"Kerry will send 40,000 more troops to Iraq"

[WilliamPitt]

Can someone do me a favor and find me a link where Kerry says he will put 40,000 more troops into Iraq? I know he wants to increase the armed forces by four divisions, but I think that has been conflated with the idea that he will send them all to Iraq. I think this allegation is wrong. Can you hook me up?

[Tempest]

1. Here you go

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/ 28feb04

Kerry is calling to add 40,000 troops to the active-duty Army. The United States should add the equivalent of a current division, about 20,000 combat troops, to the active duty Army. Under Kerry’s plan the United States should also add an additional 20,000 individuals to the active force with specialties in post-conflict skills, such as civil affairs and the military police in order to relieve the excessive burden on our reservists. Relieve Pressure on Service Members. The buildup, which will require time to implement, will relieve the mismatch between active and reserve capabilities and also allow us to thank returning reservists when they rotate out of Iraq in 3 to 9 months—not just with our gratitude but with a reasonable assurance that they will not have to again deploy to Iraq in the immediate future.

[ACK]

3. I thought he said he wanted to do this

To take the burden off the National Guard and reservists who have been taxed so hard.

+

[sangh0]

6. Yes, he did

The poster you're replying to doesn't seem to understand that the link posted did not answer Will Pitt's question.

[Tempest]

9. It did answer Will's question

"Can someone do me a favor and find me a link where Kerry says he will put 40,000 more troops into Iraq?"

I did answer Will's question, and the answer is no.

You owe me an apology.

[MAlibdem]

17. That doesn't say Kerry wants to add more troops to Iraq

Just recruit new ones and train them with the skills they need (MPing) to have a successful ground operation. These troops would RELIEVE troops already on the ground (they'd come home), many of whom are reservists and national guardsmen.

Edit: Missed your second post, to be fair, the way you presented the information suggested you thought he was going to increase the troop total on the ground by 40k

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. You posted a link, but the paragraph you posted is not on that linked page

Is that because you are attempting to create the false impression that the 40,000 troops Kerry wants to add to the Army is in some way related to his Iraq policy?

KERRY: None of those troops are going to Iraq that I've talked about, that 40,000.

That is a reflection of the fact that our military is extraordinarily overextended. Our Guards and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty. When we bring the rotation of these four divisions back, over the course of the spring, we'll only have two divisions actively prepared to do what we need to do in our country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16969-2004Feb29.html

However, although Kerry is not proposing sending more troops to Iraq, he is not ruling out responding favorably to a request for more troops by the commanders in the field. From today's speech:

we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. That will require a level of forces equal to the demands of the mission. To do this right, we have to truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence. In the short-term, however, if our commanders believe they need more American troops, they should say so and they should get them.

But more and more American soldiers cannot be the only solution. Other nations have a vital interest in the outcome and they must be brought in.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0430.html

[sangh0]

2. No, they can't

I predict this thread will sink like a stone

[papau]

4. kick

:-)

[IrateCitizen]

12. Another kick!

:kick:

:evilgrin:

[greatauntoftriplets]

15. LOL.

:bounce:

[IrateCitizen]

13. And another...

:kick:

[WillyT]

26. Hee, Hee, Hee...

:kick::bounce::kick:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. What's really funny

is that the other poster's prediction that the thread would sink was a commentary on the fact that no such link or citation exists showing Kerry holding a position he doesn't hold.

By just 'kicking' the thread without supplying that mythical link you're just showing that he was right, lol.

[Caution]

5. From the quote from Kerry's site

it looks like these 40,000 will be rotated into Iraq as a military construction corps rather than combat corps and be used to relieve the over-taxed reservists

[sangh0]

7. "looks like"

Does that mean you can't provide the link that Will asked for?

[Forkboy]

8. Hey way to be catty to a fellow Kerry supporter!

that'll sure help the cause.

You go girl!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. OK, we know your opinion of the other poster, but what about the issue

at hand?

Other than name-calling the other poster as 'catty' do you have anything you'd care to add to the discussion, perhaps something about an issue, an idea, a concept, a public figure or a news item?

[Forkboy]

22. Why get on my ass?

I notice you ignore sangha talking about other DUers and choose to harp on me for the same thing.

Sheesh,some people's kids :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. OK, now you've shared another opinion about me.

But I would really like to know your opinion about something other than DUers and what you perceive as their flaws.

