Poland - 'Kerry's Debate Stance was Immoral'????

This interview was originally in Polish. It was translated at
another chat site. We aren't supposed to 'advertise' other
sites. If the moderator tells me I can post which site, I'll
tell you which one. (not sure of the rules on this)

*********************************************
"Kerry's stance during debate immoral", says President of Poland
Onet.pl ^ | 2004-10-01 7:30 PM CET
Posted on 10/01/2004 2:31:55 PM PDT by Matthew Paul

In the interview for a Polish channel TVN, President of Poland, Alexander Kwasniewski expressed his admiration and full support for President George Bush for his leadership in the war on terror. As a comment to the Bush-Kerry debate, President Kwasniewski said that �President Bush performed like a truly Texan gentleman who was able to notice and fully appreciate the presence and sacrifice of the Polish ally in the war on terror in Iraq. �

�I find it kind of sad that a senator with 20 year parliamentary experience is unable to notice the Polish presence in the anti-terror coalition.�, Kwasniewski commented John Kerry�s stance.

�I don�t think it�s an ignorance.�, said Kwasniewski. �Anti-terror coalition is larger than the USA, the UK and Australia. There are also Poland, Ukraine, and Bulgaria etc. which lost their soldiers there. It�s highly immoral not to see our strong commitment we have taken with a strong believe that we must fight against terror together, that we must show our strong international solidarity because Saddam Hussein was dangerous to the world.

�That�s why we are disappointed that our stance and ultimate sacrifice of our soldiers are so diminished�, President Kwasniewski commented Kerry�s speech during the debate.



[edit on 10/3/2004 by FlyersFan]

I'd be interested to see where this is posted as well as any information on the original source (translation or original) we can find.

I'm sure it won't be long before this is big news. A President of a foreign country calling a Presidential candidate immoral and all.

Though one thing suprises me. It seems the President of Poland is as confused as Bush about who invaded Iraq.

Here's the transcript from the debate:

KERRY: The United Nations, Kofi Annan offered help after Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that and did what was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run.

Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better.

LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.

BUSH: Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there's 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops.

See when Kerry is explaining the Bush spin on this supposedly grand coalition, Kerry clearly sates when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition.

I would be interested in any information about Poland's initial invasion "when we went in" you can provide. I know they were "on the list" but that's not in doubt.

They have since sent in about 2,500 troops to relieve beleaguered US forces, and command an international troop of about 6,500 in total...but have announced plans today to withdraw Polish troops.

Though really again, I'm curious to hear more about this latest shocking reversal you've discovered from the President of Poland apparently believing he did initially invade Iraq and is now endorsing George Bush for President as well as calling the Democratic candidate "immoral" while saying such optimistic things about the future and Poland's commitments...since his Defence Minister Szmajdzinski said today:

"I remain moderately optimistic about the months ahead. We should have the chance to reduce the contingent," he added.

Amid strong popular opposition to the Polish troop deployment and continued unrest in the embattled country, the government in Warsaw is under domestic pressure to significantly scale back Poland's military involvement in Iraq.

I really think you've got a smoking gun here this time FlyersFan. You could win it for Bush if only we could just get this story out.

Poland DID invade Iraq. Bush isn't stupid. And the President of Poland thinks Kerry is immoral.

Poland participated in taking over Umm Qasr - that's all they did
Even this hasn't gone without scandals: the chapelain of the Polish ship Xawery Tschenitzki from which Polish commandos came accused the PL commandos of stealing things from POWs from a stopped Irani ship or something. Because Poland always has to mess something up
If Bush mentions Poland, he must also mention Ukraine, Bulgaria, Mongolia, Italy etc.

For someone who claims we shouldn't be going it alone and who constantly says he can get the support of other nations, Kerry sure has a funny way of proving that he can get ANYONE on board with us. And even worse, those that ARE with us might not be much longer if Kerry keeps downplaying their roles or insulting their leaders.



