PACE: Bush Admin NOW Advocating Kerry's 2004 Terrorism Strategy

[kpete]

Pace Takes Page from Kerry Playbook?

Back in 2004, John Kerry got hammered relentlessly for likening the fight against terrorism to the fight against crime.

"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," Kerry said. "As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."

Will the same folks that beat on Kerry now slam the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace?

Asked in an interview, on MSNBC, if the United States was winning in Iraq, the general replied: "You have to define winning. I don’t mean to be glib about that. Winning to me is simply having each of the nations that we’re trying to help have a secure environment inside of which their government and their people can function..."

"Example: Here in Washington, D.C., there’s crime, but there’s a police force," he said. "And the police force keeps the level of crime below the level at which the government can function. That’s really what winning in the war on terrorism is."

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002955.html

[redqueen]

1. Hah.

Watch them never admit it.

[AndyA]

2. Oh no, it's nothing like that.

This is black. That was Onyx.

This is red. That is vermillion.

Understand now? More hypocrisy from the "do as I say, not as I do" party.

:sarcasm:

[blm]

4. The corporate media piled on w/Rove talking points instead of examining the issue.

Even George Will said Kerry was right all along about this.

Because, basically, Kerry KNEW more about the REAL TRACKING of terrorists and their global networks than any lawmaker in DC, but the media chose to MOCK HIM with Rove's talking points, instead.

[jwirr]

7. Which begs the question: Are MSM just ignorant or are they

deliberately ignorant?

[Tin Man]

11. Much of the time, the latter. Fostering conflict and confrontation attracts viewers/readers

...and besides, it's a lot easier to simply parrot the talking points, rather than actually research the merits/accuracy of the debate.

[fooj]

15. Willful compliance.

Treasonous, rat bastards!

[Coexist]

3. KnR - that is how I feel

when I change my life out of fear - then they have won.

love ya, Senator Kerry.

[bigtree]

5. yep

EVERYTHING Bush does is ass-covering political. The difference is that Kerry would actually pull troops out instead of the present escalation.

[Don_1967]

6. 1984 AGAIN

This is and always was the Bush policy.
:evilgrin:

[gully]

8. They're also stealing his Iraq strategy. Remember when JK pressed

the idea of "benchmarks?"


http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=248662

Sen. Kerry’s Iraq plan lays out a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home. Its goal is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing both a political settlement and the draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks – beginning with the draw down of 20,000 troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.

“The path forward in Iraq must defeat the insurgency and keep faith with our troops, rather than be driven by the politics of the Republican base or rigid adherence to President Bush’s aimless course. The plan I have offered would correct our course. The speech Sen. McCain delivered does not,” Kerry said today.

Bush is now floating the "benchmarks" idea and I expect he'll eventually steal the entire plan?

CONDENSED PLAN HERE >

The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and of Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly, and he should insist that they make good on the U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific but critical roles in training Iraqi security personnel and in securing Iraqi borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces. The president should urgently expand the security forces' training program inside and outside of Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double the classroom training time, require the follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries.

Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people, all of which, may I say, should have been in the plan and immediately launched with such a ferocity that there was no doubt about America's commitment or capacity in the very first moments afterwards. But they didn't plan.

He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers instead of big corporations like Halliburton.

Fourth, --- Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly that could write a constitution and yields a viable power-sharing agreement.

The president needs to tell the truth. The president needs to deal with reality, and he should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force.

This is what has to be done. This is what I would do if I were president today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35515-2004Sep20?language=printer

[blm]

9. That was his plan BEFORE Iraq voted and fell into civil war. His later plans factored in

the reality of the beginnings of civil war - and now we're close to fullblown civil war which means we have to get out sooner rather than later.

And yet, the CORPORATE MEDIA has been telling Americans that the Democrats had NO PLANS - - they ARE the mouthpieces for BushInc and have only DIS-SERVED this nation in that role.

[gully]

10. Agreed.

.

[SouthernBelle82]

14. Nothing new

And here people say Kerry is through? Obviously not with the Bushies stealing his plan.

[_dynamicdems]

16. Thank you for pointing that out!

Everything JK has said and done on Iraq has been first ridiculed, then ignored and ultimately stolen at a later date.

The media has totally ignored the fact that the Kerry-Feingold Bill is exactly what most Democrats are now calling for. The media and other Democrats ridiculed the bill at the time. Most Dems couldn't distance themselves from being associated with a timed withdrawal fast enough.

And Carl Levin and company introduced their own bill. Well, guess who is singing a different tune now? Carl Levin. And he's getting all the media coverage. This was the guy who said NO time-line and introduced legislation with the express intention of shooting down the Kerry-Feingold bill. Now he's out there talking about a timed withdrawal. How the Hell does he have the nerve to open his mouth? He should be hanging his head. THINK of all the people who died while these mealy mouth Dems played politics!

I think all of the Democrats who expressly and pointedly distanced themselves from Kerry and Feingold's plan should give them credit now, but I won't hold my breath.

I also won't hold my breath for media acknowledgment.

[smoogatz]

12. It's actually a shockingly low standard, which, if applied in the US

would mean we'd have a 9/11 equivalent (in terms of casualties) every ten days or so. But hey, if the government is "functioning," we win!

[politicasista]

13. Wow. K&R

:kick:

[BlueIris]

17. K&R.

Think, people, think.