Do you have any comment to make on the subject of the thread, or the Presidential campaign, or some other political race, or politics in general, or some other current event, or historical event or trend?

[Forkboy]

35. not to you

:shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. LOL

So you will never share any opinions because I might read them?

The most pointless reason for self-censorship I've ever heard.

[Forkboy]

54. You misunderstand

I have no problems sharing my opinions when asked by people I respect.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. I don't care whether you respect me or not.

Why would I?

[Forkboy]

65. Well then,there we go

we've reached a point of agreement.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

70. I'm happy for you if you get such satisfaction in disliking me.

I personally don't find any satisfaction in disliking or disrespecting people, but, 'to each his own'.

[Forkboy]

73. Heh

:silly:

[Tempest]

10. Get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

I don't see you offering anything to the thread.

At least some of us are trying to help Will out.

All you're doing is disrupting.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. No, he's just pointing out the falsehood and deception in your post.

You didn't provide the link that was asked for, in fact, you deceptively put a paragraph with a link that didn't link to that paragraph.

Then you followe that up by mischaracterizing Kerry's position -- referencing some 'quote' that you didn't provide.


Sorry, but if you are going to post falsehoods, you will be challenged.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. That is false -- an untrue and deceptive statement.

If I am wrong and there is such a quote, could you provide it and the link to it? Thank you.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Kerry's nuances require the same analysis we did of Soviet leaders

Kerry's nuances require the same analysis we did of Soviet leaders.

In some ways there are parallels to Tsarist Russia in 1917. Bush is the evil Tsar who must be toppled. Kerry is Kerensky who wanted to stay the course with Russia's allies in WWI.

We have Dennis Kucinich in the role of the Bolsheviks calling for the troops to come home.

How about "Peace Now"?

Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, April 18, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: So if Iraq is not secure, how can you possibly say the U.N. and NATO are going to come to our rescue when they don't have the troops or the interest of going in there?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, that is the dilemma. That is exactly the quandary that President Bush and this administration have put the United States of America in. And the tragedy is that there were three great opportunities for this administration to make it otherwise. Opportunity number one was when we voted and when the president broke his promise to build a legitimate coalition by being patient with the U.N. inspection process. Opportunity number two was when the statue fell in Baghdad and Kofi Annan invited the United States to come to the table and offered help and we rejected it. And opportunity number three was when this president went to the U.N. last fall and once again did not invite people, didn't even acknowledge the kind of difficulties we were in that might have elicited some sympathy from other people.

Now, here we are. I believe the following very deeply. Number one, we cannot fail. I've said that many times. And if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos, that can provide the groundwork for other countries, that's what you have to do.

MR. RUSSERT: How do you define failure?

SEN. KERRY: Well, I think failure is the lack of a stable Iraq. I think a failed state in Iraq is failure.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. What complete bullshit.

Kerry is Kerensky? :wtf:

[IndianaGreen]

25. Kerensky wanted to continue the war in order to not dishonor the fallen

and he wanted Russia to remain a good ally of the Western powers that were fighting the Kaiser.

The Bolsheviks wanted peace now!

The Bolsheviks won in the end.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. Which shows that it is a flawed analogy

[IndianaGreen]

27. John Kerry in 1970s: "How do you ask the last man to die for a mistake?"

The John Kerry of 2004 needs to rediscover the John Kerry that once asked Congress: "How do you ask the last man to die for a mistake?"

Kerry will have to make a choice, a "Yes" and "No" choice, when he takes office in January: repudiate his own "stay the course" doctrine and pull all US troops out of Iraq (as General William Odom suggested in a NY Times column), or escalate the war in pursuit of a victory that Kerry has already defined as a "stable Iraq" on Meet the Press.

History will not be kind to President Kerry if he makes the wrong choice!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. John Kerry in 2005 will not be facing the false choice you present

He'll be facing a complex situation, the parameters of which are really impossible to predict with any accuracy at this point.

Anyone who says they know what the situation will be in January 2005 is either fooling themself or practicing willful deception.


As far as attacking Kerry for have a 'stable Iraq' as a goal -- it's incomprehensible to me. But it is your right to not share that goal.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Bottom line: The Iraqi people want the US out of Iraq

Now, we can either oblige them by pulling out, and stop harming our long-term interests in the region, or we can continue to pursue a failed policy with newer tactics.

Vietnam redux? The choice is ours to make!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. What you ignore is the reality that Bush is President

and he's not making decisions based on our long term interests in the region, nor on what the Iraqi people want, nor on what the American people want.

