Kerry is wrong on Iraq - here's exactly why

i would be interested to know whether those responding to this thread are or are not Kerry supporters ...

Iraq is genuinely a complicated business ... sincere people can look at the situation on the ground there, either through what we're able to read in the press or by actually going to Iraq and speaking to key people, and come to all sorts of different conclusions about what the strategy should be ...

For me, plans that call for contingencies before we withdraw make no sense ... Congressman Murtha said, and I quote, "None of the other plans makes sense to me." ... but others see risks of civil war in Iraq; they put emphasis on destabilized OPEC markets; they worry about the growing threats potentially posed by Iran; they worry about a tyranny of the majority in Iraq ... so, the point is, that reasonable people can disagree ... none of this intends to address the political choices we all have to make ... if the Democratic Party does not incorporate my views on Iraq in their platform and through the candidates they run, i will not support them ... this is not a call for ideological "purity" ... there's plenty of room to find common ground ... but if the Party does not truly seek common ground, i for one will not be a supporter ... i hope it does NOT come to that but fear that's where things are headed ... but this thread is NOT about politics; it's about Kerry's Iraq position ...

Here are a couple of excerpts from a Newsday article that describes a couple of key components of Kerry's Iraq plan ... my focus here is NOT to include the full scope of Kerry's plan but to specifically focus on the issue of troop levels and timeframes ...



So those are the basics of Kerry's plan specifically focussing on troop strength issues and withdrawal ... My strong disagreement with Kerry's plan is based on a number of factors but the most important reason to disagree with Kerry's plan was stated far more articulately than I ever could by none other than Kerry himself (see Kerry's statement from this morning's Imus show below) ...

as for my views on Iraq, I think Murtha and the Generals he's working with have it right on Iraq ... In Murtha's "petition on Iraq", he stated, and I quote: "I've taken a lot of trips to Iraq. When I came back from my last one, I had become convinced we were making no progress at all." ... Murtha also made compelling points about the devastating effects this prolonged occupation is having on our military ...

Polls of the Iraqi people have shown that 80% of them want us to get out ... get out NOT in a year or two or three as Kerry's plan "hints" at but get out of their country period ... a very recent poll showed that 45% of Iraqis believe it is OK to kill American troops occupying their country ... 45% !!!!!!!!! by what justification can the US remain in Iraq given that feedback from the Iraqi people???

And perhaps the most disturbing point of all, and this really should be addressed in a separate thread, is Kerry's statement referring to concerns about stealing Iraqi oil (i.e. US imperialism) as a "myth" ... Someone might refer the good Senator to Chalmers Johnson's "Sorrows of Empire" or John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" ... there are many on the left who accuse Democrats of being complicit in American imperialism; referring to the exploitation of Iraqi oil as a "myth" does little to dispel those concerns ... but let's stay focussed on troop withdrawal for now ...

And so, saving the best for last, I come to the most compelling argument for getting the hell out of Iraq before another drop of American blood is spilled ... the argument below is NOT only the reason we should leave Iraq as quickly as troop safety will permit, it is also the exact reason why voting for the IWR was a catastrophic mistake regardless of what evidence was or was not fairly presented ... and no one has made the case more clearly or concisely than Senator Kerry did this morning ... having said that, here is exactly why we should leave Iraq on Murtha's "best interest of the troops" timetable ...



There it is folks !!! ... could that be any clearer?? ... First, Kerry said that: "It (i.e. withdrawal) has to be results coordinated." and then he said: "And yet, there they are, still managing this." ... see the problem????????

How can anyone justify anything but the fastest possible withdrawal while bush remains in charge??? it is outrageously irresponsible to do so ... you cannot just pretend rational people are making the decisions ... you cannot just say what you would do IF you were in charge ... you have to weigh ALL the factors ... and when a drunk is driving the car, you don't get in hoping he'll respond to the directions you give him ...

Democrats obviously don't have the votes to stop the war ... we are not going to prevail with any given resolution ... our power right now does not derive inside the halls of Congress ... but we do have a huge amount of power available to us if we are willing to tap into it ... and that huge force is the will of the American people to see a rapid end to this war ... policies that "bide time", even ones that call for the withdrawal of most but not all of the troops over the next 13 months, will not send a clear message to the American people ... Kerry spoke last October about getting the troops out by around the end of 2006 ... what happened? nothing happened ... Murtha gave a crisp, clear, "get 'em outta there" message and Americans heard what he said ... he earned the respect of the American people ... he had a huge impact on the national dialog ... and his plan was left standing all by itelf by far too many of his colleagues including all Democrats in the Senate ... the power the Party has right now is vested in the American people; calling for another year in Iraq with a left behind force of as many as 40,000 will just not provide the power we need to end the war ...

