The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Thursday, June 22, 2006

John Kerry flopping around like a fish out of water

It is difficult to determine exactly what John Kerry is trying to accomplish these days when it comes to Iraq. The nature and timing of his statements and actions leave little doubt about his attempt to politicize the withdrawal from Iraq. There are several motives that may be driving him. The most obvious is the upcoming '08 presidential election. He may be posturing to be the strongest anti-Iraq candidate. This is especially true since Hillary Clinton is staking her chances as a supporter of the war (while trying to appear a Bush critic to certain audiences). The obvious problem for Kerry is that the Iraq is trending positive with the transfer of responsibility to the Iraqis growing significantly. Sorry, but say what you want about Hillary, she will benefit from her Iraq support. She will have to throw some people under the bus to capitalize on it, but that has never stopped her. I digress.

The second possible motive is simply a futile quest for relevance. Since losing his bid for president, Kerry has tried one thing after another to keep himself politically alive on the national level. Unfortunately for the most part it has been one embarrassment after another. So he demands a withdrawal, apologizes for his authorization vote (right after Zarqawi is killed), is one of the 3 Senate votes to set a timetable by the end of this year and now he adjusts that timetable to July 2007. Each display does result in national news coverage. I wonder if it is really true that bad press is better than no press?

Then there is a third motive. It is less likely, since Kerry usually only exhibits concern for himself. However, it is the most rational - with more emphasis on "most" than "rational". The Democrats must see the handwriting on the wall for Iraq. As I said before, Iraq is significantly trending positive. As I posted after Zaqawi's death, many raids against Al Quaeda were lead or exclusively run by the Iraqi forces. The training and ramping up of Iraqi troops is clearly in high gear. The thought of patiently waiting until all goals in Iraq are clearly met and only then begin a withdrawal must be quite repulsive to the Democrats. This path would lead to inevitable ticker tape parades as our boys begin to come home. It would lead to quite a number of other ceremonious events with Bush and the Iraqi leaders meeting and showing support for one another. The whole enchilada. So the final push by people like Kerry are to undermine "the enchilada".

First, demands for a timetable conjure up pictures of things going worst than they are. It continues the lie of a quagmire and references to Vietnam. Second, a constant drumbeat in a national forum just might in Kerry's mind cause Bush to pull the trigger prematurely. Even a little bit premature just might mitigate the picture of success. Also, keep in mind that if Bush were to do so the tremendous pressure applied to him will be quickly forgotten by the media. An example of this is Bush '41 and his pledge of "Read my lips, no new taxes". The Democrats applied tremendous pressure to get a reversal of that pledge. They whined about the deficit. They played the MSM like a fiddle (as usual). They made promises to cut the budget with matching cuts to taxes (which they later reniged on). Finally, when Bush '41 was firmly on the figurative "rack" he gave in. The ink was barely dry when the Dems began to capitalize on his broken pledge and break all promises of spending cuts. Bush '43 has exhibited a maddening (to the Dems) firmness of resolve. If only they could break that before '08 it would be the '92 election all over again.

Thirdly, it also is an attempt to set the stage for taking credit when we actually do start to withdrawal. If the actual withdrawal is anywhere near one of the dates that any Dem has demanded, they will beat their chest and cry victory. Of course there have been so many dates that they are sure to hit one. This is the first July 2007 I have seen. Very logical. The progress in Iraq lines up with that. We could have our first ticker tape parade on July 4th. I think Kerry shuddered to think of that and so that is the likely source of naming the month July.

These are my theories of why John Kerry continues to be willing to embarrass himself with these actions and statements. The question is, does he see himself as we see him? Probably not. Most people like that are completely blinded to how they appear. All I know is that every time he opens his mouth I thank God he is not president.


  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger Malott said…

    Great Post.

    It's so very difficult to analyze Kerry and determine his thoughts and motives because Kerry obviously hasn't a clue what he thinks or stands for.

    Also, I wanted to tell you what a great job you did representing our side in the "Boortz asks..." comment section. You are a very bright guy. Well done.