[IndianaGreen]

38. Iraqis don't care who is the American President, they want the US OUT!

I want the US out of Iraq as do millions of other peace loving people in America and across the world.

To borrow a famous James Carville quote:

"It's the Occupation, stupid!"

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. Yeah, and the sky is blue.

See, I can also state the obvious.

[IndianaGreen]

42. Sure, stay in Iraq and see what happens!

Future Iraq War Memorial:

Panels 1-20 are the names of the dead under the Bush Administration.

Panels 21-?? are the names of the dead under the Kerry Administration.

Is that the epithat you want for the Kerry Administration? I certainly don't want that!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. There you go predicting the future again!

You seem to be so sure Kerry will be no different than Bush -- but I think you couldn't be more wrong.

I won't predict specific future events but I am sure it will be a lot better future for all of us in America, Iraq, and the rest of the world, if George Bush is not reselected as President.

[IndianaGreen]

48. We predicted what would happen if we attacked Iraq

Where are the WMDs?

The only dancing in the streets is when our GIs and our mercenaries get killed.

When it comes to predictions about Iraq, the antiwar movement has been 100% right on target.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

50. No BUSH lied

Bush and his evil cabal need to be ousted. That is the bottom line for me. You may have other priorities -- fine. Not me. Bush needs to go.

[IndianaGreen]

57. Now that we know Bush lied, where are the calls for impeachment?

chirp, chirp, chirp

BTW, the British press showed that Bush & Co were lying long before the war started.

Self-imposed ignorance is not an excuse to avoid responsibility!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

62. Go ahead, call for impeachment, what's stopping you?

I'm sure almost everyone at DU would vote for impeachment, now all you have to do is convince the House of Representatives.

[IrateCitizen]

11. He didn't say that.

As pointed out above, Kerry has proposed expanding the armed forces in order to take some of the weight off of over-extended ARNG and USAR troops.

Kerry has also said that he believes that we need to support our military commanders' calls for more troops in Iraq.

Supply Our Military Commanders with the Additional Troops Requested. We have to succeed in Iraq. We simply can’t allow it to become a failed state. That would mean a victory for extremism, new dangers in the Middle East and a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism. To succeed, we are going to need more forces on a temporary basis. Our commanders on the ground have requested it. We should provide it.

He has also called for internationalizing the force through NATO.

Transform U.S. Force into a NATO Security Force Commanded by an American, and Bring in Other Countries. Kerry believes it is possible to transform the U.S. force into a NATO force, commanded by an American. We should send a high-level mission to consult with our NATO partners to encourage their participation and get other countries to participate so that American soldiers and the American people are not bearing nearly all the burden and all the risk. The whole world has an interest in a stable Iraq, but the White House hasn’t demonstrated the ability to bring in our friends and allies in a substantial way.

Both of these excerpts are taken directly from http://www.johnkerry.com

Personally, I don't get a "warm and fuzzy" about either of these statements. Adding more members to the full-time armed forces is one thing, seeking to commit more troops to an area in which our very presence is the chief cause of instability is another thing entirely. I just get the feeling that the whole strategy is, "We have to stay, but the current administration just hasn't been staying in the right way."

My belief is that we have to LEAVE for things to get any better. I also don't think that the Iraqis will take any more kindly to a European multinational force under US command than an almost strictly US force being in their country.

[LizW]

14. Well, he left the number open when he talked about it a few minutes ago

during the Westminster speech just now, he said that if the military commanders in Iraq say they need more troops, that we should send them. He didn't mention 40,000, or any other number, just that they should have what they need in Iraq.

That may not answer your question, but it is a more recent statement of what he thinks troop strength should be in Iraq.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. KERRY: None of those troops are going to Iraq that I've talked about

KERRY: None of those troops are going to Iraq that I've talked about, that 40,000.

That is a reflection of the fact that our military is extraordinarily overextended. Our Guards and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty. When we bring the rotation of these four divisions back, over the course of the spring, we'll only have two divisions actively prepared to do what we need to do in our country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16969-2004Feb29.html

Not that the people who keep repeating this false charge are going to be swayed by the truth.

[Nederland]

33. Wrong Question

Will Pitt's question was:

Will Kerry "send 40,000 more troops to Iraq"?

not

Will Kerry "increase the US military by 40,000 and send those troops to Iraq"?