Kerry clearly knows better than to trust this administration with another second in Iraq and yet that's exactly what he's calling for ... it just doesn't make any sense ...

I don't think he's wrong. Who else is even making any noise anyway. Good for Kerry, I'll take whatever I can get and hope he gathers momentum along with the others who want to point out the bullshit that's fed daily to the public from bushco.

Kerry's plan is a plan to help stabilize Iraq, turn control over to the Iraqis, engage the region through diplomatic efforts and repair America's image in the Arab world.


The real war on terror is an even bigger challenge. It is a war that has drawn us smack into the middle of an internal struggle in the Islamic World. It is fundamentally a war within Islam for the heart and soul of Islam, stretching from Morocco East to Indonesia. -It leads, ultimately, to a struggle for the transformation of the Greater Middle East into a region that is no longer isolated from the global economy, no longer dependent on despotism for stability, no longer fearful of freedom, and no longer content to feed restive and rising populations of unemployed young people a diet of illusions, excuses, and dead end government jobs.

As the 2004 Arab Human Development Report tells us, “By 21st century standards, Arab countries have not met the Arab people’s aspirations for development, security and liberation … Indeed, there is a near-complete consensus that there is a serious failing in the Arab world …located specifically in the political sphere.” And in addition, in regions where the mosque remains the only respected alternative to the autocratic state structures, there is no credible secular alternative. So we are caught in a cauldron of religious struggle where today there is no center of moral authority that forcefully condemns those who murder in the name of Islam.

In the long run–and we’re in this for the long run-the war on terror cannot be won without the successful transformation of the Greater Middle East, and especially its Arab core. And our strategy must do what it takes to increase the internal demand for change in that region.

That means we are in a war of ideas and ideologies–but ultimately a war that must be fought and won within the Islamic world.

That means we have a huge stake in finding partners in the Arab world who are willing not only to support the transformation of the Middle East, but to reestablish the broad and unchallenged moral authority needed to isolate and defeat terrorists.

nd ultimately, that means we must liberate ourselves and the Middle East itself from the tyranny of dependence on petroleum, which has frustrated every impulse towards modernization of the region, while giving its regimes the resources to hold onto power.


snip...

So this is the long range mission in the war on terror: one, make sure the right side wins the war of ideas within the Islamic world; two, build up diversified economies and civil society; and, three, end the empire of oil. These three challenges make it abundantly clear this is not a war the United States should fight alone.



snip...

In the critical days after Saddam's regime collapsed, we got just about everything wrong. You know the list: failing to seal the borders and prevent sabotage of critical infrastructure; creating a formal occupation; privatizing the reconstruction; disbanding the entire Iraqi security structure; and on and on. No one in the administration has been fired for these mistakes, but our courageous troops, and the Iraqi people, are paying a high price for them every day.


snip...

I’ve set out a series of steps we should take to eliminate the perception of a permanent military occupation, to achieve the political solution our generals say we need to weaken the insurgency, to isolate the foreign jihadists, and to bring Iraq stability.


snip...

The right rhetoric's not enough. Statements of "resolve" are not enough. We need skill as well as resolve, and a strategy as well as an attitude.


snip...

We must do everything possible to promote economic, social and political transformation in the Middle East, especially among Sunni Arabs. Nations like Jordan, Qatar and Bahrain are not only moving towards political freedom and pluralism--they are also trying to build real economies built on the talents of their own people rather than trying to simply pump prosperity out of the ground. Every move in that direction in this critical region should not only be praised, but rewarded tangibly as a role model. There’s no way to overemphasize the importance of ensuring that the Greater Middle East does not continue its long trajectory towards a region where an exploding young population collides with dysfunctional and isolated economies, producing instability and ultimately, more and more terrorism. Majority populations under the age of 18 without jobs or futures are a sure recipe for disaster.

So we must work harder with our allies in Europe and Asia to strengthen our commitment and enhance our efforts to integrate the Middle East into the global economy. This is the only way to stop economic regression, spur investment beyond the oil industry, and spark trade, investment and growth in the region. It’s the only way to turn young minds and energy away from terror.


snip...

