Centerfield

More of the same. With this new strategy of making promises that he can't keep like troop withdrawal and international cooperation, and claims of secretive Bush war plans, Kerry is making himself look worse, not better.

I think the debates will be scripted non-events, with each candidate sounding similiar on Iraq. The media will focus on personalities and not policy. Keep in mind, only one of the debates will be about Iraq.

My understanding that the first debate will focus on foreign policy and the last debate will focus on domestic issues, but the middle debate will be open to all issues, including Iraq.

That is correct. I had not read the story yet today that they had agreed to three debates. I was under the impression that there where only going to be two.

Anyone think the CBS apology over Rathergate today will outplay Kerry's speech? Talk about taking away from the debate on real issues... Geesh. Rather's career is over.

Mathew,

Maybe he's pointing out (and taking political advantage of) many of the Bush screw-ups?

I know you would prefer to dismiss everything as 'more of the same', but I suspect that this is one speech that you hope the voters do not hear very much of very many times. Rhetorically, it's right where Kerry needs to be: pointing out INCOMPETENCE in a very plain-spoken way.

Let's see how many voters respond on Nov 2nd.

Meanwhile, Bob Novak is reporting that the Bush would likely withdraw next year.

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.

I agree, Mathew. I don't see how we can expect to pull out of Iraq in four years, and saying that puts Kerry in an awfully precarious position. I mean, we're kidding ourselves if we allow ourselves to believe that we're not in this permanently. I don't really think we'll be fighting there on this scale for scores of years (or at least I *hope* not), but let's get real. We want bases in Iraq and there is no way we're going to willingly relinquish our footing in that country. We fully intend to be a presence there for decades whether Iraqis like it or not. I imagine that we'd ideally like to fade into the background as things normalize (which will be awhile), but now that we're there, there will always be a U.S. presence in that nation.

I also agree with you regarding the debates. What can possibly be said that hasn't already been said, analyzed, and fully digested and spit back out already? The only thing the debates will do is serve to highlight personalites, and we all know who has the edge there.

We want bases in Iraq and there is no way we're going to willingly relinquish our footing in that country. We fully intend to be a presence there for decades whether Iraqis like it or not.

I don't have any source for this claim. It's opinion, by the way. Sorry I didn't state that. :-)

"5)...and a pony. Ponies for everyone. George Bush has no ponies. I do."

Seriously though, it's not so hard to say what you want to happen, it's how you're going to do it. This then, is not really a plan, it's just a wish list. It's not like we're not trying to train Iraqi security forces, reconstruct infrastructure, or move towards elections. So what if Kerry is strongly in favor of outcomes that no one really disagrees about. Big freeking deal.

Sodoes the "plan" to make these things happen go something like this:

Get more help by asking. Train Iraqis by advertising for jobs, holding classes, and handing out uniforms and weapons. Foster elections by teaching people how wonderful democracy is and engaging stakeholders in meaningful dialogue. Rebuilt the country by spending tons of money on tons of wire, concrete, pipe, etc.

Yeah, if all these wonderful things somehow happen, then we can realistically aim to bring our troops home. But what if it's really hard, John? What if the trained troops are lousy and untrustworthy? What if after all the dialogue everyone sticks to their original viewpoints and still thinks you rule by treachery and force, and all we get is stalemate? What if the stuff we build keeps getting destroyed and the workers killed? What if we really keep having trouble making these wish list points happen? What then, John? George? Anyone?

Erasmus,

Kerry isn't saying anything that hasn't been said already, he simply is focusing on the Iraq issue because his attempt to focus on domestic issues ended last week with a Gallup Poll having him down by 12 and a New York Times poll having him down by 9. Carla can talk about how she is done with the polls but the writing is on the wall, Kerry is bleeding. How many times is the guy going to switch strategies before you realize that there simply isn't much there.

His line is that Bush is incompetent in Iraq, but if you elect me I will do the same exact thing he will do, but it will be different because I am not him. Then he piles on a bunch of promises that nobody in their right mind would consider to be realistic. Sort of sounds like a stereotypical New England elitist if you ask me. If Kerry can do differently, he should say how and stick with if for more than a few days. The trouble is, he doesn't have the ability to articulate a consistent message mostly because the flip flop lable has stuck, which is exactly why Bubba and centrist Democrats are worried about him even bringing up the issue.