  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

    Yeah, Kerry is off on the deep end with Sheehan on this one. There is no way we can leave now that we have ruined the will become Afghanistan all over again and the middle East will be desatbilized. If were gonna fix this Bush Engineered Mess we need more

    BRING BACK THE DRAFT!!!! All supporters of this Moron, their children, and the DRUNKEN BUSH TWINS GO FIRST!!!!

    Time for all the flagwavers to stand up and be counted. Otherwise it is as our Draft Dodger-AWOL IN CHIEF said: "YOUR EITHER WITH US OR YOUR AGAINST US"

    Your local recruiter awaits your call...more cannon fodder is needed for the NOBLE CAUSE!

  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Chris, thanks for the nice comments.

    Joe, I have to hand it to you, you get an A+ for consistency.

  • At 12:57 PM, Anonymous paw said…

    Joe, I get your point. It's curious, isn't it, how eager Bush supporters are to compare this half-assed misadventure to the truly noble and just WWII, yet there is no rush to join up, there is no push for the draft, there is no reorganization of industry to produce on an elevated scale the goods of war that our troops desperately need, and there is an unwillingness to budget honestly and to even attempt to pay for today's adventurism today. The undisputed heavy weight champion of the world takes down two impoverished, decimated, isolated regimes with the stuff and the people we happen to have on hand at the time, (the army you have, not the army you want said Rummy), which was characterized during the presidential campaign of 2000 as being badly out of shape (too busy to find the exact wording - I request a pass on this characterization that is not strictly speaking a quote). Did things get better between 2000 and the invasion? Missile defense was the biggest priority and Rummy had declared war on waste, for crying out loud. This ain't comparable to WWII. No way.

    Joe, I sure don't support the current Iraq policy. I am convinced, though, through personal conversations with current and retired military officers that something drastic needs to be done to relieve the pressure on our troops - there are serious problems. And something needs to be done to ensure that we have the capability to respond to something in N Korea or Iran. One of the many things I'm trying to understand that I just can't seem to crack is how these vocal Bush and war supporters have a complete disconnect between what they say the believe and what they do. If they wanted to support the troops they could join up (seriously, that's not just a rhetorical technique, that would help immensely more than working the keyboard against the liberal boogymen bringing down the Grand Plan), push for a draft, insist on adequate funding and honest budgeting, and committing more of OUR resources (as opposed to our children's resources) to the cause.

    Con guys, DO SOMETHING more than type and carp about the liberals. There's no risk here even. Put your effort where there's actually something that matters at stake. Sign up and/or push for the draft. Support the troops with cash and equipment and decent care. Serioulsy.

  • At 2:10 PM, Blogger Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

    Finally someone here that gets it!!!

    This fresh off the AP:



    I think the Right Wing factions that supported Vietnam back in the 60's said it best: AMERICA LOVE IT OR LEAVE, but with time a minor change: AMERICA SERVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!

    Truly, if there was a draft or if we go to war with Iran or N. Korea you would see a scrambled by the vast majority of the Young Republicans and "OF AGE" Bush Supporters running for cover to find this generations version of the "5 DEFERMENTS or THE CHAMPAGNE UNIT" that Cheney and Bush used to get outta Serving in Vietnam.

    Let me tell you that the majority of Americans have more knowledge of what is on sale at the local Walmart than they do about what is happening over in Bush's Cluster, but if you had a draft there would be an INSTANT WANT OF KNOWLEDGE of what BAD POLICY decisions Bushco was making.

    I would love to see the OG Punks and Beavis and Butthead clones that pass for todays youth SHIPPED OUT!!!

  • At 7:17 PM, Blogger Doolberry said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  • At 7:19 PM, Anonymous Mark said…

    oh jeez. i forgot that i'm using my dad's computer. i said that if they reinstated the draft I'd be on the next plane anywhere but America.

  • At 7:29 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Joe and paw,

    If I were a younger man without the career path I have chosen I very well might go. Some have given up good careers and shuffled their responsibilities so they could go and I applaud them.

    The notion that I have no right to support the war unless I am willing to go is ludicrous. Joe has pushed the idea ad nauseum. We have a very successful volunteer military that has proven itself to keep critical deployments around the world while fighting two wars at the same time. This is something to applaud and praise. Instead critics look to make political hay out of a significant accomplishment by looking at any down side they can find while ignoring the good.