Harry Truman was an uncomplicated man. Yet he was also a man who believed he should be held personally accountable for every decision and every judgment, every day, not just on election days. At the end of one great war against totalitarianism and at the beginning of another, Harry Truman presided over the greatest era of bipartisan, multi-lateral foreign policy our country or the world has ever seen. It’s time for the President to put a little more Harry Truman in his foreign policy.

And if he won't, then those who admire Harry Truman will keep up the fight at home, in order to win the fight against terrorism around the world. And we'll be joined by other Americans and, I hope, by leaders in organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations, who understand this is a fight we dare not lose. More than that, it is a fight we must win.

http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com/RealSecurityinthePost...

I heard it recommended this morning on the Springer show. We should call "withdrawal" a "peaceful transition." That's been our problem all along, letting the media and the republicans define the issues. I think Kerry and others have set their true selves aside for whatever reason, power, contributions etc... and are losing the trust of the people. It's a shame.

ALL OF THEM... anyone who is out there giving their opinion... and put them in a room, and lock it behind them. And, I wouldn't let them out until they had a united concensus for us and for the country.

All these duelling plans and opinions are making us look like the Keystone Cops. Instead of talking to the cameras, they should be talking to each other and us. Some of them are doing that -- kudos to them, but to those who are just out there for face-time and viability, knock it off, and TALK TO EACH OTHER!

Instead of a War Cabinet, we need a DEMOCRATIC PARTY PEACE SUMMIT!

TC

is a RW talking point. We are not in power and cannot put any plan into action. All of the men who have come out with plans, detailed or conceptual are contributing to the market place of ideas. I do think that many of them do talk to each other and I would assume that they are influenced by each other.

I doubt if you put them all in a room, they would come out with a consistent DETAILED plan. They could get agreement on a vague conceptual statement of goals. Each of the men who have offered plans is a serious person with background in a combination of government, military and diplomacy. Each put their plan toether after talking to as many experts as they could and they believe in their plans. I think you could put Murtha and Lieberman in a room for a week and they would have no real agreement.

What we need to do is first say that there is no virtue to conformity and second to ask all the key players to understand at least the outlines of all the plans. So, if they are asked about another Democrat's plan they can say we agree on (.....), but I think (....), while he prefers (....). In this they need to be sure to present the others views accurately and positively.

By the way, some remarkable work towards the effort of establishing a Peace Department has been underway months, even though it hasn't gotten any press.

that aside, i agree with locking these wannabes in a room and putting together ONE plan that is coherent, and not a neo-con/bush remake.

apologized for the fact that THEY are to blame for authorizing the war in the first place. They just keep passing the buck, instead of saying that Bush is not the kind of guy who should ever have been trusted like that in the first place.

here's a snippit from a Wes Clark piece:

‘After hearing a presentation from retired Gen. Wesley Clark on Tuesday night, a bloc of House Democrats who have been calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq admitted Clark's comments are prompting them to take a new look at the issue. Clark met privately with the members of the Out of Iraq Caucus to give them his perspective on the ongoing conflict and offer advice on how Democrats should frame their arguments for bringing troops home. His call: Avoid specific timelines for withdrawal and focus instead on calling for and developing strategies for success that rely not on the military, but on diplomacy.’

...you make a critical point in your post: that we can't operate on the IF we were in charge. However, I've been trying to take your point to the next logical place--that we're all doomed as long as Bush remains the president. You said yourself that as long as he's in charge, the only option left is withdrawal...and you're right. ....but Clark's assessment is that such a withdrawal will be catastrophic.

....do I really expect us to be able to wake everyone up to the fact that Bush resigning is our only hope? I should if I want to survive, right? it's not like my facts are wrong.

That it didn't had to do with the dishonesty of Bush. Kerry did take responsiblity for his vote in October. He spoke against the war before it started. Bush took the country to war. (There is no of knowing how either Clark or Dean would have voted, if their only choice was yes or no)

Kerry nor Edwards nor Gephardt nor Lieberman ever have acknowledged that they were wrong to vote yes without the specific provision that Bush would manditorily have to come back to Congress...which is what Clark said they should vote yes on it or not at all.

and this would be one time where Kerry could at least have it both ways by saying, "Yes, I'm guilty: of trusting Bush."

it easy for Clark to say that, but if he were a Senator he would have had to vote on the bill before him. It really isn't clear which way he would have gone because, very much like Kerry, he was concerned with holding Saddam acccountable and the IWR was seen as support for the American position at the UN. The Levin amendment that I think required that was defeated.

