.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Fat Steve's Archives

| Wednesday, June 29, 2005

appearance test

Summary:

      John Kerry showed again why he shouldn't be President by writing an Op-Ed piece for The New York Times.
  • Kerry's policy continues to be 'Let's cut and run, ASAP.

  • He's still spinning fantasies about the magic of the UN, and 'other countries,' which he mostly won't name.

  • He's either very ignorant and stupid, or lying a lot, or some of all three.

  • And he wants to sell out Israel, in return for promises from the Sauds and other dictators that they will help make democracy in Iraq work.  I guess having sold out the Vietnamese, and planning to sell out the Iraqis isn't enough for him.  Still, it is interesting to see how far Jew hatred has spread among the Democrats.

At Length:

The Speech the President Should Give


By JOHN F. KERRY
Published: June 28, 2005
Boston

      First, the fact that Kerry lost the election, and then has the nerve to tell the winner to adopt his, Kerry's, policies shows just how arrogant and stupid the man is.

TONIGHT President Bush will discuss the situation in Iraq. It's long past time to get it right in Iraq. The Bush administration is courting disaster with its current course - a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success.


      Hidden assumptions are the curse of clear thinking.  Kerry tries to get us to ass/u/me that the U.S. is failing.  The possibility that we are doing about as well as can be expected isn't to be allowed consideration if he gets his way.

      But Kerry's a loser, he doesn't get his way.

      The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war - a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing. The administration has put itself - and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day - in a box of its own making. Getting out of this box won't be easy, but we owe it to our soldiers to make our best effort.

      Wrong.  There are two groups of terrorists resisting us.  One is the Iraqi Sunnis, who used to rule, and want their positions of power back.  The other is the real, religious fanatic Islamofascist jihadis, who are mostly foreigners.  There's no evidence that the number of Islamofascists is higher than before the Iraq Campaign began.

      Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning.  A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.

      Taking the last idiocy first, the idea that the Administration doesn't have a strategy to succeed is bull stuff.  Translated into straight talk, Kerry says: 'I was right all along.'

      As for his other nonsense:
  • administration ignored the advice of others,

  • "Went in largely alone,"  Kerry whining that we didn't give France and Germany a veto over our actins, while lacking the balls to say: 'We should never have gone in at all.'  At least we're spared his speech about his magic powers of diplomacy, which would have guaranteed huge numbers of French and German troops.

  • "underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency,"  Evidence?  But pass that by.  Suppose we had exactly gauged the power of the terrorist resistance.  What changes in our plans should that have made (except 'don't go in', Kerry's policy all along)?

  • "sent in too few troops to secure the country,"  Which were to come from where?  And if we had all these 'extra' troops, what would the results have been?  They might have been 'Look how many people we sent, and we still can't stop them from revolting.'  We might well have had more casualties than we did.  We might also have discouraged the Iraqis from taking action to secure their country.  And could we have reduced force levels, with an ongoing insurgency, if we'd sent in more troops originally?

  • "destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification,"  This is a favorite idiocy of the unthinking.  If we'd kept the original Army, we'd almost have guaranteed another Sunni dictatorship.  We went in to end that sort of thing.

  • "failed to secure ammunition dumps,"  Yeah, stop the advance to take care of ammo dumps, which were scattered and hidden everywhere, thus giving the enemy time to prepare defenses and better hide the ammo dumps in the territory they did control.  Moron.

  • "refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces,"  Horse shit.  We've been training a long time, but it's just coming together, especially since the Iraqi elections.  Delaying those, now there's a criticism that might have had validity.

  • " and did no postwar planning."  This is a flat lie.


      So what should the president say tonight?  The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people.  Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home.  It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.

      And pessimistic talk about things not going well will be used as a club by Democrats to hit the President with.  That's why Kerry wants it.

      The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq.  Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.

      And telling the terrorists that we will for sure get out, completely and soon, will encourage the revolt.

      He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December. We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.

      Of course, French John didn't bother to define "a truly inclusive political process," because it means 'Give the Sunnis a veto over everything.'  Do that, and combine it with a deadline, and we guarantee the new Constitution will fail.  But Kerry doesn't care.  He just wants things over, soon. If we get a failure, the Dems can blame it on Bush.  If we get a success, the Dems can take credit for a victory that came when their policies were followed.

      Now, if he'd said, 'The Iraqis must meet the schedule for December elections, and the Sunnis have to be told, in short simple sentences, that they either get with the program or get frozen out.  As a community, you will never rule again.  If you can't stop thinking in tribal terms, and start thinking in national terms, you're doomed.  If the 80% of the population who aren't Sunni have to slaughter the other 20% to stop terrorism, we'll help them do it,' well then he might have a point.  As things stand, Switchitter John's approach is 'Do it fast, even if it isn't right.'

      He also needs to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them.

      More do-it-wrong-fast nonsense.

The administration and the Iraqi government must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.

      Another lie, this time with nuance.  We are already training Iraqis out of the country, in the Emirates, with German trainers.  France isn't willing to train any large number of troops, anywhere, under any circumstances.  Egypt and Jordan can't train troops to do anything but shoot up civilians to keep dictators in power.

      The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections.  The plan should be shared with Congress.  The guideposts should take into account political and security needs and objectives and be linked to specific tasks and accomplishments.  If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility.  It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.

      There's the meat of the speech.  Kerry wants us to cut and run, guaranteeing a civil war when we're gone.  He wants to encourage the terrorists (notice how that word never gets used) to pull back and build strength for after we're gone.  He wants Bush to give Democrats in Congress a stick to beat him with.  The important thing is a Democratic President and Congress, not a success.

      Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army, but until it has one - something that our generals now say could take two more years -

      Stop!  If it will take two more years to get a truly effective, unified Iraqi Army, then what's this bullshit about training on a six-months war footing?  And how long, after the Iraqis get a unified Army, till they don't need us?  And how are we to predict this, today?  But then, this isn't a serious proposal in the first place.

it should make use of its tribal, religious and ethnic militias like the Kurdish pesh merga and the Shiite Badr Brigade to provide protection and help with reconstruction.  Instead of single-mindedly focusing on training a national army, the administration should prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating these militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas.

      Here we have a mystery.  We are already using militias, cautiously, to avoid undercutting the still-forming national Army.  Is Kerry so ignorant he doesn't know this, or so cynically dishonest he recommends what's already happening?

      The administration must work with the Iraqi government to establish a multinational force to help protect its borders. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India.

More cynical blather.      Bring in the UN, and we bring in troops that won't fight, but who will accept oppress the locals and accept bribes to look the other way when terrorists infiltrate.  Again, a mystery: stupidity, or dishonesty?  Probably both, but in what mixture?

      The deployment of capable security forces is critical,

      Stop!  This from the guy who wants everything done fast, on a war-time basis, under a deadline that must be met regardless of conseqences.

but it alone will not end the insurgency, as the administration would have us believe.  Hamstrung by its earlier lack of planning and overly optimistic predictions for rebuilding Iraq, the administration has failed to devote equal attention to working with the Iraqi government on the economic and political fronts.  Consequently, reconstruction is lagging even in the relatively secure Shiite south and Kurdish north. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who fear being disenfranchised, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, roads and sewers being rebuilt and a democratic government being formed, the allure of the insurgency will decrease.

      The man who campaigned on a platform of 'We're spending too much on Iraq' now wants us to spend more.

      Iraq's Sunni neighbors, who complain they are left out, could do more to help. Even short-term improvements, like providing electricity and supplying diesel fuel - an offer that the Saudis have made but have yet to fulfill - will go a long way.

      Well, John, why don't you go overseas and use your magic diplomatic skills to get them to cooperate?

But we need to give these nations a strategic plan for regional security, acknowledging their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent

      And what would such a strategic plan look like?  And given the way the French sell Iran stuff, and you kiss France's ass at every opportunity, what plan would work and still get by you?  I'd love to hear the details.

and their concerns about our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians

      Well, it's interesting to watch Jew hatred spread into the 'respectable parts of the Democratic Pary.

      Look, you tall, French-looking, Jew hating swine, THERE CAN BE NO PEACE BETWEEN THE ISRAELIS AND THE PALESTINIANS AS LONG AS THE PALESTINIANS ARE INTENT ON DESTROYING ISRAEL.  THEREFORE, THE FIRST REQUIREMENT OF PEACE IS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT -- IN ARABIC, ADDRESSED TO THE PALESTIAN PEOPLE AND THE ISRAELIS -- OF ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST AS A JEWISH STATE WITH CONTROL OF ITS BORDERS AND IMMIGRATION POLICY.  THE SECOND REQUIREMENT IS TO OUTLAW ANY GROUP THAT WON'T REPEAT THE REQUIRED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.  THE THIRD REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE OUTLAWED GROUPS' MEMBERS REALLY GET ARRESTED, AND THEIR FUNDING CUT OFF.  Those things can't be done by us, they need to be done by the Arabs.

in return for their help in rebuilding Iraq, protecting its borders, and bringing its Sunnis into the political process.

      Iraq's neighbors are all depotisms, except Turkey, and they all want Iraq to fail.  Ignorance, or dishonety, and in what proportions?

The next months are critical to Iraq's future and our security. If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.

      I thoroughly agree with the last sentence.  But the rest is nonsense.

      If you mean by "out troops at greater risk, casualties rising," that the rate of casualties will increase, that's highly unlikely.  If you mean the number of total casualties will increase, that's certain, unless we cut and run (your real, secret policy).  As for "quagmire staring us in the face," that's another way of saying cut and run.  Our troops deserve better than you.  Fortunately, Bush is better.

John F. Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts.

      A last bit of dishonesty, from the Times.  Question, why did the Times print an Op-Ed from Kerry, rather than some other Democrat?  Answer, because he was the Democratic candidate in the last election.  If we're really so ignorant that we don't know who Kerry was, why not say 'John F. Kerry is a the junior Democratic senator from Massachusetts, and was the Democratic Party candidate for President in the last election.

      That last question is left as an exercise for the reader.

      For more criticism of Kerry, see Greg Djerejian at Belgravia Dispatch, Von at Obsidian Wings, and
John Cole at Ballon Juice.

THE HOUSE OF SAUD MUST BE DESTROYED -- AND WILL BE!
      But Kerry's a loser, he doesn't get his way.

      The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war - a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing. The administration has put itself - and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day - in a box of its own making. Getting out of this box won't be easy, but we owe it to our soldiers to make our best effort.

      Wrong.  There are two groups of terrorists resisting us.  One is the Iraqi Sunnis, who used to rule, and want their positions of power back.  The other is the real, religious fanatic Islamofascist jihadis, who are mostly foreigners.  There's no evidence that the number of Islamofascists is higher than before the Iraq Campaign began.

      Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning.  A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.

      Taking the last idiocy first, the idea that the Administration doesn't have a strategy to succeed is bull stuff.  Translated into straight talk, Kerry says: 'I was right all along.'

      As for his other nonsense:
  • administration ignored the advice of others,

  • went in largely alone,

  • underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency

  • sent in too few troops to secure the country,
  • destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification

  • failed to secure ammunition dumps

  • refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces

  • did no postwar planning

blh blah

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home