I think its clear when Kerry says that he will "Supply Our Military Commanders with the Additional Troops Requested" he means he will increase the number of troops in Iraq. Will the increase be 40k? Who knows, but its clear that those defending Kerry are splitting hairs here. The bottom line is this:

1) Kerry wants to increase the size of the military.
2) Kerry wants to increase US troop presence in Iraq.

For those of us that are generally leary of the power of the US military both here and abroad, these are not good tidings.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. Why did you so selectively quote Will's question?

Here's what Will actually asked:

Can someone do me a favor and find me a link where Kerry says he will put 40,000 more troops into Iraq? I know he wants to increase the armed forces by four divisions, but I think that has been conflated with the idea that he will send them all to Iraq. I think this allegation is wrong. Can you hook me up?


So can you hook him up? Can you show where Kerry says he will put 40,000 more troops into Iraq?



No. You can't because it is a false allegation. A lie told by those who don't want Kerry to win.

[Nederland]

40. Hook me up

I don't disagree that the answer to Will's question is no.

However, Kerry's position on Iraqi troop strength is very clear and one that I disagree with. He wants to send more troops to Iraq. Does he want to send 40k more? Maybe. Or maybe he wants to send 60k more. His website doesn't say and I would love to know the answer. Perhaps you can help me out here then. How many more troops does Kerry want to send to Iraq?

I'd love to know...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. Your premise is false.

He wants to send more troops to Iraq.


That is simply wrong; a false characterization of Kerry's position. Here's what Kerry said on the issue just yesterday:

we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. That will require a level of forces equal to the demands of the mission. To do this right, we have to truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence. In the short-term, however, if our commanders believe they need more American troops, they should say so and they should get them.

But more and more American soldiers cannot be the only solution. Other nations have a vital interest in the outcome and they must be brought in.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0430.html

That is Kerry's actual position.


When you change

if our commanders believe they need more American troops, they should say so and they should get them

into

He wants to send more troops to Iraq.

you have changed more than the wording, you have changed the meaning considerably.


So in discussing Kerry's position, let's use his actual position as a starting point.

[Nederland]

51. Wrong

When you change

if our commanders believe they need more American troops, they should say so and they should get them

into

He wants to send more troops to Iraq.

you have changed more than the wording, you have changed the meaning considerably.


Given that American commanders have in fact asked for more American troops, I haven't changed the meaning of his statement at all.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

55. False

First of all your statement
Given that American commanders have in fact asked for more American troops

is factually incorrect, as far as I know. Could you please provide a link, citation, or some other reference that backs up your assertion?


But even if the commanders were to ask for more troops today, it still wouldn't change the fact that those sentences do in fact have different meanings.

[Nederland]

61. Here you go

http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/war/7053818.htm

General asks for more troops in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday that he'd requested two more brigades of troops, perhaps as many as 14,000 soldiers, to help quell the worst outbreak of fighting in Iraq since the American-led occupation began more than a year ago.


Perhaps now you'll admit that Kerry is in fact calling for more troops in Iraq.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

68. That's old news - 4/13 - and that request was dealt with

by delaying troop rotations to the US. I'm not saying that is what should have happened but it did in fact already happen.

[Nederland]

74. Got a link to prove that assertion?

that request was dealt with by delaying troop rotations to the US.

Say's who? I'm just asking...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

77. 4/15 - Return to U.S. For 20,000 Troops Halted

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 15, 2004; Page A01

About 20,000 U.S. soldiers due to return from Iraq to their home bases this month and next will have their tours extended at least three months in a plan the Pentagon finalized yesterday, defense officials said.

While the commander of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf had said he would need more troops last week, the plan spells out for the first time how many soldiers will be affected and which units they are from. Some of the soldiers scheduled to leave Iraq -- and their families -- had held out hope they might be spared as Pentagon authorities worked out the details. But the final list, due for release today, shows that few escaped the extension.

The extensions apply to a range of forces, from infantrymen to air ambulance crews, adding up to the extra combat strength requested by Army Gen. John P. Abizaid. The extra forces are meant to confront a surge in Sunni and Shiite violence that has already made April the bloodiest month since the U.S. invasion a year ago.

<snip>

Pentagon officials have raised the possibility that the next rotation of forces into Iraq, planned to start in September and run through January, could be moved up to sustain the higher troop level after the current extensions end. Lt. Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army's deputy chief of staff for operations, told reporters Tuesday that he expects Abizaid to decide by July whether to keep the troop level elevated by drawing more fresh forces from home bases.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13123-2004Apr14.html

[Nederland]

80. Net effect: More US Troops in Iraq

...and John Kerry supports this.