    This accomplishment has sent a powerful message around the world about our abilities. Combined with the resolve from President Bush in the face of tremendous criticism at home and abroad has made a statement that the US is a force to be reckoned with. If libs weren't so busy wasting energy coming up with cute catch phrases like "fighting a war on the cheap" they could appreciate this proud feat of military prowess.

    The fact is that we could have pulled more from deployments around the world. If worse came to worse we could have pulled our European stationed troops and let them fend for themselves. We could also grab some still in Kosovo from Bubba's day.

    Another fact is that the need for troops in Iraq will lessen over the next year. If Iran causes trouble, we are right there on either side of them too.

    Finally, nothing can name the value of having a strong pool of young veterans with ground war experience from multiple wars. If God forbid another war comes, our experience will be used to minimize our already comparitively low casualty rate.

  • At 7:51 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…


    The concept of a draft at this point is one of two things:

    - A fantasy of the Dems as it would provide many news cycles of fodder to attack the GOP.

    - A scary word to inspire young potential voters to the polls in November. They tried last time, but not until closer to the election. The word draft is cropping up early this time.

    Notice when it comes to Iran and North Korea how low the bar is set to expect other nations to pitch in and cover it this time.

  • At 1:16 AM, Anonymous paw said…


    Just so we're clear on a couple points -

    I'm not saying you have no right to support the war without going.

    I'm not making political hay.

    I'm not wasting time on cute catch phrases. Ever. Serious, well examined and thoughtful catch phrases, maybe from time to time.

    I have no lack of appreciation of what our troops are doing.

    I am not under any fantasy of whipping up news cycles nor am I trying to scare anyone.

    As for others pitching in, I have real concerns about if the Marshall Islands and the rest are ready to give it a go again. We don't seem to have many substantial friends left. Friendship matters.

    I come here with an open mind. I have a set of guidelines about when, where, and what I post. I'm not throwing a bunch of unexamined stuff against the wall. I stand by what I said in the earlier post.

    We need more people in the military, and we have to stop driving out senior officers. I'm serious.

    There is, to me, a fundamental contradiction in a person who identifies so closely with the rational behind this war and then chooses comfort and other priorities over meaningful action. You're generally quick to play the hypocrite card to discredit someone's position. I'm not trying to do that. Just calling it as I see it.

    Thanks for being a standup guy and providing this forum. My work is at a standstill this week and it's good to get a little stimulation. I hope I'm contributing and not just messing up your blog.

  • At 8:24 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…


    you definitely contribute when you comment here. I know you think things through well.

    My reaction to the draft comments reflect a direction from the Dem camp since the last election. This is where rock stars were taking out huge ads that say something like "Vote for Kerry or Die". The draft card is a tool to whip up young voters. Since I don't see a shortage in the military (yeah they miss their recruiting goals from time to time) I only tend to see discussion of the draft as an agenda tool. Perhaps with you I am wrong on that. With Joe....

    I never thought you felt I had no right to support the war without going. I was addressing what you state now as a "fundamental contradiction". You have the right to see a contradiction. That does not mean there is one. Not to get overly religious but I whole-heartedly support the work of missionaries who go to other countries to spread a faith I share. They live sacrificial lives, often work in risky conditions(I know of several who have been killed), are compensated very little money etc. While I passionately support that effort, I myself do not go. I don't see any fundamental contradiction in that. I support them vocally, financially and prayerfully. I rejoice when I hear good things from them. It is the same with the military. It is because I don't go that I feel it worthy to lustily be a cheerleader for them at home.

    If we did add more people to the military where would you send the bulk of them to? If you sent the bulk to Iraq to relieve those there, where would you redeploy those coming from Iraq? I ask because I am not sure where this shortage is.

    You're generally quick to play the hypocrite card to discredit someone's position.

    I do point out inconsistencies in others who verbalize political views. It is a very legitimate tool when used fairly and correctly. My consistency is challenged all of the time. A few times I have been convinced of at least the possibility I am wrong or inconsistent and admitted such. An experience unpleasant enough to make me think hard about what I am saying. Every now and then the late night quicky response goes out half baked and its back to the crow.

  • At 10:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Great site lots of usefull infomation here.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home