Jemison

You guys can't spin this one any better than Bush.

It's obvious what happened. The entire week up to the debate the campaign staff's and media pundits poured over every important debate on tape.

One of the biggest factual fumbles of record was Gerald Ford forgetting Poland was behind the Soviet block. All week people showed that as a pivitol losing point.

Obviously the point got prepped so hard in Bush's head at some point, he brain farted when Kerry said the big three and tried to make a "Poland moment" out of nothing.

It backfired. He looked retarded. I'm wondering now if he may in fact be retarded.

I'd still be very curious to discover if the President of Poland truly called Kerry immoral, but I'm doubting it...HARSHLY.

As most grown ups agree and understand the invasion was led by THREE. And I've seen various newscasters drive home the point repeatedly this weekend that Bush clearly overstated that little ommission of Poland, over any other country he could have named as "on the list." He went out of his way to cite POLAND rather than any other of the willing (but unavailable) precisely for the POLAND MOMENT that just aint happening.

He was obviously programmed to look for that "Poland moment" and blew his wad all over the podium making himself look dumb, not Kerry.

Kerry is right. No matter what the list says, or how many plumbers or experts or advisors were on the list THREE COUNTRIES led the invasion of Iraq when we went in.

You can spin this all you want, but it don't stick. In fact, I'm not letting this argument go until FlyersFan backs it up. Then I'd really like to see some effort to validate it's authenticity proactively by the poster. Not just post crap and run.

If it's real, then that's something. Amazing actually. Though it should have been all over the news by now. As of this moment it's not.

If not real, it's shameful to spread such lies and you don't want to know who I think is immoral right now.

Hopefully flyersfan can post the link this came from. If it's against ATS policy, maybe she can U2U you with it. I'm going to see if I can find a similar article online.

Jemison

Originally posted by Jemison
Hopefully flyersfan can post the link this came from. If it's against ATS policy, maybe she can U2U you with it. I'm going to see if I can find a similar article online.

Jemison

Thank you J. I'm sure FF can clarify too. Must have just not seen this before logging off.

But there's no reason to not post a link to an article, or even a link to a post on another board that's being quoted as supportive content. That's fine. Required actually, most likely by that board's TAC as well.

It's merely linking to content for discussion, not spamming or advertising or anything.

Maybe there was another problem with something previously, but this case seems fine.

[edit on 2-10-2004 by RANT]

Yes, Kerry did say that there was not much of a coilition. However, he went on to explain that he didnt consider a country that signed on just for the sake of signing, a coilition member. Kerry would like Poland to commite more. as well as the rest of the coilition. UK and Australia are the only members to contribute significant manpower to the war on terror. You could say Pakistan is a contributing member, but I believe that Mushaaref has his own agenda he is trying to forward.(Kashmire?) So I wouldnt call asking members of the coilition to contribute more, an immoral stance.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
UK and Australia are the only members to contribute significant manpower to the war on terror.

It is impossible to not agree with this statement.
Poland only helped during combat at Umm Qasr
At first they sent only support&antichemical troops

Originally posted by Kidfinger
UK and Australia are the only members to contribute significant manpower to the war on terror.

That's actually wrong. I think you mean Iraq. Plenty of countries have contributed to the war on terror. Please, do not get these confused, that's exactly what they want you to think.

Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. Though it is a different story now that Saddam is gone, etc etc.

Poland went in because of the promise of Oil IMHO, then seen they wern't going to get it and pressure at home they are pulling out, have they pulled out yet?

U.S., Britain, Poland to divide Iraqi
Friday, May 2, 2003 Posted: 7:44 PM EDT (2344 GMT)

The United States, Britain and Poland will each command one sector, and other sectors might be added. Also, the United Nations' role in Iraq would be limited to humanitarian operations, according to a proposal drafted by the United States and Britain.
www.veteransforpeace.org...

