Kerry: Flip Flops are still in style

Published on October 28, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

JOhn Kerry still cant get his story straight, even when he writes it down! IN a speech 2 days ago at Georgetown University, Kerry called for increasing Troops in Iraq, or at least voiced support for such a position:

When they could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. They were wrong.

But then just moments later, he is calling for a draw down of troops!

it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down

He was for more troops before he was for less troops. Does that mean the number of troops is "Just Right"?

Comments (Page 1)

singrdave

on Oct 28, 2005

I am going to play Devil's Advocate:

Ummm...

Nope, I got nothing. No logical response to Kerry's blather, other than the automatic gainsaying of "Bush was wrong then and he is equally wrong now, but only more so."

Dr Guy

on Oct 28, 2005

"Bush was wrong then and he is equally wrong now, but only more so."

At least in that, he is not flip flopping.

Moderateman

on Oct 28, 2005

More liberalspeak: we need to win this war on terror, but withdraw all our troops now.

Chakgogka

on Oct 28, 2005

[SINGS]
The Grand old Duke of York
He had ten thousand men
He marched them up to the top of the hill
Then he marched them down again.

When they were up, they were up
When they were down, they were down
When they were only half way up
They were neither up nor down.

Sinister Rouge

on Oct 28, 2005

It's amazing how you obfuscate Kerry's words.

When he says:

When they could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. They were wrong.

He means in the runup to war, the administration should've planned to place more infrantry into Iraq to keep the peace. Now that it's too late, and the insurgency has grown due to the low troop levels, the best way to avoid more attacks is to withdraw the troops, since they're being targeted by insurgents.

Nice try, though.

Dr Guy

on Oct 28, 2005

More liberalspeak: we need to win this war on terror, but withdraw all our troops now.

You are getting good at it!

Dr Guy

on Oct 28, 2005

Reply By: Chakgogka

That is great! But Kerry is French. I dont think he knows English!

Dr Guy

on Oct 28, 2005

When they could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. They were wrong.

He means in the runup to war, the administration should've planned to place more infrantry into Iraq to keep the peace. Now that it's too late, and the insurgency has grown due to the low troop levels, the best way to avoid more attacks is to withdraw the troops, since they're being targeted by insurgents.

Nice try, though.

Uh, no. I quoted him, you are spinning him. Not even nice try on your part. if he wanted to say "on the run up" (and if you read it in context you know he is NOT saying that), he could have.

bad try! Not even decent! not even credible! Lame boy! Lame!

citahellion

on Oct 28, 2005

Even taking the spin as a reasonable reading, what I get from it is this:

(a) We should have put more troops on the ground to beat the insurgents quickly.

Okay, That's fine. I'm all in favor of using overwhelming force to crush an enemy as quickly as possible, break their spirit for resistance, and leave them battered and begging. Somehow, though, I don't recall Kerry ever offering this opinion, or proposing it as a course of action, or even backing the General, when it might have been useful.

(

Since we didn't break them quickly, and instead they're getting stronger, we should leave.

Um, What? You just said "beat them quickly, with overwhelming force". What's this all about now? "Cut our losses?" "Make ourselves smaller targets?" Surely you don't think the insurgents are too big now and we can no longer beat them with overwhelming force...? If it was good advice then, it's still good advice now. Maybe more expensive, but we're worried about lives, not dollars, right?

Dr Guy

on Oct 28, 2005

Um, What? You just said "beat them quickly, with overwhelming force". What's this all about now? "Cut our losses?" "Make ourselves smaller targets?" Surely you don't think the insurgents are too big now and we can no longer beat them with overwhelming force...? If it was good advice then, it's still good advice now. Maybe more expensive, but we're worried about lives, not dollars, right?

Huh? My head is spinning! Are you trying to Kerry us?

I will only disagree on the timing, not the intent.

Sinister Rouge

on Oct 28, 2005

Edit: Pressed submit too many times. This is my only fault.

Sinister Rouge

on Oct 28, 2005

"Uh, no. I quoted him, you are spinning him. Not even nice try on your part. if he wanted to say "on the run up" (and if you read it in context you know he is NOT saying that), he could have.

bad try! Not even decent! not even credible! Lame boy! Lame!"

Do you know how to read?

It's great that you quoted him, but you are the one who is spinning what he is saying. If you think about it (I know it's tough when you're a conservative) why would he imply General Shinseki is suggesting to put more troops in after the war?

If you read the darn speech he said

"When they could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have learned from George Herbert Walker Bush and built a genuine global coalition, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have implemented a detailed State Department plan for reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq, they chose not to."

He is talking about the run-up to the war.

kingbee

on Oct 29, 2005

(

apparently you (and dr guy) missed generals casey and abizaid advocating exactly that while testifying before congress around the first of the month.

"During his congressional testimony, Army Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said that troop reductions were necessary to "take away one of the elements that fuels the insurgency, that of the coalition forces as an occupying force."

A smaller U.S. presence could alleviate some of the anger feeding the insurgency, Casey suggested.

The same approach may prove helpful across the Middle East, commanders said. The Central Command's Gen. John P. Abizaid, who supervises all U.S. troops in the region, said the broader fight against Islamic extremism required the United States to "reduce our military footprint" across the region and push governments in the Middle East to fight the extremists themselves."

Link

Dr Guy

on Oct 29, 2005

It's great that you quoted him, but you are the one who is spinning what he is saying. If you think about it (I know it's tough when you're a conservative) why would he imply General Shinseki is suggesting to put more troops in after the war?

I know it is difficult for a liberal to read multi-syllable words, btu that is indeed what he said, To maintain the peace.....Did you even read his speech? or were there too many big words?

Dr Guy

on Oct 29, 2005

He is talking about the run-up to the war.

No, stupid. you do not maintain order before you kick their butts! you maintain order after you kick their butts! You really are dense.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!