subaruguru

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

"In last week's WASHINGTONPOSTWABCNEWS Poll, John F. Kerry was viewed favorably by 36 percent of registered voters, down 18 points over the past six months.

But just how low Kerry's standing has fallen cannot be appreciated fully without comparing his standing with that of other household names in GALLUP polls over the years, the POST's Dana Milbank reported on Tuesday.

Kerry finds himself in a dead heat with Martha Stewart and Joseph McCarthy, and behind Herbert Hoover -- although he narrowly beats O.J. Simpson."

Above Kerry on that list are John Ashcroft, Jesse Jackson, and Vladimir Putin. I think it's time to start talking about write-in candidates for the blue party.

BTW--While we're at it, can anyone tell me what Kerry's stance on Iraq is? I know it's different, and that Bush's is "wrong" from Kerry...but just what is his Iraq stance?

psoper

Since you asked, here is what he says about Iraq taken from John Kerry.com:

We have got to come together as never before to build a stable Iraq. Not just to finish the mission, but to remind the world that a shared endeavor can bring the world closer toward peace.

As complicated as Iraq seems, there are really only three basic options: One, we can continue to do this largely by ourselves and hope more of the same works; Two, we can conclude it’s not doable, pull out and hope against hope that the worst doesn’t happen in Iraq; Or three, we can get the Iraqi people and the world’s major powers invested with us in building Iraq’s future.

Mistakes have complicated our mission and jeopardized our objective of a stable free Iraq with a representative government, secure in its borders. We may have differences about how we went into Iraq, but we do not have the choice just to pick up and leave—and leave behind a failed state and a new haven for terrorists.

I believe that failure is not an option in Iraq. But it is also true that failure is not an excuse for more of the same.

Here is how we must proceed.

First, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. That will require a level of forces equal to the demands of the mission. To do this right, we have to truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence. In the short-term, however, if our commanders believe they need more American troops, they should say so and they should get them.

But more and more American soldiers cannot be the only solution. Other nations have a vital interest in the outcome and they must be brought in.

To accomplish this, we must do the hard work to get the world’s major political powers to join in this mission. To do so, the President must lead. He must build a political coalition of key countries, including the UK, France, Russia and China, the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, to share the political and military responsibilities and burdens of Iraq with the United States.

The coalition should endorse the Brahimi plan for an interim Iraqi government, it should propose an international High Commissioner to work with the Iraqi authorities on the political transition, and it should organize an expanded international security force, preferably with NATO, but clearly under US command.

Once these elements are in place, the coalition would then go to the UN for a resolution to ratify the agreement. The UN would provide the necessary legitimacy. The UN is not the total solution but it is a key that opens the door to participation by others.

In parallel, the President must also go to NATO members and others to contribute the additional military forces and to NATO to take on an organizing role. NATO is now a global security organization and Iraq must be one of its global missions.

To bring NATO members and others in, the President must immediately and personally reach out and convince them that Iraqi security and stability is a global interest that all must contribute to. He must also convince NATO as an organization that Iraq should be a NATO mission—a mission consistent with the principles of collective security that have formed the basis of the alliance’s remarkable history in the pursuit of peace and security.

To bring others in it is imperative we share responsibility and authority. When NATO members have been treated with respect, they have always – always – answered the call of duty. So too with other key contributors. Every one has a huge stake in whether Iraq survives its trial by fire or is consumed by fire and becomes a breeding ground for terror, intolerance and fear.

I know that some will say that this is an impossible task, but I believe it is doable with the right approach. We must lead but we must listen. We must use every tool of diplomacy and persuasion to bring others along.

I also understand that perhaps NATO cannot undertake the entire Iraq mission right away. But it could possibly take control of Iraq’s borders, take responsibility for Northern Iraq and/or the Polish sector, and train Iraq’s army. If NATO did this, it would free up as many as 20,000 American troops, and open the door for other countries outside of NATO to participate.

The immediate goal is to internationalize the transformation of Iraq, to get more foreign forces on the ground to share the risk and reduce the burden on our own forces. That is the only way to succeed in the mission while ending the sense of an American occupation.

We must take these steps because there is greater strength in greater numbers and stronger alliances. And failure to move forward will be seen as a failure of American leadership.


Second:

The second key element is the High Commissioner. Backed by a newly broadened security coalition, he should be charged with overseeing elections, the drafting of a constitution and coordinating reconstruction. The Commissioner should be highly regarded by the international community and have the credibility to talk to all the Iraqi people.

This Commissioner should be directed to work with Iraq’s interim government, the new US Ambassador, and the international community after June 30 to ensure a process that continues to move forward on the path toward sovereignty, while focusing on the immediate needs of the Iraqis themselves.

The Iraqi people desperately need financial and technical assistance that is not swallowed up by bureaucracy and no-bid contracts, but instead goes directly into the hands of grassroots organizations. They need to see the tangible benefits of reconstruction in the form of jobs, infrastructure, and services. And they need to be able to communicate their concerns to international authorities without feeling they are being insulted and disrespected in their own country.

