Letter to the editor

[ProSense]

Web Exclusive | Joe Klein
Why Washington Is Playing with Fire
These are not clever times in Washington

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1139778,00.html


Does the Joe Klein believe that Americans are stupid?

The majority of Americans are calling for our troops to be withdrawn from Iraq. It's one thing for Mr. Klein to agree with those who take the position that shifting strategy and remaining in Iraq will lead to a better outcome than "stay the course." It's another thing entirely for him to make the following irresponsible assertion about Senator John Kerry's plan:

"More subtle but no less feckless is the curious case of John Kerry, who has been calling for the withdrawal of 20,000 American troops as soon as the Iraqi elections are completed on Dec. 15. He has said this knowing full well that the Pentagon is planning to reduce the force by 20,000 after Dec. 15 as part of its normal troop-rotation schedule. One hopes he won't be so crass as to take credit for the drawdown when it occurs. But then Kerry—and many other Democrats—have been calling for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, based on progress in Iraq, as if that were some sort of bold and different idea. It isn't. It is precisely what the President has said he will do.

Does Mr. Klein believe that Senator Kerry's plan is the same as the loose comments being thrown around by a Bush Administration that has yet to define any strategy let alone a clear one?

If troop withdrawal is all that Mr. Klein takes from the Senator's plan, he must not have read the plan beyond its tagline:

Senator John Kerry Lays Out Path Forward in Iraq
If Administration Acts Responsibly, We Can Stabilize Iraq and Reduce Combat Forces With Successful December Elections, Draw Down 20,000 Troops by the End of 2005

Senator John Kerry "The Path Forward" Georgetown University October 26, 2005 As prepared for delivery

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=247764

I suggest Mr. Klein revisit the plan to learn more about the step-by-step approach Senator Kerry offers to transfer power to the Iraqis, jumpstart the reconstruction of the country and facilitate political reforms.

Also, I'm waiting for the media to address one of the most salient points in the Senator's plan: the call for no permanent bases in Iraq.

So, Mr. Klein, who is vomiting?

[e-mail]



The vomiting reference relates to this statement in the article:

And now the Republicans are preparing to retaliate by running a vomitous television ad portraying Dean, Kerry and others as "retreat and defeat" Democrats, waving the white flag of surrender. In this holiday season, out of respect for the dead and wounded, and the enormity of the tragedy, wouldn't it be nice if all those rabid partisans—on both sides—just gave it a rest for a while?

Good tactic: misrepresent the facts, then try to appear objective.

[ProSense]

1. Watching the media response

In January, when Iraqis voted, a number of reports cited the link between Iraqis voting and hoping the vote would get the US out of their country.

Yesterday, I read an article that gave Bush credit for speeding up the process toward democracy in Iraq. The article didn't mention that fundamentalism is on the rise (and spreading rapidly throughout the region) and that the original reasons Bush trumpeted for going to war—linking Iraq to 9/11 and WMD—had nothing do with liberating Iraqis. Now, there is a strong likelihood his actions will give rise to a theocracy.

Remember when Bush took credit for Libya abandoning its nuclear program by linking Libya’s action directly to the war?

The movement toward political reform began in the region long before Bush, whose actions have been a dangerous setback, rather than a expeditious move toward democracy.

That's probably why Karen Hughes got an earful when she toured the region trying to spew that BS.

The loud cry to change course is not because Bush did something right, but because he made an arrogant, wrongheaded and dangerous move.

So Bush makes a few statements with nothing to back them up and the media latches on to it as a plan and declares that Bush has seen the error of his ways.

[beachmom]

2. Joe Klein is so typical of what the "liberal" media has become

The right wing, rightly so, complains that a high percentage of reporters are "liberals" or at least tend to vote Democratic. However, these reporters seem to overcompensate their "guilt" of not understanding what the "heartland" is about go out of their way to kiss *'s ass. Now that that's less possible, they say that * is bad, but that the Democrats are no better. And the way they write is with such authority, that the unsuspecting reader will absorb it like a sponge and internalize these disingenuous "opinions".

Joe Klein is both right and wrong about the 20,000 troops. It is true that those extra troops are there for both the 10/15 referendum and the Dec. vote, and probably would have gone home had JK spoken about it or not. I also will note that some senators like McCain are proposing that those soldiers stay PLUS an additional 10,000, so removing them isn't agreed upon by everyone. What made Kerry's Iraq plan different was that those troops are going to be gone for good, unlike what happened a year ago, when we had extra troops for the Jan. election, they left, and now they're back again. Kerry also talked about reaching benchmarks, and withdrawing troops FOR GOOD, meaning next time, the Iraqis will do election security. Obviously, Joe Klein and the dimwits at The Economist only read the cliff notes of JK's proposal, which shows in their distortions in opinion pieces and reports.