That's the bottom line.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

81. The bottom line is we need a new President.

At least that's my bottom line.


And yes you are capable of stating what you think John Kerry supports, instead of just listening to what he says he supports. :eyes:

53. Your quote contains something that makes people nervous.

"But more and more American soldiers cannot be the only solution."

This does not say that Kerry will not send more and more American soldiers, it says that sending more and more American soldiers cannot be the only solution.

I want Kerry to win and Bush to lose.
Whether Kerry intends to send more troops or not will have no impact on my vote.

But I do think it is important to be clear about what is really being said and how it could be interpreted.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

58. Anyone who isn't nervous about Iraq isn't paying attention.

The situation sucks. All the options suck. But I am confident that on January 20, 2005, we will all be a lot better off with Kerry choosing among the available options at that time than with Bush.

72. Regarding paying attention.

You're right, anyone who isn't nervous about Iraq isn't paying attention.
You're right, Kerry choosing among the available options is better than Bush choosing among the available options.

Those two comments are tangents to the thread though. (related, but tangents just the same)

The question was about whether Kerry would send more troops to Iraq.
You have been saying he won't.
His words, which you quoted, clearly indicate that he has not ruled it out. He has said sending more troops should not be the only option, but he has not ruled out it being an option, at least in the quote you provided.

Maybe he has somewhere else. Like I said, my decision to vote for Kerry is not based on whether he does or not. It is based on thinking he would be a better person to have choosing among the available options. So, I haven't been scanning every word of Kerry's on this subject to see if he has ruled it out. But in the interest of intellectual honesty, I think it should be acknowledged that in the words you quoted of Kerry's he does not rule out sending more troops.

(edit for spelling)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

75. No, the question was

Can someone do me a favor and find me a link where Kerry says he will put 40,000 more troops into Iraq? I know he wants to increase the armed forces by four divisions, but I think that has been conflated with the idea that he will send them all to Iraq. I think this allegation is wrong. Can you hook me up?


That was the question. The question wasn't 'has Kerry ruled out sending more troops to Iraq'. It is quite true that he hasn't. In fact, although Kerry has provided quite a lot of criticism of what Bush has done, he has wisely largely avoided the purely hypothetical questions of what he would do tactically right now if he were President. He isn't. He won't be until January 2005. The situation will be different than it is now. Attitudes around the world and in Iraq towards the US will be ripe for change upon his inauguration. He is wise to keep his cards close to the vest and not arbitrarily limit his options -- or his bargaining chips.

78. It's good for him to avoid hypotheticals

In fact, although Kerry has provided quite a lot of criticism of what Bush has done, he has wisely largely avoided the purely hypothetical questions of what he would do tactically right now if he were President.


You should avoid them also. Like this one.


...of what he would do tactically right now if he were President
He isn't. He won't be until January 2005.

Couldn't resist tweaking you on this one.

I hope he is President then.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

79. I'm just practicing the power of positive thinking.

Sometimes if you want to reach a goal, it helps to keep visualizing it.

[IndianaGreen]

41. I find it curious that Will Pitt has not clarified his remarks

This thread is more like a drive-by shooting where the poster that started the thread leaves without adding any additional information.

I rather hear it from Will what he really wants to know, and why, than to rely on the interpretation of a self-appointed surrogate.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

44. Probably because they were so clear to begin with.

It was a simple request, that no one has been able to fulfill, for the reasons that have been already stated.

I don't know why you chose to attack me as a self-appointed surrogate, and I don't feel any need to engage in name-calling in response.

[IndianaGreen]

45. I'll wait to hear from Will Pitt what he meant to say

He should have been here in the first place!

sur·ro·gate

to put in the place of another

http://www.m-w.com/

[Feanorcurufinwe]

47. Why not just assume that he meant to say what he said?

:shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

49. In the military you are taught to assume nothing!

Didn't you learn that when you served?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. I'll assume you mean what you say. I'll assume Will means what he says.

And so on. If you want to read what people say and assume it means something else, fine. If you want to promote that viewpoint on DU, I will point out how illogical it is.

OK?