Seriously, I hope the speech gets play. I hope the debates are the best we've seen since Kennedy/Nixon. I hope that we have an honest exchange of ideas. If Kerry actually did something he has not been able to do his entire career, which is to present a case, and was elected, I would not lose any sleep at night. However, I am long done holding out for the man.

I agree with Mathew. I think what he is saying is a wish list. The problem is there is no solution other than to keep muddling through or just get out. I don't think the UN or anyone else is going to want to get involved in Iraq. I hate to say it, but I think Bush might be in a better position to withdraw than Kerry would be. He could easily declare victory and get the hell out, while Kerry would have a much more difficult time doing so.

Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are the current plan. As for bringing in more countries. What countries? What resources? Tell me what we get from Kerry's plan that is different from the current plan? Success? Who can promise that on either side? Whew! I feel better!

What edudude said.

(And hey edudude--thanks for that wonderful title line, Don't Misunderestimate the Importance of Strategery. Wonderful!)

Kerry's message is "Bush made this mess, trust me to clean it up"

Bush's message: "There is no mess, trust me to clean it up."

It would be nice if either candidate could offer a specific, credible plan -- but, hell is there ANYONE out there, in or out of government, with a specific, credible plan?

I have little reason to think that Kerry can effectively deal with Iraq.

OTOH, I have no reason whatsoever to think that Bush can.

I have little reason to think that Kerry can effectively deal with Iraq. OTOH, I have no reason whatsoever to think that Bush can.

And that right there seems to be the crux of the problem, and it sort of seems like we all agree on that point more or less. I know Iraq isn't the *only* issue upon which we should judge the candidates, but are there any of you out there who are so disillusioned with our choices that you're planning to do a write-in?

Amy,

None other than Centerfield blogger, the great Heather Feuerhelm, has been pushing a Lieberman/McCain or McCain/Lieberman write-in for some time now. I agree with Bill Swann, as moderates and centrists we will be unsatisfied with our choices until we launch a successful Independent candidate for President. Although I am more pessimistic about the probable success of such a venture, I more and more everyday wonder why somebody doesn't get serious about such an idea, if not now, than for 2008.

Anybody watch Bobby and Jack last night? Great show for political junkies like myself. It is about the childhood of two brothers, one of which (Bobby) grows up to be a Republican Governor who gets killed in the 2040 Presidential primary because he is too liberal, so he announces his candidacy as an Independent and wins. It might be a fantasy, but we got to dream, right?

Hey! McCain-Lieberman is MY brain storm/fart.

Sorry about that Oberon! I inferred more from your comment than you meant. Thanks for clarifying.

I don't mean to derail this thread, but I need you guys to educate me one more time. Regarding write-ins, I understand McCain--I like him a lot, myself. But you know, Lieberman has completely slipped under my radar (I know that's incredibly pathetic considering that he ran for the VP slot in 2000 and was trying to gain the Dem nod for pres. for this election, but I guess I get distracted by shiny objects). What is his draw? I'd appreciate some enlightenment. Anyone can feel free to comment to me directly if you don't want to post off-topic. Thanks!

Lieberman-the only dem candidate who ran that wouldn't play "I'm more anti-war than you."

if you happened to see the Lieberman-Cheney debate in 2000, you saw a statesman: reasonable, informed, eye-on-the-ball, able to discuss things without devolving into foaming at the mouth. A real live genuine adult in a way that neither Bush nor Kerry is. Someone you feel would put the country's interests above his party's.

No worries. The word "disillusioned" got me thinking -- I try not too expect too much from politicians. Besides, if you hit anybody with a $100 million attack machine, flaws become rather apparent.

On Iraq, however, I count among the disillusioned. I believed the president and thought this was a good idea.

LOL these comments crack me up.

Bush doesn't awknowledge that there's even a problem in Iraq...but he's still better able to handle the problems in Iraq.

It's just one big clusterf---, isn't it?

Kerry is laying out a plan. Will it work? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's quite obvious however that Bush's "plan" (or more accurately, lack thereof) is a complete disaster.

And frankly...Bush leaving Iraq and declaring victory does what, exactly? Give Bush a short term victory that leaves the Iraqis in civil war. And we're all okay with this?

