| Subject: A quote rebutted |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/ 1/04 9:52pm
In reply to:
Duane
's message, "Tall? Handsome? Certainly not a potential world leader..." on 10/ 1/04 12:32am
I found the transcript of the debate online, and I'd like to address one of your points with the actual words of John Kerry in the debate last night.
*You said:
>Notice that, when asked, "Specifically, what would you
>do about our situation in Iraq," he didn't answer, and
>instead went on a 2 minute tirade about what Bush was
>doing wrong.
*What follows is the question Kerry was asked about Iraq, and Kerry's response.
-------
LEHRER: Speaking of your plan, new question, Senator Kerry. Two minutes.
Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario, time lines, et cetera, for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq?
KERRY: The time line that I‘ve set out—and again, I want to correct the president, because he‘s misled again this evening on what I‘ve said. I didn‘t say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the things that I‘ve set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months.
And I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn‘t have long-term designs on it.
As I understand it, we‘re building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they‘ve got a rather permanent concept to them.
When you guard the oil ministry, but you don‘t guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, “Wow, maybe they‘re interested in our oil.”
Now, the problem is that they didn‘t think these things through properly. And these are the things you have to think through.
What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders.
You‘ve got to show you‘re serious in that regard. But you‘ve also got to show that you are prepared to bring the rest of the world in and share the stakes.
I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.
And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace.
But that‘s how we‘re going to win the peace, by rapidly training the Iraqis themselves.
Even the administration has admitted they haven‘t done the training, because they came back to Congress a few weeks ago and asked for a complete reprogramming of the money.
Now what greater admission is there, 16 months afterwards. “Oops, we haven‘t done the job. We have to start to spend the money now. Will you guys give us permission to shift it over into training?”
------
To me, he only mentioned the things Bush did wrong to highlight what he thinks the correct response should be. I don't see anything wrong with that, and I certainly wouldn't classify it as a "two-minute tirade about what Bush was doing wrong." He sets out some actual goals, as far as one can really do in two minutes, and I think he answered the question that was asked. If anyone didn't answer the questions at hand, it was Bush, who continually went back to the same old song about Kerry voting one way, and then another.
Ben
p.s. On the subject of the debate, did anyone else notice the rather interesting personal moment that was shared when their daughters were brought up? It was very human, and I found it somewhat moving. I didn't expect it, I guess.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 