called on THAT point, and you were wrong at THAT point.

[Pherr the Dorf]

They have said that they will not attack Kerry on his Vietnam service and they have stuck to their word on that. If the democrats want this ad to disappear, all they have to do is stop the same kind of ads on their side, but the chance of that happening is zero because frankly, the democrats need those soft money organizations so they can get around campaign finance reform laws.

Because they LOSE every time Vietnam comes up, Bush dodged it, he looks like crap bringing it up, everyone knows that. To say one side needs soft money more then the other is utterly moronic, BOTH sides need and use soft money, BOTH sides have, BOTH sides will, put down the banner and realize BOTH sides are corrupt as fuck and will use whatever they can

[Voronwë]

soft money is not the issue.

the issue is whether or not this particular "attack ad" is dishonest and/or misleading.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

soft money is not the issue.

the issue is whether or not this particular "attack ad" is dishonest and/or misleading.

It's the vets recollection of what they saw. I fhe continues to run his entire campaign based on his 4 months in Nam, then I want to hear others points of view about what happened while he was their.

It's no different than your desire to hear Michael Moore's alternate reality of what happenned following the attacks of 9/11.

[kyoukan]

I don't think I've even heard Voro mention Micheal Moore. Are you a simpleton?

[Voronwë]

actually i dont really have much of a desire to hear Michael Moore talk about anything. i haven't seen any of his movies =)

my point is that some of these guys said things - on the record - that directly contradict what they are saying now. So they were either being disengenious then, or they are now. Additionally, some of them define "served with John KErry" to mean they were physically in the country of Vietnam in 1968-9.

I am not commenting on whether they have a right to give their take on him as potential commander in chief (they do).

[Sionistic]

I dont think any liberal here likes Moore at all.

[Winnow]

I dont think any liberal here likes Moore at all.

Movie hype forgotten so soon? Easy enough to dig up the Moore lovefest posts.

[Lynks]

I dont think any liberal here likes Moore at all.

Movie hype forgotten so soon? Easy enough to dig up the Moore lovefest posts.

Liking the movie doesn't mean you like Moore.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I dont think any liberal here likes Moore at all.

Movie hype forgotten so soon? Easy enough to dig up the Moore lovefest posts.

Liking the movie doesn't mean you like Moore.

Oh Dear God. You Libs are such history changers. Amazing.

[Kelshara]

Don't like Moore, didn't see the movie.. but loving how it gets Midnyte and Winnow all worked up!

[Metanis]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robe ... 0809.shtml

Kerry's war record

Robert Novak

August 9, 2004


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The television ad that aroused the wrath of John McCain and journalist supporters of John Kerry just begins deconstruction of the Democratic presidential candidate's war record. "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," a 214-page critique of his performance in Vietnam and the antiwar movement, is off the presses ahead of schedule.

I have read the book and found it is neither the political propaganda nor the urban legend that its detractors claim. It is a passionate but meticulously researched account of how Kerry went to war, what he did in the war and how he conducted himself after the war. The very serious charges by former comrades deserve answers but so far have produced only ad hominem counterattacks.

Why should details of what Kerry did more than 30 years ago be part of this election campaign? Only because the senator has made them integral to his strategy. Kerry as war hero received more attention at the Democratic National Convention than plans for the future. Thus, what he did in his shortened four months of combat becomes a valid campaign issue.

John E. O'Neill, co-author of "Unfit for Command," replaced Kerry as commander of Swift Boat PCF 94 in 1969 and has been confronting him since 1971. O'Neill told me he is no George W. Bush partisan and probably would have supported John Edwards had he been nominated for president, but is committed to keeping Kerry out of the Oval Office. Thus, reversing the usual formulation, the assault on Kerry is personal but not political.

O'Neill told me neither he nor his co-author (Jerome R. Corsi, a writer and expert on the Vietnam antiwar movement) has had contact with the Bush White House or the Bush-Cheney campaign. He said he and Corsi, on their own initiative, went to conservative Regnery Publishing to offer the book.

The co-authors paint Kerry as a reluctant warrior. Contrary to claims by Kerry's supporters that he served two combat hitches in Vietnam, his one-year term aboard a guided missile frigate was far from action. His four months in the brown water navy were terminated eight months early by a third Purple Heart wound, none of which required hospitalization.

The book's strength is the vehemence of testimony by swift boat veterans, alleging that Kerry "gamed" the system to win decorations and later betrayed comrades by charging war crimes. Typical is the quote by Bob Hildreth, commanding an accompanying boat: "I would never want Kerry behind me. I wouldn't want him in front of me, either. And I sure wouldn't want him commanding our kids in Iraq and Afghanistan." Some 200 "Swiftees" on May 4 signed a letter to Kerry demanding full release of his service records.

The book's weakness is support for Kerry's presidential campaign by his swift boat crewmates, presumably people who knew him best. O'Neill told me that these former sailors served with Kerry no more than five weeks. Jim Rassmann, now part of the Kerry presidential campaign, was a Special Forces lieutenant spending a few days with Kerry when he fell or was knocked off the swift boat while under fire and was fished out of the Mekong River by the future candidate.

