Murtha, Pelosi v Clinton, Lieberman

A schism within dems is forming - those who think "timetables" for Iraq troop withdrawal are inappropriate (Clinton, Lieberman, et al) veruses John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi.

Who do you side with?

If Hillary aligns herself with Lieberman, she's not as smart as I give her credit for, OR she's listening to a lot of really bad advice.

A number of senate dems seem to be dead-set against Murtha and his idea.

I'd like to see what benchmarks they use for measuring progress - about as clear as the Bush "Plan for victory" to me. IMO, we're overextended and we're not going to win this one. Best mitigate the blowback by letting the Iraqi's choose their own fate.

supposedly "trained". "X" number of Iraq brigades trained, "Y" number of American brigades get pulled out of Iraq. That was just one bench mark I heard him suggest, I know he thinks there should be others. And he doesn't trust letting Bush decide on his own when benchmarks are reached and when they are not. He pushes for full Congressional hearings to monitor all the bench marks and provide Congressional over sight. The thing about the trained Iraq troops bench marks is that it puts Bush right on the spot and forces into the open a discussion they try not to have. Now Bush gets to claim all these Iraq soldiers are getting trained. With a bench mark when he makes those claims he has to pull Americans out. If he isn't willing to claim that we are training Iraq troops, then that exposes the lie to his entire PR campaign about how the war is going along right on schedule.

The Benchmark folks group as well.

and Murtha.

Basically called them cowards and went down the road of Jean Schmidt.

There is a thread going on it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2287202

I think that the effort to bring our troops home instead of staying till victory (whatever the fark that is) is gaining ground and will eventually represent the opinion of the Democratic party as a whole. Lieberman is way too much like a Republican and who wants Repub-lite? His opinion will rightfully be kicked to the side. At least that's what I hope.

I agree and hope you are right. We need a united front on this one - otherwise we'll never get traction with anything.

We really do need to be speaking with one voice. This is absolutly the wrong time to be undecisive (as in Clinton's case) or flat out supporting Bush (as in Lieberman's case). Not while troops are dying for this illegal occupation.
And thank you kindly for the welcome!

WHY oh WHY can't Democrats stand together on something so important?

United we stand, divided we fall.

People on DU don't seem to have picked up much on an attempt at unity that went out a few days ago under the auspices of the House Democrats. A public petition that states:

"Nothing has hurt our mission in Iraq more than the lack of oversight and accountability over President Bush’s misguided strategy from the Republican-led Congress, and nothing is more crucial to turning the tide than Congress living up to those responsibilities from here on.

We,the undersigned, demand that the mistakes of the past be examined and rectified, and that the course for the future be concrete and accountable."
http://www.dccc.org/get_involved/petitions/clarkiraq/index.pl

In my mind it is a good effort at establishing a bottom line Democratic consensus starting point for debate, that leaves plenty of room for individuals to differ on the specific plan that makes the most sense, and does not discourage anyone from making specific concrete proposals to get us out of Iraq. I think this is smart framing of the issue given that there isn't one Party leader who can definitively state one position. It holds the Democrats together at least over the issue of Bush's accountability for the Iraq mess.

Highlighting Republican failures in launching the war to begin with: their cooking the evidence, failing to plan going into it, failure to have a plan now, and failing to provide oversight or accountability for actions taken or not taken then or now; contrasting with Democrats stepping forward willing to provide leadership, provides all Democrats with a starting point to press our case in 2006. That really is key to getting us out of Iraq, increasing the power Democrats hold in Washington in the 2006 elections. And to do that we need a semblance of a unified campaign. I have been heartened somewhat by greater coordination and solidarity within Democratic ranks under Pelosi and Reid.

one kind of "timetable", like Murtha's, essentially says we should withdraw our troops from Iraq as quickly as safety allows and it probably could be completed within 6 months ... this seems to be the preference of a majority of Dems in the House ...

the other kind of "timetable" is CONTINGENT on the achievement of "benchmarks" ... when a benchmark is met, some number of troops can be withdrawn ... of course, if the benchmark is NOT met, no troops are withdrawn ... it's a "sort of" timetable ... this seems to be the current preference of many Dems in the Senate ...

A benchmark - how many Iraqi army divisions should there be, for example? How many car bombs exploding per month? And so on. I think our presence is destabilizing and no benchmark could be met so long as we're there. And we don't have any benchmarks that are concrete and easily measurable. I think Murtha, as a former professional soldier, understands this - thus his proposal to get our guys back as quickly as practical.