Polish Troops Leave to Head Force in Iraq Zone

Wed July 2, 2003 02:36 PM ET

By Wojciech Moskwa


WROCLAW (Reuters) - The advance guard of the 9,200-strong
multinational stabilization force Poland will command in central and
southern Iraq left Wednesday on the country's biggest military mission
in nearly 60 years.

The 250 Polish troops, including the zone's future commander General
Andrzej Tyszkiewicz, will pave the way for the force that will control
a stretch of territory running from the Iranian to the Saudi border.

"The Polish forces are beginning their biggest military operation
since the end of World War II," Prime Minister Leszek Miller told the
troops and their families at an airport in the southwestern city of
Wroclaw.
www.veteransforpeace.org...

From the Irish Times

Poland planning pull-out of troops from Iraq
Derek Scally, in Warsaw
April 21, 1004
Poland is planning to withdraw its troops from Iraq in the coming months, dealing another blow to the US-led coalition forces there.
The revelation yesterday by a senior government adviser that Poland's 2,500 soldiers would leave Iraq comes just a day after the new Spanish Prime Minister, Mr Jos� Luis Rodr�guez Zapatero, announced the pull-out of Spanish troops "as soon as possible".
President Bush reacted to the Spanish decision by accusing Mr Zapatero yesterday of giving "false comfort to terrorists \ enemies of freedom in Iraq".
www.veteransforpeace.org...

Originally posted by cargo

Originally posted by Kidfinger
UK and Australia are the only members to contribute significant manpower to the war on terror.

That's actually wrong. I think you mean Iraq.

Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. Though it is a different story now that Saddam is gone, etc etc.

No, I wasnt just talking about the quagmire in Iraq. No other country has given more troops than US,UK and Australia in the war on terror. Im not talking logistics, or support personel. Im speaking of combat troops. That is what Kerry wants. He wants more troops from everyone in the coilition that havent contributed. This is going to sound bad, but Im just calling an apple an apple. JK wants more troops so all the casualties are not ours. I think JK is tired of our troops dying all over the world in the war on terrorism while everyone in the coilition who hasnt contributed, sit back and say "Good Job America, thanks for doing this and not havng our troops die in the process." I know some people will confuse the war in Iraq with the war on terror. Its the only thing in the news. You hear a small blurb about once a week that troops were killed in Afganistan, but thats it. Your right when you say thats what they want you to think.

[edit on 10/2/04 by Kidfinger]

Kerry isnt going to get anyone eles to sign up if he calls the allies we already have "coerced and bribed" France and Germany are quite clear that they will not help out even if Kerry become president.

Im not to sure that many people in the US care if France is going to help or not. I would like to see Germany stand with us, but France has already shown thier support, or lack of.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
No, I wasnt just talking about the quagmire in Iraq. No other country has given more troops than US,UK and Australia in the war on terror. Im not talking logistics, or support personel. Im speaking of combat troops. That is what Kerry wants. He wants more troops from everyone in the coilition that havent contributed. This is going to sound bad, but Im just calling an apple an apple. JK wants more troops so all the casualties are not ours. I think JK is tired of our troops dying all over the world in the war on terrorism while everyone in the coilition who hasnt contributed, sit back and say "Good Job America, thanks for doing this and not havng our troops die in the process." I know some people will confuse the war in Iraq with the war on terror. Its the only thing in the news. You hear a small blurb about once a week that troops were killed in Afganistan, but thats it. Your right when you say thats what they want you to think.

OK, I see what you are saying. But I believe Canada did contribute effectively in the combat operations capacity in Afghanistan. I dont have any numbers but I do remember reading something about them breaking the sniper distance record and also that unfortunate incident when Canadian troops on training excercises were bombed in a friendly fire incident. Im not too sure but the might have had upwards of 2000-2500 troops in the war on terror. A canadian on the board may know.

btw I'm Australian not Canadian. Just feel there are other countries that deserve credit too.