Third:

We need a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people. We must accept that the effort to date has failed: it must be rethought and reformed. Training cannot be hurried. It must be done in the field and on the job as well as in the classroom. Units cannot be put on the street without backup from international security forces. They cannot be rushed into battle before they are ready.

This is a task to do in partnership with other nations, not just on our own. This is a task which must be successful. If we fail to create viable Iraqi security forces – military and police – there is no successful exit for us and other nations.

But why would others join a cause that they did not support in the first place? For one simple reason: it’s in their self-interest. For the Europeans, Iraq’s failure could endanger the security of their oil supplies, further radicalize their large Muslim populations, threaten destabilizing refugee flows, and seed a huge new source of terrorism.

And for Iraq’s neighbors, a civil war in Iraq could draw them in, put moderates in the region on the defensive and radicals on the rise. And a civil war could threaten the regimes in Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

These compelling interests have always existed and they must now be the central piece of a diplomatic effort long overdue. Will a new approach in Iraq be difficult to achieve? Yes.
Is there a guarantee of success? No.

In light of all the mistakes that have been made, no one can say that success is certain, but I can say that if we do not try, failure is all too likely.

If the President will take the needed steps to share the burden and make progress in Iraq – if he leads – then I will support him on this issue.

When Winston Churchill came to Westminster and defined the great mission of the Cold War, he called on free nations to stand together against tyranny. America’s leader in that moment of history was a tough and visionary son of Missouri named Harry Truman. President Truman could have used America’s power as an excuse to go it alone in the world. Instead, he joined with the leaders of many nations to create institutions like NATO and other alliances to preserve peace, spur economic progress and address global problems.

Much has changed since Churchill spoke. The institutions created more than half a century ago remain useful and relevant. But yesterday’s designs are not sufficient to meet today’s needs. Our institutions and alliances must adapt to new opportunities and threats. New enemies must be confronted by new strategies. America must lead in new ways.

But even as we contemplate what has changed, we must also remember what has not: Our belief in the rights and dignity of every human being. Our faith in democracy as the best form of government in all of human history. And our confidence in America’s capability to lead allies and friends to stand together and build a world more peaceful, prosperous and just than we have ever known before.

That was our mission in Churchill’s time. And for all the differences of time and circumstance, that is our urgent need in Iraq today and our enduring mission in the years ahead.

There is pride in that and honor – and if we meet the test, we can have a world that is safer because of American leadership.

Thank you very much.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

What a slap in the face it must be for John Kerry to be below John Ashcroft... don't even get me started on how he must feel regarding Jesse Jackson.

*whistles in corner & twirls thumbs in expectation*

subaruguru

Did you read that before you posted it? I'll ask again: Read that thing and then tell me specifically what John Kerry's position on Iraq is. Here he's got some ridiculous and some moderately plausible plans for the future of Iraq.

My question is: what is his position on the war itself? Justified, or not? Would he have gone, or not? If he would have gone "differently"...how so?

By including France, Russia, and China into a coalition that already has the UK???

constellation

iTrader: (1)

Has anyone you know or yourself ever taken one of these polls? Where do these figures come from?

psoper

Did you bother to read it after I posted it?

He makes a lot of reasonable points about what he'd attempt to do to win the peace and bring stability to Iraq.

His position on the war itself is that its been conducted wrong and needs a different tact and approach to bring it to some degree of conclusion.

Yes, in his plan it would involve other security council members, like you mention Russia China and France, and probably NATO as well.

So there's a long discussion of what Kerry thinks we should do, ignore it if you want to- but don't go on about how he hasn't stated his position or his plan.

I have to say that I don't agree with all of it, but I gotta say that its a whole lot more than commander bunnypants and his Halliburton brigade have done for us, those guys still haven't explained the first bit of what they're going to do to put an end to the death and misery we are delivering there on a daily basis.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

They come from a randomly picked groups of +/- 2500 voters and are usually cause for certain scrutiny based on the fact the polls represent a significantly small piece of the voting pie.

However, the fact that there's a substantial gap of 18 points over the last six months and 12% since the RNC from several polls leaves little for debate.

dub2w

or better yet, how many people do they cull to get this info? My guess is no more than 2000. Weak Sauce in my opinion

constellation

iTrader: (1)

Meh, its all hot air. I can't get all worked up about it now, we'll just have to wait for the election.

subaruguru

Well, you obviously saw from my poke at the absolutely retarded idea of bringing China, Russia, and France into the equation (it's never going to happen, never would have, and never will), so you know I read the tract. Now what I'm still asking for is the answer to the very clear question I posted the first time. Here it is again, and this is what I want an answer to:

My question is: what is his position on the war itself? Justified, or not? Would he have gone, or not? If he would have gone "differently"...how so?

Now, once you've answered that, can you explain to me why you didn't see it the first time?

dub2w

Where are you going with this? Kerry voted for an eventual use of force. But he didnt vote for a pre-emptive, UN-less war.

