| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Kerry slams Bush on Iraq |
| 2004-03-06 |
| EFL Sen. John Kerry slammed President Bush on his treatment of the U.S. military in Iraq Saturday, citing an admission by a senior military official that U.S. troops went into the war unprepared. "If they did it MY way; we could have toppled Saddam in three years, not just three weeks." Massachusetts Sen. Kerry, in the Democratsâ weekly radio address, referred to an admission this week by acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee that U.S. troops were not prepared when the president sent them in to topple Saddam Hussein. Each senior commander was polled by President Bush if they were ready and each said that they were. Is Brownlee saying his generals lied? "Republican and Democratic leaders were right to join together to say to the Bush administration that this is just unacceptable," Kerry said. "If I am president, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests. But I will never send our troops into harmâs way without enough firepower and support." âThatâs why I VOTED for sending in the troops, but VOTED against funding them. That makes sense to you doesnât it. Me either.â Kerry said that U.S. helicopters in Iraq even now "are flying missions without the best available anti-missile systems" and that "un-armored Humvees are falling victim to roadside bombs and small-arms fire". "The Bush administration waited through month after month of ambushes and only acted to start manufacturing armored door kits three months ago," he said. More at Link |
| Posted by:GK |
| #20 Hmmmm, I hear that an incensed relative of a wounded soldier has denounced Kerry for exploiting his family's tragedy for crude election propaganda. Of course, the guy worked as a janitor at Halliburton for two weeks 25 years ago, so his opinions have no credibility. /sarcasm |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-3-6 8:45:26 PM |
| #19 Sen. John F. Kerry ( who is not anything like the real JFK ) says we will be better prepared for any future engagements of American forces if he is President. Where was he at for the past 19 years in the United States Senate. Raising taxes and cutting defense spending , now that is the type of politician we need for the 21st century. Gee maybe he will want to return America to the good old days, the 1990's. What a platform .... let's return to the past, everything was so much better!! Sept. 11, 2001 never happened in the old days. Don't forget the past we can learn from it. |
| Posted by: Blindman13 2004-3-6 8:39:16 PM |
| #18 Steve White, that is quite amazing. CF, you may be right. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-3-6 8:17:20 PM |
| #17 Matt, Dean was a democrat and, to the press, it is ok for them to bash Dean to get Kerry since both are dummycrats. However with Bush, they will *never* cover any of Kerry's record. Example: How they scrutinized bush's military record but nary a word about Kerry's. Another example was the 100K+ strong Iraqi protest against terrorism and for the colilition(sp?) in December which was never covered or even mentioned by major media (but when a self-proclaimed Al-Q spokesman farts its front page news). And yes, I have every farking right to question Kerry's military record. He only served in Vietnam 5 months and managed to get 3 purple hearts in that timeframe? And who were the witnesses to the valor he protrayed 'decoration' he is always talking about - his crewmates (who also receive bronze stars)? And not to mention his after-vietnam activity. Did he lie to congress when he testified in 72? His testamony was based on the 'Winter Soldier' meeting - setup by his organization and later proved to have been a fraud (people 'quoted' had never been there or had never been to Vietnam ...). |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-3-6 8:00:07 PM |
| #16 Steve White (always have to specify which one), Are you importing your Republicans from California or is it vice versa? |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-3-6 7:50:37 PM |
| #15 I live in Illinois just outside Chicago, and unfortunately Illinois will NOT be a battleground state -- it will go Dem 58-42 in November. Why? 1) it's been trending democratic for the past several years right after the state republican party staged a giant, hugely publicized self-immolation 2) Bush won't be on the state ballot in November. That's right, he won't be. See, state law requires each major party to submit their nominee for the ballot by the end of August. No problem, each party has their convention in the summer; the Dems in July and the Repubs in .... oh yeah, it ain't going to be til September this year. That's a problem. So the Repubs in the state legislature put a bill in to amend the law. But the Dems control both the House and Senate, and they refused to consider it unless they could attach an amendment that would forgive a number of politicans for violating the state ethics law these past few years. Which politicans? Guess. The Repubs said no so the bill is dead now. They'll try again this spring but the Dems will play hardball, especially if Illinois begins to look competitive. Last I heard the Repub state chairman was promising "the mother of all write-in" compaigns. That won't win. Sorry to say, but if this holds out Illinois will go Dem, and it'll probably guarantee the Dems the open Senate seat as well. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-3-6 7:41:41 PM |
| #14 RC - no doubt the press is ideologically inclined to hammer Bush but (1) they've still got to sell newspapers, and at some point they'll start selling papers by smacking Kerry around ( look how quickly they turned on Dean) and (2) if I'm wrong about that, I wonder how much an incessant anti-Bush drumbeat is really going to affect swing voters. ("The New York Times endorsed Kerry over Bush? Ethel, hand me my pills.") Mr. Davis, I agree there are large polarized segments of the populace, but if as much as 10% of the electorate has an open mind, then the issue is still very much in doubt. Frank, I agree: Bush's handling of 9/11 has been an historic display of American competence. Speaking of being polarized, I just can't understand the thinking of folks who attack his WoT record. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-3-6 6:14:50 PM |