The "band of brothers" was organized by Kerry, according to this book. It tells of a 2003 telephone call to Adm. Roy Hoffmann, who commanded swift boats in Vietnam, telling him he was running for president. Hoffmann, mistakenly thinking it was former Sen. Bob Kerrey, "responded enthusiastically." Once the admiral realized it was John Kerry, "he declined to give Kerry his support." Hoffmann is quoted as saying, "I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States."

"Unfit for Command" sends a devastating message, unless effectively refuted. Perhaps most disturbing are allegations that Kerry's combat decorations are unjustified. His first Purple Heart, the book alleges, was accidentally self-inflicted. His commander, Grant Hibbard, is quoted as saying: "I didn't recommend him for a Purple Heart. Kerry probably wrote up the paperwork and recommended himself." Full release of documents demanded by his critics could settle this claim quickly if it is unwarranted.

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

The main reason I posted is marked with bold above. Neither side may be presenting an accurate picture, but the debate itself was initiated by John Kerry.

I suspect the truth with Kerry is somewhere in the middle. For example I read where General Tommy Franks believes John Kerry is "absolutely" fit for the role of Commander in Chief. I personally chose to read that as Franks feels there is nothing that obviously disqualifies John Kerry rather than an endorsement.

Novak would be considered a moderate, his write-up today indicates to me that this story has "legs" and isn't going to be easily refuted by the Kerry camp. This in turn leads me to question Kerry's intelligence. He had to know he was vulnerable on this issue so why make it a central theme of his convention? Not very smart IMHO.

[Voronwë]

Novak is a moderate? you are completely mistaken. His is a hard-core old-fashioned conservative.

He's the guy the white house leaked the story of Valerie Plame being a CIA agent to to retaliate against Am. Joe Wilson's (her husband) public criticism of the White House lieing about Iraq trieing to obtain yellow-cake Uranium from Niger, in Africa.

[Metanis]

Eh wasn't it that he was going to try to increase the number of active duty troops by 40k, but not use them in Iraq? I would like to see the source for him saying he would withdraw 40k troops from Iraq since he has not mentioned withdrawing troops from Iraq before.

Oh and on the ad itself someone mentioned on MSNBC that only one person in the ad actually served with John Kerry on his swiftboat.

You are right Crav, but so am I, Kerry just announced he thinks he can reduce troops in Iraq "significantly". You will see in the article how I confused that statement with the number 40,000. Once again Kerry leaves us wondering what "significantly" means to him... 1,000 troops? 10,000? 50,000? In the absence of specifics he is merely pandering.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... 0807215942

Mideast - AFP

Kerry says he could reduce US troops in Iraq 'significantly'

Sat Aug 7, 5:59 PM ET Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Democratic presidential contender John Kerry said he would be able to withdraw a significant amount of US troops from Iraq by August 2005 if he is elected.

"I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that's my plan," Kerry said Friday in an interview with National Public Radio. "I believe we can."

Kerry said President George W. Bush, a Republican, "rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. He pushed our allies aside. We've lost our credibility with the world."

The Massachusetts senator said he would used diplomacy to build alliances in Iraq.

"You need to have more people involved in the process," Kerry said, according to a transcript of the interview released Saturday.

"We have not seen this administration do the statesmanship, do the diplomacy necessary, and America's paying a very high price, both in terms of the lives of our young and the money that's coming out of the taxpayers' pockets.

"I will do a better job of building those alliances and getting our troops home, and I will do a much better job of reducing the burden on the National Guard and reserves and their families, who are paying a very high price for the president's rush."

Iraqi security forces could take over a large part of the country's security if they receive training from other countries, he said.

Kerry also suggested that the United States should play a larger role in Sudan's war-torn western region of Darfur, where up to 50,000 people are believed to have died in clashes between government-backed Arab militias and local rebels.

Kerry has proposed to boost the US military by 40,000 troops without increasing the number of soldiers in Iraq, saying troops were "stretched too thin."

When asked where he would use US troops, Kerry said, "We have huge obligations around the world still. North Korea, we have in Europe, Bosnia, Kosovo. We're not even doing what we probably ought to be doing in Darfur, in Africa."

My point is that John Kerry promises these kind of "feel good" pie-in-the-sky results.... but he never offers any specifics on how he intends to do it. Do you honestly think he is going to convince the French or the Germans to commit 10's of thousands of troops to Iraq? If so you should share your drugs with the rest of us!

[Sionistic]

I dont think any liberal here likes Moore at all.

Movie hype forgotten so soon? Easy enough to dig up the Moore lovefest posts.

Liking the movie doesn't mean you like Moore.

Oh Dear God. You Libs are such history changers. Amazing.

While you could like a movie and not like the person who made it under normal circumstances (Piano-Polanski), f911 was a political movie, I dont see how you could like the movie and not like him.

