Kerry is well...Kerry. I am convinced that he would have been totally lost in the White House. He is the official puppet, with strings and all, of the democratic party.

At the exact point when he states his opinion a string is pulled and ol democratic company line comes out.

Kerry is spineless as usual and showing once more why he should not be president. But he is sticking his finger and seeing which way the wind is blowing. The American people are giving up on this war. I hope the president continues to get in front of it (I was actually pleased with his remarks yesterday). But this is 2 and a half years after declaring major combat operations over on 5-1-03 on the Abe Lincoln and it seems that the administation is losing the hearts and minds of Americans. Oh sure. We'll all have purple fingers on December 15 and we'll have passed another corner. Heard this before ? Well, the American people have and they're starting to get restless. It's getting hard to measure progress here. The administration has to stay agressive in pushing its case. It's not enough to trash Jack Murtha (something that frankly did not seem to work at all). They have to sell the American people why we must stay the course. Yesterday was a good start.

Von Bek is right about Kerry going which way the wind blows. He says what he thinks will make him popular. However, he happens to be right. Unless Bush can put forth a reasonable plan to stabilize Iraq in a reasonable amount of time, I do not see why we should not pull out now.

Karol: And what is wrong with the word insurgent? When these people attack civilians, they are terrorists but when they attack American or Iraqi soldiers, the word terrorist is inappropriate. Unless by terrorist, you mean people you just don't like.

What if they kill half civilians and half troops? What is majority civilians and a few troops? An insurgent is someone trying to bring down the established order in their own country. Most of the terrorists in Iraq are from neighboring countries. Or, does that not matter when you're against the war?

Good catch on the Kerry flip-flopping (there's a nostalgia-inducing phrase). I remember finding it odd during the campaign seeing people with "Bring Our Troops Home" and "Kerry '04" bumper stickers, evidently unaware that Kerry had called for higher troop levels in Iraq.

What's wrong with calling them "insurgents"? Havent' Bush, Rumsfeld, and all the generals used that word all along?

Hmm. Looks like there are some other politicians with their fingers in the air.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-1898794,00.html

***yawn***

Wow, it really is like campaign '04 all over again! That's an interesting list. Some of those are valid (like caving in on "campaign finance reform" and steel tarrifs), some are ridiculous (#22 especially sticks out), some are meaningless (wow, he was pro-choice in 1978) and some ignore that there was this little event that happened between 2000 and 2004 that might have changed his mind about foreign policy. Kerry's reputation came about because he never seemed to have a consistent position even at any one time. I don't think he's ever said, for instance, whether he would have invaded Iraq had he been president at the time.

A little lesson that the people here and apparently our Commander and Chief needs to learn about a military campaign.

In 3 Simple Steps:

1. The invading military force must be large enough to defeat the enemies 'regular' armed forces and win the 'war'.

2. The occupying force must be large enough to bring about order and stability to the defeated country that is now in a state of massive upheavel.
The occupying force must be large enough to provide security for the population.
If the occupying force is not large enough then stability, security and order will collapse.
The occupying force should be large enough to provide some kind of border security.
To stop foreign insurgents from crossing in and WMD and wanted regime members from going out.

3. The occupation forces must help in nation building. When the occupied country has set up its own government and is trying to provide its own security the occupying force should be withdrawn in stages while the new government gets on its feet. If the presence of the occupation force is a reason for the instability then the speed of withdrawal should be accelerated.

George W. did step 1.
He screwed up step 2.
And we are now at step 3 and debating about when and how fast with withdrawal should happen.

Now to Kerry.
He wanted more troops during step 2.
Karol's quoute is from a debate dated September 30, 2004. That would be deep in the heart of step 2.

Now we are in the Fall of 2005 and in the middle of nation building or step 3. Kerry is asking for a troop withdrawal if the upcoming Iraqi elections are successful.

Sorry Karol and Yaron. But this is not a flip flop. Two very seperate stages and time frames in the cronology of taking over then rebuilding a country.

from Steve
"What's wrong with calling them "insurgents"? Havent' Bush, Rumsfeld, and all the generals used that word all along?"

They also called islam a religion of peace :)

Karol:

You are lumping people together. There are foreign terrorists in Iraq. There are also a lot of local Iraqis who are insurgents. Some are also terrorists. But calling all of them terrorists is just propaganda.

Paul, the words you're putting in John Kerry's mouth sound familiar. Oh yeah, his "new plan" is actually BA policy for over a year. What do we need John Kerry and his "plan" for, anyway?

spongeworthy, My words 'I put in Kerrys mouth' were the same ones that Karol quoted for Kerry in her post. I just put them in context.

Kerry's plan or Bush's plan has nothing to do with my comment. Karol's post is about flip flopping, my comment is about not flip flopping.
Your comment is about something else.

So you are saying that Kerry's withdrawal plan is the same as Bush's withdrawal plan. That is all well and good. Maybe we can all get along then.

Karol, what is Kerry referring too?

"Every troop I've met in Iraq comes up to me and says, 'Thanks for speaking out on this."

The original source your link points too provides absolutely no context.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_11_27_corner-archive.asp#083542

The link you used put the quote in a different context than you did. They set it up as saying the troops are thanking Kerry for criticizing Bush for using the military as a backdrop for his speech.
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/006064.html

And the context you put the quote in is about needing or not needing more troops...

What is the real context?