Good LTE, Prosense.

[ProSense]

3. Thanks. And you're right...

they are disingenuous and arrogant.

[sandnsea]

5. Exactly

The reason Kerry spoke up was to make sure those troops come home and that this war isn't escalated in increments, like Vietnam was. He saw in Vietnam that more troops only means more targets and that if you aren't winning the war culturally or politically, then you're just not winning. These people keep thinking they're fighting another WWII and they just aren't. They're desperate to have their own "good war", like their fathers. And some of the younger ones seem desperate to avenge their fathers' bad war with a good war. It's crazy. People like Joe Klein ought to know better. The difference between the two is rhetoric vs. reality. Kerry actually intends to do what he says, Bush intends to say anything and then continue down the disastrous path "for as long as it takes". I would think that would be obvious to everybody by now.

[blm]

4. Rumsfeld never proposed the drawdown till AFTER Kerry proposed it in Oct.

No wonder Klein didn't hear about it - the rest of the press never talked about it, so he didn't know, either.

Dumbass media.

[karynnj]

6. A good question for Joe Klein is:

If Kerry's whole plan is identical to Rumsfeld's, why are the Republicans saying he is surrendering and yelling "hit and run". They can't have it both ways. I agree Klein has reading comprehension problems.

[ProSense]

7. Check these out (from NJ paper)

Your views

Sunday, December 11, 2005



"Not a fan of John Kerry" (Your Views, Dec. 6) begins by lauding President Bush's "eloquent" Annapolis speech defending his Iraq policy and then continues on to accuse Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., of responding with "fabrications, distortions, and clichés."


The letter fails to mention Bush's continued attempt to link Saddam Hussein to the al-Qaida terrorists of Sept. 11 even as Tom Kean points out the falsehood of any such claims.

Nor does the letter note Bush's assertions that Iraqi troops are now taking the lead in combat. Such assertions have been clearly refuted by the eyewitness accounts of Time magazine's embedded Baghdad bureau chief and by the U.S. Army leadership's testimony before the U.S. Senate that the Iraqi army has only one battalion capable of functioning independently.

Far from offering a "Plan for Victory," as the array of signs behind him proclaimed, this president can only offer yet another collection of "fabrications, distortions, and clichés," to borrow a phrase.

The president must finally admit the abject failure of his policies and reach across the aisle to experienced men like Kerry and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., for help in formulating a realistic plan for a successful and honorable end to this conflict.

Patrick S. Vidaver

Hackensack Dec. 7

The writer of "Not a fan of John Kerry" (Your Views, Dec. 6) refers to President Bush's eloquent speech on the Iraq war and Sen. John Kerry's response. He has it wrong.

President Bush's speech at Annapolis was full of fabrications, distortions, and clichés; it should embarrass and anger every American.

Kerry's response was factual and challenging, as are his ideas for going forward and succeeding in Iraq, expressed in an Oct. 26 speech at Georgetown University. As Kerry said: "No war has ever been won with sound bites ... by keeping the American people in the dark ... without a clear strategy."

The Bush administration is great on spin and hype, not much on governance.

Maureen Schmude

Dumont, Dec. 6

I disagree with "Assault on Bush emboldens enemy" (Your Views, Dec. 4).

Does the writer believe that insurgents in Iraq care about or are even aware of what the president's critics are saying? Does he think they watch CNN? My guess is the insurgents simply want foreigners out of their country, and they fight in the only way they can - roadside bombs and suicide attacks.

Perhaps the Iraqis see us as the aggressor because they never attacked us. The person who did that was Osama bin Laden (a name you don't hear much these days). Regardless, the post-invasion liberation/occupation of Iraq has been executed so poorly that any reasonable chance for success has long since evaporated, along with the ambitious notion of "sowing the seeds of democracy."

I believe the writer confuses criticism of the president with lack of patriotism. I support the troops - and by this I mean that I'd prefer they didn't get killed at all, but particularly not by a roadside bomb, never seeing their enemy.

These young people made a decision and promised to risk their lives protecting our great nation, and we as a people and especially our president owe them something better than "stay the course."

Bryan Stutz

Paramus, Dec. 5


http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk0MDImZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY4MzM1MzAmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2