[Lynks]

I dont think any liberal here likes Moore at all.

Movie hype forgotten so soon? Easy enough to dig up the Moore lovefest posts.

Liking the movie doesn't mean you like Moore.

Oh Dear God. You Libs are such history changers. Amazing.

Show me where I said I like Moore, if you can't SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[Lynks]

f911 was a political movie, I dont see how you could like the movie and not like him.

I think Moore has a good sense of humour, but I also think he talks out of his ass a lot.

[archeiron]

I dont think any liberal here likes Moore at all.

Movie hype forgotten so soon? Easy enough to dig up the Moore lovefest posts.

Liking the movie doesn't mean you like Moore.

Oh Dear God. You Libs are such history changers. Amazing.

Why don't you show me any post where I, a liberal, have expressed any opinion about Moore or that damn movie?

Winnow, you can take a shot, too.


When you concede that you can't, come back and rephrase your blanket comment to the 1 or 2 people you are actually talking about, and use logical arguments based upon fact.

[Crav]

You are right Crav, but so am I, Kerry just announced he thinks he can reduce troops in Iraq "significantly". You will see in the article how I confused that statement with the number 40,000. Once again Kerry leaves us wondering what "significantly" means to him... 1,000 troops? 10,000? 50,000? In the absence of specifics he is merely pandering.

My point is that John Kerry promises these kind of "feel good" pie-in-the-sky results.... but he never offers any specifics on how he intends to do it.

Well I would have to assume that like most Presidential candidates he is waiting for the debates to reveal more specific information. The fact that he has a plan for withdrawing some of our troops from Iraq is a good thing, since I haven't heard anything from the current administration. You can't keep reservists and guardsmen over there for much longer, there has to be a plan for getting those units back home.

Do you honestly think he is going to convince the French or the Germans to commit 10's of thousands of troops to Iraq? If so you should share your drugs with the rest of us!

I don't think it would be too difficult to get French and German troops on the ground; all they want is a piece of the financial pie. Plus saying that we were wrong in the first place won't hurt relations with those countries. If the Bush administration said that they made a mistake and that we needed help from the world to stabilize Iraq and that we were willing to share in the rebuilding responsibility and profits, I have no doubt that other nations would send troops to help. However, the Bush administration will never say that.

[Metanis]

I don't think it would be too difficult to get French and German troops on the ground; all they want is a piece of the financial pie. Plus saying that we were wrong in the first place won't hurt relations with those countries. If the Bush administration said that they made a mistake and that we needed help from the world to stabilize Iraq and that we were willing to share in the rebuilding responsibility and profits, I have no doubt that other nations would send troops to help. However, the Bush administration will never say that.

Crav, you and I are seeing the color red but you perceive pink and I perceive purple.

Since no one reads the long rebuttal posts I'm not going to bother.

I'll just say that I respectfully disagree with your viewpoint and perhaps in November we will see it tested. If John Kerry gets elected I sure as hell hope you are right. If you are wrong I suspect Kerry will cut and run and the Iraqi people will pay the price... yet again.

[Winnow]

Why don't you show me any post where I, a liberal, have expressed any opinion about Moore or that damn movie?

Winnow, you can take a shot, too.

Michael Moore has a nice bum for a yank. I would rather enjoy sitting with him over a spot of tea in Piccadilly Square while discussing the finer points of liberalism."

[Crav]

Since no one reads the long rebuttal posts I'm not going to bother.

I'll just say that I respectfully disagree with your viewpoint and perhaps in November we will see it tested. If John Kerry gets elected I sure as hell hope you are right. If you are wrong I suspect Kerry will cut and run and the Iraqi people will pay the price... yet again.

The people whose opinions I actually care about usually read the long rebuttals. None the less I accept that we are not going to see eye to eye on this particular subject. I am, however, rather curious as to why you believe that Kerry will cut and run from Iraq. He has given no inclination that he is not in it for the long haul. The plan that we were talking about called for withdrawing a "significant" number of troops in a years time not a complete withdraw. By significant I assumed he meant the reservists and guardsmen whose tours have run way past what they should have.

Character is something that you have throughout your life, whether it's as a child or as an adult. Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam, say what you will about the amount of time he spent there, but he went there by choice. The ten people that were on the boat with him said he turned the boat around into enemy fire and rescued a man, and until one of those ten people say otherwise I am going to believe that it is true. Are these the actions of a man who would leave a whole nation of people to the wolves? People talk a lot of values and faith, but never test them. Kerry did under the toughest conditions for these character traits, war. You do not really know what you’re made of until you face a life or death situation, which is what you’re in every second while serving in a war.

[Sionistic]

f911 was a political movie, I dont see how you could like the movie and not like him.

I think Moore has a good sense of humour, but I also think he talks out of his ass a lot.

eh, I dont like his sense of humour, I heard people say boc was hillarious, but I only laughed once, during that wierd kkk cartoon.