I can't believe such an articulate group of individuals doesn't look at this from the practical perspective. We leave Iraq...it goes into civil war. It becomes an even larger haven for terrorists. In other words..it's the new Afghanistan...only this time, with a resource: oil.

And everyone here is hand wringing over Kerry. This is ridiculous.

I agree with Carla. If I can be convinced that Novak's reporting is correct, I'm voting for Kerry.

Carla, 2 obvious points:

No one really believes Novak.

Kerry's plan isn't a plan, it's just a wish list of nice goals that Kerry would like to see happen, just like everyone else. When Kerry explains how he's going to make this list of obvious goals into reality in the face of current difficulties, then he'll have what sane individuals recognize as an actual plan. Calling it a plan doesn't make it a plan. Comparing it to actions taken by the Bush admin in Iraq so far also doesn't make it a plan.

Goals: what you want to achieve.

Plan: details for how to achieve those goals.

I agree with Todd.

If I where to be convinced that Novak is right, and Bush is intending to pull out of Iraq after saying that we shouldn't make plans to pull out of Iraq because it sends the wrong signal, then I would not vote for him. I don't put much weight into anything Novak says though. In his old age he has become more and more apt to say things just so someone will pay attention to him.

I am not saying an exit strategy is bad, but withdrawing for the sake of withdrawing would be immoral. Until either candidate tells me how they would actually make such a move I take any promise to withdraw troops as nothing more than political fodder intended to gather votes of those swing voters who are nervous about the war. It is in the same category of statements that suggest Bush has secret plans to deploy more reserves.

The Democrats have gone this route before. When John Kerry was involved in a pissing match over who was the biggest pro-war candidate in the primaries, before he said he was an anti-war candidate I might add, he warned over and over again that the Republicans are prepared to cut and run in Iraq. Which in his words would be a "disaster." Now he is telling us that within four years all the troops would be out if we elect him, without telling us how he would do such a thing. His credibilty has been shot all to hell to the point where even if he gets elected, Republicans will take him apart.

Points #2,#3, and #4 of Kerry's plan are obvious copies of Bush's existing plan. Train Iraqis to secure themselves, rebuild the country, hold elections.

The only substantive difference is Kerry's suspect claim that if he is elected, many countries would be newly willing to contribute in Iraq.

The central theme of the speech is defeatism.

Hey Tully, thanks for the notice!

I feel like I'm watching a political version of Name That Tune.
Kerry - "I can get the troops out in four years."
Bush - "I can get them out in three years."
Kerry - "I can get them out next summer."
(audience oohs loudly)
Bush - "Get the troops out!"

They'll cme home when circumstances permit. And no one controls circumstances, yet.

Matthew,

Where did Kerry promise to withdraw troops? I thought he said said it as a goal, not a promise.

And if his credibility is shot to hell in your view, does Bush have any more credibility?

bk:

LOL are we somehow supposed to believe that anything having to do with Iraq on Bush's side is anything other than "wishful thinking"? Why is what Bush does a "plan" but what Kerry says "wishful thinking"?

Bush hasn't articulated a plan for Iraq. Bush has executed a series of very serious and bungled strategies that have taken a country that was weak but stable and sent it diving into a very likely civil war. Whether you believe Novak or not..Bush has no intention of getting more outside resources to offset US costs (lives and dollars) and his so-called coalition is crumbling (Last week Costa Rica bailed, this week New Zealand). Iraq is a serious albatross for Bush and they can't fix it...so they'll either have to accept the albatross or cut it off. Given how these guys have a propensity to take zero responsibility for their actions..a likely scenario is to cut it off.

Incidentally...why is Novak not credible? It's not like the White House hasn't used him before (Plame).

Kerry's goal has been from the beginning to get us out of Iraq in a way that is responsible. His plan, as articulated, would attempt to do that. It's head and shoulders over anything Bush has tried to do or appears capable of.

Neither Kerry nor Bush are the best America has. I am voting for the office of president which include appointees and actual platform. Looks like both left and right agree IRAQ could not be a worse mess and getting worse monthly and basically lost. The main reason we can't leave is how both our friends and enemies would react longer term. The alternative to leaving IRAQ is basically killing several million people in the region including an awful lot of women and children. And it may eventually come to this and easily done, but America would be even a bigger pariah and deservably. At this point, I doubt if any solution would be different under Bush or Kerry or anyone else. As a moderate I believe in checks and balances. So I am voting for Kerry and his crew to audit what Bush is doing. Also, I think Kerry has a slightly better chance working with other countries in a more international solution.