| #13 Excellent Junkie site Mr. Davis, but Illinois in play? Unlikely. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-3-6 5:53:18 PM |
| #12 I concur Mr. Davis - your comments, while valid, I believe are wrong. But that's what comments are for. Kerry got thru the primary too easily. Most don't know Jack about him (nice snarky JFK hit...heh heh) except that he's been in Viet Nam and the Senate and married well (twice). Time for his picture to be completed by the W campaign, and about f'in time. The Dems have had a field day calling Bush everything but a Stalin. Hitler yes, but too friendly to the rich to be Stalin. I reject their hate speech and welcome a GOP campaign to expose Kerry's real votes, as well as bringing up the W response to 9/11 - if you could've known on 9/12/2001 that Afghanistan would have a constitution and no Taliban in charge, Iraq was liberated and Saddam in a cage, Libya giving up their WMD's voluntarily, Arafat isolated, and Soddy in retreat - all for a cost of less than a thousand precious US lives, would that be a good thing? You FRIGGIN bet! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-3-6 5:48:31 PM |
| #11 If we capture Osama and the entire Al Q general staff, I doubt it would deliver one of the states listed to Bush; well, maybe Maine and Pennsylvania. After visiting this neat site I think Illinois might be a battleground also. And no doubt it is early; that is why I excepted unforseen events, of which there will be some. But the states are polarized. I do not see my own golden state moving out of the Kerry kolumn despite its despicable treatment of its legally elected, now former, governor. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-3-6 5:23:19 PM |
| #10 Does he really think he is gonna get some traction from this? Which way do you think the press is going to vote? Do you think they're going to accurately and honestly cover Kerry's record? Do you think they'll accurately and honestly deal with accusations he makes? How do you think they'll handle Bush's statements? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-3-6 5:20:04 PM |
| #9 Mr. Davis, I don't think that's troll post by any means, but I do think it's premature. Kerry has a lot of momentum going as a result of winning the nomination, and Bush has been hurt by the Kay report and arguably by the marriage amendment brouha. Ten weeks ago (after "we got him") Bush was at 60% and Kerry was deader than Uday. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-3-6 5:12:33 PM |
| #8 Outside of NY and CA and of course most of my state, Kerry is screwed. Don't forget Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii. I'm sure this will get me troll howls, but the truth is, this election will be close and will be decided in Pennsylvania and Missouri, barring unforseen events. If Gephardt is VP, it could be very tough. Just exactly how stupid does Kerry think we are I wonder? Stupid enough to have elected Clinton twice. But he's dumb enough not to realize Nader won't help him as much as Perot helped Clinton. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-3-6 4:42:04 PM |
| #7 John bin Saddam joined with such notables as Teddy Kennedy, Robert C. Byrd and Tom Harkin in voting to DEFUND the Iraq war denying our men and women in uniform in a war zone AMMO, food, medical care, transportation and so on. It is John bin Saddam and his ilk who provided AID and COMFORT to the Saddamites giving them the will to continue their futile murderous terrorist ways. John bin Saddam gave hope to the enemy -- thereby getting US military personnel killed and wounded, AGAIN!!! |
| Posted by: Garrison 2004-3-6 4:36:24 PM |
| #6 This F***tard is dead meat in November. The media is salivating at the possiblity an old time East coast Liberal could become president, that just ain't gonna happen. Outside of NY and CA and of course most of my state, Kerry is screwed. I saw an ad some where that showed a couple of kids and the caption "Bush fights for you". GW's got it wrong, he ought to be airing the ad that shows Kerry on his hands and knees before the security council that say "Kerry capitulates for you". Just exactly how stupid does Kerry think we are I wonder? |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-3-6 4:20:02 PM |
| #5 Amusingly, a lot of the troops ended up with BETTER than milspec, a trend inspired by SpecOps in Afghanistan I believe; look at the return of the 1911 pistol (as opposed to the weaker M9), goggle covers, and a variety of aftermarket gear ... |
| Posted by: Lu Baihu / Edward Yee 2004-3-6 4:10:48 PM |
| #4 Ah oh..This means another Kerry Hearing. I wonder what crimes out troops will be indicted for now. I'm sure his highness John Fonda Kerry will no doubt bring in "unbiased" friends like the French, Koreans, and Iranians to complete his "commisssion". Along with his wifes friends A.N.S.W.E.R etc this should feed the liberal press for months maybe years to come. |
| Posted by: dataman1 2004-3-6 4:05:00 PM |
| #3 So is Kerry saying that he's going to increase defense spending? |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-3-6 3:54:42 PM |
| #2 Maybe if john Fonda Kerry hadn't have voted against every major defense system the troops may have been better armed. |
| Posted by: Denny 2004-3-6 3:44:54 PM |
| #1 I love it when an enemy is so stupid they set up an ambush for later on. This is the foo' that voted against all manner of defense increases throughout his shameful career, in effect providing the basis for shortcomings in military equipment. Does he really think he is gonna get some traction from this? |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-3-6 3:31:09 PM |