The real question is: Where are the WMDs? How has the issue completely dissappeared? We went to war on false pretenses. We laid into a country because of some bullsh!t intelligence. We have murdered their citizens, while our kids are dying in an unjust war. And here we are arguing about polls and Kerry's supposed flip-flop on certain issues.

Screw it... let's just delve back into the ridiculoius argument of the Swift Boaters for Oil Rich Texans or whatever the hell group that is.

Govt accountability? Blah!

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Voting polls have consistently shown an average of -3% of error throughout history and are considered a valuable resource among candidates in an election... some "weak sauce", huh?

dub2w

that is a popularity poll. what are the stats on those?


try these sources:

peoplemagazine.com

entertainmenttomorrow.com

foxnews.com

psoper

And why is that? he said that they need to be involved in both the political and military sides of the equation, I can see why they might not want to join us for an ill-fated and ill advised military campaign that looks to be failing dismally, but why can't they be pursuaded to join us on the political side? especially if we get an administration that is a little more willing to build coalitions?

China is probably our #1 trading partner, if not they are working up to it, Russia has said they are fully on board in the war against Terrorism, and then there's France, but whatever, why do you think that is so "retarded"?

As for it "never would have" Poppy bush managed to get them all on board for his first GulfWar, how is it all so different now? (other than the fact that his bubble headed son is such an arrogant nincompoop).


I think its pretty explicit, -his "position"?- he thinks that making Iraq a peaceful and stable nation is a worthy objective.

Would he have gone, or not? -I don't think there is a yes/no answer for that, and I think that you are being unreasonable in expecting such.

He would have spent considerably more effort in building international support and a broad coalition before going in, which might have made a full invasion and occupation unneccesary, and if it still required military action, it would have been broader based and considerably better directed towards meeting the objective of establishing a safe, stable and secure Iraq, rather than focusing on looting that nations energy resources, which seems to be the only "mission accomplished" so far.

How he would have done it differently? see above.

Why are you in denial of the things that are sitting typed out in plain english in front of you?

Fact of the matter is, this international relations stuff is damn complicated, there aren't any easy one-sentance sound bite answers (like Bush and Cheney like to spew) that are going to solve any of these issues, its going to take creative thinking, lots of diplomacy and a modicum of respect for the people involved.


None of which has been shown to be in the Bush/Cheney teams bag of tricks.


no, I saw it and I gave you the best official answers I could find that are on public record.

On the other hand, what is the Bush/Cheney position on Iraq? what is their plan to win the peace there?


Oh yeah,



THEY DON'T HAVE A PLAN!


or is it "The beatings will continue until morale improves"

subaruguru

It's retarded because Russia, China, and France never have been great allies in recent history and the traditional practice for them is to abstain from Security Council decisions involving US military force. Kerry is a liar or an idiot if thinks he can bring them in to this plan. "Poppy Bush" did not get China into the first Iraq. Neither did he get russians into the first Iraq.


That's exactly what I was drawing attention to. Kerry has no answer for whether or not he would have gone to war with Iraq given the circumstances, because he's too spineless to actually take a stand on it. I think it's entirely unreasonable to expect my vote for president when you can't tell me if you would've undertaken a project as large and expensive as a war. "I don't know what I would've done, maybe so maybe no" isn't a reasonable answer to voters' questions about the war. The whole point of campaigning is to tell people what your positions are. "I'll handle complicated things in complicated ways I can't explain right now" is all that I'm getting for an answer out of this business from Kerry.


Well, we don't know this, because as you admitted above, you don't even know if Kerry would have gone to Iraq. It would seem to me impossible then to claim that he would've built a coalition, because you aren't even sure he would've gone to war in the first place.
Beyond that obvious logical problem with what you're saying, there's also the "complicated international relations stuff" to consider: France and Germany are the only two western allies that were left out of the coalition to go to Iraq. Bush included literally every other player in the coalition. France was illegally profitting from Iraqi oil, and had longstanding ties with Saddam. Take a look at the reports from Germany's pacifist government. I dare you to give an explanation that wouldn't be laughed off the table at your "international relations stuff" 101 course as to how Kerry would've gotten either France or Germany into Iraq.


As for the Bush plan...Iraq has a government now and is trainiing a police force with US help. How does that not constitute working towards securing Iraq? See CNN today...the administration is diverting 3 billlion to security and oil production in Iraq. What exactly is it that you're confused about with the Bush strategy?

One thing the Bush's do not do is LIE and put a definite timeline on the end of the operation. Kerry has made statements to the effect that he would have troops out by his first term's end. That is, if you're in to "complicated international relations stuff" like I am, so blatantly ridiculous that I can't believe Kerry believed that anyone would take him seriously.

So far, here's how this discussion goes:
Kerry's position on Iraq: "not a yes/no thing".
Kerry's plan: "Build a coalition" with member states that will not in any realistic scenario participate.

Here's one of the rare accurate one sentence answers in this field: That is pure crap.