I am truly sorry that I voted for him twice.

I guarantee that she will never get my vote for either her next run for senator or her supposed run for President.

As far as I am concerned they have both become political traitors.

She is not out there cheerleading, saying things are going well blah blah...

To say otherwise is just wrong. Her position is virtually no different then many other Democrats in the Senate...

Somehow it is ok for a guy like John Edwards...who co-sponsored the IWR I believe to repent and he is given a free pass...but when Hillary starts to revise her position she is a poll-watching opportunist!

Typical of the blind Hillary hatred too apparent on this board

She is nothing but a shameless advocate of globalism, imperialism, and neolib policies.

Hillary is the American version of Eva Peron!

And unworthy of further comment!

thus more of a weathervane. Too many politicians like her try to split the middle and seek the imaginary middle on an issue where there is no real middle ground.

Who voted (or in Edwards case co-sponsored) the IWR and are now revising their positions.

DU is demonstrating why politicians usually stick to their original position no matter how inane it is, because when they do re-evaluate it in light of new information and experience, and yes...political pressure, people here come down on them like a ton of bricks, calling them useless opportunists...blah blah.

This is no more true than with Hillary Clinton!

Instead of doing that, we should be welcomoing the change, no matter how small or what the reason, because the goal is to have them do the right thing in the end (no matter the reason or motivation)

in respect to fudging. There are some like her such as Schumer, Warner, etc. Sometimes, you have to give a clear position. Kerry tried it her way and failed.

Dennis voted against the war in Iraq and he will pull the troops out of Iraq immediately and unconditionally. Dennis will end the war today!

There are other progressive, pro-active Democrats to consider, as well. Few to none are promoted as possible candidates for the wh, though.

have to pander to the Jewish vote in order to get re-elected. Pelosi and Murtha don't have that problem.

to be against the war from late 2002 on then the % seen in Christian friends and neighbors. In mid Otober, 2004, I was upset with a front page article in our weekly Jewish newspaper on the Republican Jewish (neo-con)position of Iraq, so my husband and I wrote an email to the editor. In fairness, they labelled it something like "The party of one interest" and laid out the position fairly. The question I had was whether they intended to cover the other side - which they did the following week.

The editor emailed me back that they usually were accused of pro-liberal bias, for things like publishing polls showing Jews to be over-whelmingly pro-Kerry. He then took the main part of our email and converted it to be a LTTE and published it as the top LTTE in one of the late October newspapers.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ISPIRE, NOT INFLAME
In your October 7th issue, in the article, "Party of one issue", the primaray issue of Jewish Republicans who support President George W. Bush was whether the war in Iraq was good for Israel. Although this should be an important concern for Jews, we have other concerns as Americans.

Even as it concerns Israel, how can inflaming the entire Middle East possibly bode well for Israel? Down the road even if we manage to avoid chaos and civil war the Iraqis may create an Islamic state like Iran which will be more dangerous for Israel, the United States, and the rest of the world. A more judicious and less bull in a china shop policy in regards to Iraq, such as the policy advocated by Senator Kerry, would lead to a safer world.

We strongly believe that the core Jewish value of Tikkun Olam is embraced by many of the positions that Senator Kerry has taken on the key issues in this presidential campaign.
-------------------------------------------------------------

This was 2004, but the dynamics of a Hillary/Pirro race or a Lieberman/ (whoever the sacrifical lamb is) are probably similar. Like NJ, the majority of CT and NY Jews are not neo-cons.

I grew up in NY, so I know that the majority of Jews there are liberal DEMS, just like the rest of the city. However, the power brokers with the big bucks to finance these campaigns tend to be in favor of the neocons.

Even as it concerns Israel, how can inflaming the entire Middle East possibly bode well for Israel?

Most of us understood that toppling Saddam would create a huge power vacuum in Iraq that would destabilize the Middle East for generations ... The PNAC pipedream of magically turning Iraq into a democracy was crazy ...

The right approach with Saddam would have been non-military ... Israel, the US and countries in the Middle East are much less safe because the US invaded Iraq ...

excellent letter!!

Murtha is "real" military in his evaluations. Those that say no timetable, stay the course, wait until the job is finished, are not military, they are pretend "tough" politicians, cowards to speak the truth, and chickenhawks.

it's just shrinking now.

Murtha and Pelosi have switched sides to join Kucinich, Feingold, etc.