I'm not bowled over by Kerry's plan, but the truth is that no one has any good answers. Furthermore, any specifics he might propose will probably be moot by the time inauguration day rolls around.

Kerry needs to make the case that Bush's judgment has been terrible (which it has with regard to Iraq). He needs to avoid defeatism--Iraq is not "lost" But while I value optimism, Bush's sunny pronouncements regarding Iraq are either display a lack of connection to reality, or more likely, a cynical attempt to keep the public uninformed of the true situation until the election is past.

Carla, I never said that Bush had an articulated plan. All both have done is to describe goals. That's what this sentence means to point out:

What if we really keep having trouble making these wish list points happen? What then, John? George? Anyone?

You keep willfully ignoring my oft-stated position that both Bush and Kerry are stiffs. Why not stop ignoring the point that 3 of Kerry's goals (whic he calls plans) are essentially the same as ones previously stated by the Bush admin? When Kerry describes specific things he is going to do to foster native Iraqi security forces and free elections, then he has a PLAN. If these plans describe things that are substantially different in nature than what we are trying over there right now, then he could conceivably claim that he has an actual plan, that it calls for a different approach, and that it might work better. But all he's doing now is handing out a laundry list of desirable goals and 3 of the 4 stated goals are ones largely agreed upon by almost everyone. This is blindingly obvious, IMO.

Novak? The obvious reason to doubt him at this point is that the entirety of his evidence is a single source which he won't name. That's what we fair-minded people call hearsay. We have no way whatsoever of determining whether it's true. My default position in such cases is that pending actual evidence that lends it some credence, I don't give it any. This stands in direct contrast to the partisan opportunist practice of trying to build a cathedral on any rumor that supports your guy, and calling a rumor that doesn't support your guy hearsay. Outside the echo chambers, hearsay is hearsay.

Everyone go take a surf over to Carla's Preemptive Karma, which proudly trumpets two hearsay stories which seem to contradict one another. On the one hand, well-placed sources claim that a big National Guard call up is on the way, yet at the same time Bush plans to bring our guys home right after getting elected. Carla, how do you walk with a set that big?

Oberon,

I disagree with Bush about 40-50% of the time, but I trust his leadership. I don't feel Bush has lied to me, although I wish he would be more forthcoming with the reality that the justification for war was flawed. What it comes down to is I sleep better at night knowing that Bush is in charge over Kerry, probably because I still consider myself to be a Republican. If we are talking about issues it is probably six in one and half a dozen in the other.

Carla,

Exactly, he is a partisan pitbull, a mouthpiece, not a credible journalist. Brian, brings up a good point, is Bush going to deploy troops or bring them home and which is a bad policy? They can't both be wrong, right? I am sorry, but I think your interest has become to elect Kerry no matter what you have to say in order to do it, which is consistent with the candidate himself. I still enjoy listening, however.

Furthermore, I agree that both have more or less stated goals and not plans. What would have been done for me to vote for Kerry, which is far past being a possibility, would have been for him to make a case about why we should change horses. This involves not only stating that there where mistakes during war time, duh, but telling me how those mistakes would have been any different under President Kerry. He didn't do that today, and he loses validity when he says the difference is that he would not have gone to war because in the past he has not only strongly defended that decision, he voted for it's authorization. The argument that he voted that way because he believes President's need to have the authority makes me sick. Read "Worth the Figthing For" and listen to John McCain's justification for voting against Lebanon. You don't vote for a war that you think is wrong if you have an ounce of integrity, and Kerry has convinced me that he doesn't.

This involves not only stating that there where mistakes during war time, duh, but telling me how those mistakes would have been any different under President Kerry.

I don't understand how you write this. Granted, Kerry's had the benefit of hindsight in some cases, but he's said over and over again some thinsg that would have been different. For example he's repeatedly said

- would have put more boots on the ground in Afghanistan instead of relying on Afghans to capure bin Laden at Tora Bora

- would have put more effort into getting a broader coalition on Iraq,

- would have had a plan for post-Saddam Iraq (the State Dept produced a detailed plan for adminstration, but Bush went with "be greeted as liberators").

#3, in IMHO, is the most critical failure of all, and the one where Bush deserves the greatest blame.