[IndianaGreen]

56. I am done wasting broadband with you

go on and play with someone else!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. No problem, you are welcome to stop posting whenever you want.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. Why are you responding to my message, and talking to Will?

if you want to dialogue with him, you should respond to his messages.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nederland]

59. Here's why

The reason it doesn't make sense to simply assume that he meant what he said is because his question is so narrow. His question:

Will "Kerry will send 40,000 more troops to Iraq"?

has a precise number---40,000--in it. But let's be honest. If in reality Kerry wants to send only 39,000 more troops to Iraq, would the fact that the answer to Will's question is no really matter?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. So if you don't like the answer, assume he asked the wrong question.

LOL pretty twisted logic.

[Nederland]

67. Response

Far less twisted than the logic you displayed in post #55.

[IndianaGreen]

66. Kerry specifically said that he wanted 40,000 more troops

but, and this is a big but, Kerry did not specifically say that he was going to send those 40,000 troops to Iraq.

Kerry's nuances once again causes reasonable people to bicker.

I think Jesus's parables were clearer!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

76. He didn't just

'not specifically say that he was going to send those 40,000 troops to Iraq.'


He specifically said he wasn't, that that isn't what the 40,000 troops are about at all:

KERRY: None of those troops are going to Iraq that I've talked about, that 40,000.

That is a reflection of the fact that our military is extraordinarily overextended. Our Guards and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty. When we bring the rotation of these four divisions back, over the course of the spring, we'll only have two divisions actively prepared to do what we need to do in our country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16969-2004Feb29.html

[WilliamPitt]

85. Um...the comments were pretty much 2+2=4

[Stirling Newberry]

82. Iraqetnam

We've got two choices in Iraq.

Put enough in to stabilize it.

Interdict and pull everyone out of the population centers.

The current "amusement park for mercenaries and terrorists" approach is just plain wrong.

[Nazgul35]

83. Maybe this will help...

Via Lexus-Nexus search:

With regards to sending more troops to Iraq:

U.S. Newswire, April 17, 2004 Saturday.

Kerry Fact Sheet: A Strategy to Win the Peace in Iraq

The following is a fact sheet released today by John Kerry for President:

--snip--

Supply Our Military Commanders with the Additional Troops Requested. We have to succeed in Iraq. We simply can't allow it to become a failed state. That would mean a victory for extremism, new dangers in the Middle East and a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism. To succeed, we are going to need more forces on a temporary basis. Our commanders on the ground have requested it. We should provide it.

So that answers the question of whether Kerry has called for sending more troops to Iraq...later on Kerry raises the hope that NATO will help...

the request for more troops is not nation specific...

As far as the claim of sending more troops to Iraq, here is what the Boston Globe story says:

The Boston Globe, September 1, 2003, Monday ,THIRD EDITION

KERRY SAYS ARMY SHOULD GROW BY 40,000 DENOUNCES RIVALS' PUSH TO REPEAL BUSH TAX CUTS; SEEKS TO RAISE HIS PROFILE

Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that he favors expanding the Army by roughly 40,000 soldiers to relieve troop strain, and would spend whatever it takes to stop the guerrilla warfare in Iraq. But Kerry said he would not send more US soldiers into the country, preferring international troops that include a corps from Muslim nations.

So I think the correct statement is that Kerry favors more troops in Iraq, but that those be NATO or UN forces (an argument can be made about how likely that is however). The 40,000 troops are to provide relief for the troops already serving well past their time...

Lexus-Nexus is your friend........

[NMDemDist2]

84. Lexus-Nexus is your friend........ but spendy n't

[Capn Sunshine]

87. So EVERYBODY is right!

here in happy pink fluffy cloud land , Kerry NEVER said send 40,000 troops to Iraq. That would be too bothersome. Remember, focus on the number. the number. the number.the number . the number. Oops, I've been reading to many posts full of sang-froid. Or Sang-somethin'.
But to reiterate his position from the MTP interview:
"if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos, that can provide the groundwork for other countries, that's what you have to do."

That sounds a lot like "more troops" to me. But to keep DUers happy, he'd best limit it to less than 40,000. because asking 39,999 guys to die, for absolutely no good reason, that's ok.
:nuke:

[IndianaGreen]

88. "happy pink fluffy cloud land"?

You haven't been drinking some of those awlful mint juleps like some of our friends, haven't you? :D

What's that I heard about dying for a mistake????? :thumbsup:

[Capn Sunshine]

89. Yes, where President Kerry rides rainbow ponies

You know, that place.

[jonnyblitz]

90. LOL

ya think?!?! :thumbsup: