WSJ: If you become president, do you think that by the end of your first term, that troops will be out of Iraq?
KERRY: "I certainly can't tell you numbers. But I can tell you this. At the end of my first term, I would consider it a failure of my diplomacy if we haven't reduced the number significantly."
WSJ: I understand you have a difference with the president on how do we get there. Give us more of a vision of what the "there" is? How will we know when we've reached that point?
KERRY: "I'll tell you."
WSJ: Can you define it any better now?
KERRY: "It will not be a failed state that threatens the world. I hope it will be moving towards democracy. And democracy will have taken hold. But I can guarantee you this. I will get the world involved in ways that this administration hasn't and can't. And I will reduce the risk to American soldiers and I will reduce the cost to the American taxpayer."
WSJ: We know there's a difference between you and the administration on how to get there.
KERRY: "There's a big difference."
WSJ: Is there a difference between you and the administration on what that "there" is?
Pat at Kerry Haters and others think Kerry is taking a political ploy out of tricky Dick Nixon's book.
As it developed, Nixon's plan was to simply order X number of troops out of Vietnam each month until they were all gone, without providing the good guys there the necessary support and training to sustain the level of military necessary to avoid an eventual North Vietnamese overrun, and without going in if necessary. We didn't even supply spare parts for the miltary vehicles and aircraft we gave them. Let's call it the "Buh Bye and Good Luck" plan.
Kerry also says he supports pre-emptive strikes if the intel says they are needed. Since he voted for the war, he was misled by faulty intel the same as GWB was. So, anyone against war should vote for NADER ... please!
See also Kerry's secret economic plan.