Doug's Views

I read an article on Yahoo News today that ticked me off. It was an article about John Kerry’s reaction to Bush’s so-called press conference on Tuesday.

Here is what ticked me off:

“The president made clear what we all share, which is a sense that the United States of America is going to be resolute and tough and make certain that we accomplish our mission,” Kerry said.

Other nations share the U.S. goal of stability in Iraq and, if elected president, Kerry said he would use his powers of persuasion to convince them that their interests demand they share in the effort.

“Our soldiers are bearing the brunt of this operation,” Kerry said. “Our military is to some degree overextended. American soldiers are bearing the huge majority, the lion’s share of this.”

Republicans rejected the criticism, with Bush’s re-election campaign chairman Marc Racicot calling Kerry’s comments “a political attack that is very, very seriously undermining our efforts in Iraq and in the war on terror.”

In a conference call with reporters, Racicot said Kerry simply blames America for provoking the attacks in Iraq without offering a competing vision that addresses the war on terrorism. 

The full story here

First of all, Kerry’s criticism is not “undermining our efforts in Iraq.” The radical Muslims don’t care what Kerry says about Bush’s Iraq policy. All they know is the devil is in their house and they must die.

It is interesting to note that the current outbreak of violence has nothing to do with Saddam or his supporters. It is probably the first volley in a renewed power struggle among the different religious sects in Iraq. Each sect believes they should be the only power in Iraq.

The person who us actually undermining the US in Iraq is Ahmed Chalabi.

Ahmed Chalabi, the neocons’ choice to run Iraq, appears to have been responsible for the disastrous decision to move against Muqtada al-Sadr.

Why did they do it? It seemed a safe bet to the civilian echelon policymakers at the Department of Defense when they approved Coalition Provisional Authority administrator L. Paul Bremer’s fateful decision to close down the newspaper of Muqtada al-Sadr and to arrest an aide to the young firebrand Shiite cleric. Even after Shiite Iraq had erupted into fury over the moves on Saturday, April 3, top-level Pentagon policymakers were privately still convinced it was all a storm in a teacup.

Chalabi, longtime exile leader, has never had a power base within Iraq. He is a smooth operator, convicted of embezzling millions from the Petra Bank of Jordan — sentenced in absentia to 22 years of hard labor — but championed by the neoconservatives of Washington.

Just as Bremer will not make the slightest move without the approval of his Pentagon bosses, the Defense Department policymakers continue to rely on Chalabi alone for their political assessments on Iraq. In private conversation, as in public, they remain amazingly enthusiastic about Chalabi’s supposed political skills, and even genius, and proclaim repeatedly that he is the only man with the brilliance to hold Iraq together and make it work. Give Chalabi a free hand after June 30 and give him all the U.S. firepower he wants to crush his foes — this is their master plan; there is no other. 

Complete article here

Marc Racicot says that Kerry’s comments are “undermining our efforts in Iraq and in the war on terror.”

Iraq has always been, absent contrary proof, a tertiary part of the war on terrorism. In fact, the Bush administration has undermined their war on terrorism by invading Iraq before Bin Laden had been dealt with completely in Afghanistan.

Lastly Racicot makes the ridiculous statement: “Kerry simply blames America for provoking the attacks in Iraq without offering a competing vision that addresses the war on terrorism.”

Kerry isn’t simply or difficultly blaming America for provoking the attacks in Iraq. Bush is the one who ordered the invasion of Iraq. Iraq didn’t attack us first. Kerry is pointing out the issues with Bush’s Iraq policy.

As for Kerry not “offering a competing vision that addresses the war on terrorism,” I would like to know what Bush’s vision for addressing the war on terror that as Kerry has said doesn’t needlessly infringe on our civil rights as the Patriot Act does today.