JK wants more troops so all the casualties are not ours. I think JK is tired of our troops dying all over the country in the war on terrorism while everyone in the coilition who hasnt contributed, sit back and say "Good Job America, thanks for doing this and not havng our troops die in the process."

And as Bush said, with Kerry's position on the war in Iraq and his assinine comments about it being the wrong war at the wrong time and how we did it all wrong, exactly how is Kerry going to go about asking people to help in something that HE doesn't even think is right? You can't go around saying that the Iraq war was wrong and then expect people to jump on in and help out. Bush was dead on when he asked if we should say "Please join us in Iraq for a grand diversion"

What Kerry is doing is very aggressivly stating that Bush handled Iraq like an idiot and by saying that other nations should help out, Kerry is basically saying that they (in his opinion) should be idiots too and jump in to help us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong time. Oh yeah, and let's not forget, we won't know for sure if we were right or wrong to go into Iraq until we see if we win or lose! But hey, come join us because we shouldn't have to carry the burden alone.

I understand Kerry's point in wanting more help, but there is no way that HE will get it after the way he has criticized everything that has been done over there.

Jemison

Cargo,

I stand corrected. Kind of. I forgot about canada helping with the war in Afganistan. But I dont think that they are committing any troops at the moment. If they are, I havent heard about it or read it anywhere.

Jemison,

Well, If I were JK, I would tell the leaders this. " GB F'd up and I need your help to clean up his mess. If we dont clean up his spilt milk, it might leak on to your floor." But Im not JK, so what do I know?

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Cargo,

I stand corrected. Kind of. I forgot about canada helping with the war in Afganistan. But I dont think that they are committing any troops at the moment. If they are, I havent heard about it or read it anywhere.

This is the part where a Canadian steps in and lets us know what what the situation is with their crew in TWOT. I would bust open Google, but I'm going to bed.

Ha! He's buggered it for Poland if Kerry gets elected.I can't believe how stupid, undiplomatic, and irresponsible the President of Poland is being.

In Britain we have a strict government policy of not commenting on U.S elections.

Ask former Prime Minister John Major who knows just how comments like that can rebound badly for the country you represent.He backed Bush senior for re-election and caught it very bad when Clinton won.

[edit on 2-10-2004 by John bull 1]

Well, If I were JK, I would tell the leaders this. " GB F'd up and I need your help to clean up his mess. If we dont clean up his spilt milk, it might leak on to your floor." But Im not JK, so what do I know?

And what message does that give to the terrorists? Saddam had PLENTY of chances to comply. He didn't. He was given an ultimatum and he chose to ignore it. Bush opted to stand by his word and his ultimatum and I respect that choice. A man has nothing BUT his word. If you say you are going to do something you damn well better be able to back up your words with actions, especially when it's something as serious as this.

And when it comes to terrorists, there should be no negotiations. Saddam was a terrorist to his own people. There were Al-Qaeda operatives that went to Iraq for medical treatment. Saddam may not have been directly involved in 9/11 but he did have ties to Al Qaeda and he was encouraging people to be homicide bombers, offering large sums of money to families of homicide bombers.

The only way to win this war is to not allow terrorists to have second and third and fourth chances. And, the terrorists need to know that we are a country that stands by our word and we will hunt them down. If UBL is still alive (which I doubt) we will eventually find him, but if our only focus is UBL, we are giving others the opportunity to grow in strength and become more dangerous than AQ.

IMHO Kerry has lost credibility. Even if he did say what you are suggesting I don't believe he would get very far. I think his contradictory statements on Iraq have made it impossible to get people to jump on board. Why would other nations want to get involved with someone who one day says removing Saddam was the right thing to do and anyone that doesn't believe that doesn't have the judgement to be President and thena few months later calls Iraq the wrong war at the wrong time. To be a strong and effective leader you need to know what your position is and your position needs to be clear to others. Kerry has proven that even if he DOES have a strong clear position in his own mind, he is not able to communicate them in a way that makes them clear to others.

Jemison