Kerry DID say what you are saying both in his Georgetown speech in late October and in a Senate speech (the monday after Veterans day)

I understand that the bill was given to them that way, but if they had listened to CLark then, like Kucinich and others, would have said, change it we don't sign. Period.

and a "I never should have trusted the POTUS. I'm sorry I did."

He has, actually.

Twice.

Want me to quote them?

Again?

So has Edwards. And others have said they regret their vote, even Feinstein.

If you wanna make pronouncements like that, pay attention to what these people say so you won't look like a shmuck.

Just sayin'...

Well, considering that Edwards and Kerry both said initially that "knowing what they know now..." sorry if I missed it and call it too little too late (which it still would be if it was the day after the war started). When bush asked that question THAT was when Kerry should have said "shame on me for trusting bush"

but realize that nobody has a clear picture of what is going on in Iraq. The private military contractors, black-ops by the Pentagon, CIA, and who knows how many other intelligence agency's, neighboring countries, global oil companies jockeying for contracts, and serious graft so confuse the equation that I really don't think anyone could be comfortable with any decision based on such a shit-load of unknowns.

I would say Kerry's plan most closely fills the bill under Ellsberg's analysis.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x57725

He mentions it but says it's a myth, (implicitly, spread by people against the US) and he says we need to signal it's not true. If the liberal blogs now followed Kerry as the conservative ones do Republican leaders, they would echo the need for the US to make it absolutely clear to everyone that we disavow any intention of doing this.

I can see why Kerry doesn't want to claim what he can't prove - that this is Bush's goal. In even bringing it up, he is steps ahead of anyone else. He's already, compared to anyone else in the Senate, leading the way on changing our Iraq policy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2289456

and more importantly, please read the article cited in the thread ...

those of us who are genuinely concerned that the Democratic Party MAY BE in bed with the corporate puppetmasters need to see the Democrats calling for investigation of PSA's before they are finalized ... where is the representation for those of us who believe the "fix is in"???

if Kerry doesn't have the proof to make the case, he and the other Dems in the Senate should at least raise the issue and call for an honest airing of the arrangements being made ... Halliburton et al are about to "close the deal" and all is quiet with our opposition party ...

except I think that Kerry DID raise the issue. I don't recall anyone in the MSM or any politician mentioning this. It was of course on many anti-war signs and all over anti-war sites.

I was surprised that he was willing to say as much as he did - which is more than any of his peers have done.

the following is excerpted from an excellent speech Kerry gave last July while discussing the Energy Bill ... he made it more than clear back then that our dependence on oil has forced us to have an imperialistic foreign policy ... to call beliefs that the US steals oil a "myth" clearly contradicts his earlier statements ... if he's doing this for some kind of clever "put bush in a box" reason, he shouldn't be ... what he said last July is exactly the kind of information Democrats should be putting in front of the American people ... Americans don't need political chicanery; they need real information so that they can understand what our Big Oil enemies are doing to the country ...

Kerry wants, rightfully, to diffuse this myth because it is fueling distrust of America's motives in the Arab world.

The statement maintains his position: Kerry points out Bush's dubious ties to Saudi Arabia and our dependence on oil as a reality, but warns that America must wean itself of this dependency and not get suck into a dangerous conflict.

i was trying to give Kerry credit for acknowledging the use of the American military to protect oil overseas ... oil that we don't necessarily own ...

details to follow ...

and Democrats are the majority in Congress, Bush (or the Republicans) will be managing it

You say: "How can anyone justify anything but the fastest possible withdrawal while bush remains in charge???"


Redeploying the troops for possible reentry into Iraq would still be Bush's call.


If Bush and Congress follow Kerry's plan, which addresses an overall political and diplomatic strategy that calls for full withdrawal and no permanent bases, that would be the best course for not only the safety of American troops, but also for the stabilization and independence of Iraq.

and that is this administration. What do we do about Bush? Discrediting him and saying he is wrong don't work.

taking things out of context. Out of the entire interview they talked more about other subjects than Kerry's plans for withdrawal. Yet you insist on pigeonholing a few quotes instead of refering to the plan itself.

If he trusted them why say this:



http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1356#more-1356

this thread is about Kerry's plan to withdraw troops ... his plan about this doesn't make any sense ...

and once again, instead of responding to the reasoning provided in the post, you make another foolish defense that has nothing to do with what was written ...

i said he is "trusting them" because his plan extends the war into 2007 under THEIR leadership ... did you miss that part?????

why don't you respond to what was written ... explain to all of us, since you seem to agree with Kerry, why you are prepared to leave troops in Iraq when it's clear bush has screwed up every single aspect of this war ... that's what Kerry is calling for ... if you want to defend it, do so and stop all your bullshit responses ...

and to respond to your totally inane post, try defending this kerrygoddess ... is Kerry fucking kidding us when he says that "in retrospect, that's what was driving things" ... did Mr. Expert Senator just learn about PNAC? did you?

it may come as a great surprise to you and Kerry that many DU'ers knew about PNAC and were very concerned that's exactly who, and what, was "driving the policy" ... "in retrospect????" ... give me a break ... how stupid do you have to be to have believed what bush was selling before the IWR???? were you as fooled by bush's lies as Kerry was???

you're basing it on the wrong source. You also need to consider that what we knew then, what Kerry knew then, the general public did not - so when he's speaking on Imus and other talk shows he has to temper things he's saying to get the rest of the American public to listen.

When we have the RNC putting out attack ad's over what Dean, Boxer and Kerry are saying, if we want moderates and others to listen to what he is saying in the interest of further educating the American public, he can't be spouting at the mouth about stuff that the public either won't get or believe.

Contrary to popular belief spouting at the mouth is not beneficial.

I know plently of people who don't get what the PNAC is about or even believe that they have everything mapped out there. You need to get that Kerry is addressing THOSE people on Imus and other shows, not those of us who are already informed.

Stop taking his words and making an issue of of them. Who cares if he said in retrospect - because if it gets people to hear him and maybe see things differently that is the point.

when i take Kerry's exact words, you complain ...

when i talk about specific points he made that I want to talk about, you say i'm taking him out of context ...

When Kerry speaks on TV YOU don't get to say who his audience is and what they do or don't know ... stop making things up ... Kerry said "in retrospect" and it was a stupid thing to say ... when you say "who cares if he said in retrospect", all you're doing is dodging the truth ... it was a stupid thing to say and a stupid thing to believe ...

and you still haven't addressed the question i asked ... if you support Kerry's plan, why do you believe bush is competent enough to conduct a war that Kerry would extend into 2007? Kerry basically said bush hasn't made one good decision yet on the war ... and now he's planning to let bush keep 40,000 troops in Iraq into at least 2007 and maybe beyond ????

please, share your wisdom with us on why it makes sense ... and what about Murtha's plan ... i keep seeing posts on DU that there is very little difference between Murtha's plan and Kerry's ... do you believe that? do you support Murtha's plan that he thinks could have ALL US troops out of Iraq within 6 months?? if there's very little difference between the plans, why not get fully behind Murtha to build bridges to the Party's left? how's that sound??

Your mis-characterizations shows you don't understand it fine, but it makes perfect sense.

Oh, and your bitterness is showing.

i sick of bullshit goddesses who refuse to respond to issues raised in the OP and can do nothing but attack ...

you're not one of those, i hope ... some of the Kerry people on DU are thoughtful; and some are, well, otherwise ... i am no longer willing to take their crap ... how's that? they want to blindly defend Kerry, attack those who criticize him as being nitpickers and worse, well, i'll be happy to respond to their bullshit ...

Kerry's plan is a bullshit plan based on contingencies that bush would have to achieve ... Kerry correctly pointed out that bush has been a colossal failure in Iraq .. but he continues to play his little political games ... it makes no sense, ProSense ... and you have yet to explain why it does ...

you say i have mischaracterized Kerry's plan after i cited, using exactly what he said, the essential problem with his lame-assed plan ... and your defense? you address my mischaracterizations and my "bitterness" ... attack all you want ... you have failed to answer the criticisms levelled against Kerry's plan ... and there's a reason you won't be able to answer ... that's because the best argument against Kerry's plan was provided by Kerry himself ...

any different from each other if Bush isn't doing any of them. Or if he does, would fuck them up about as badly as he's fucking up now.

That said, I like Murtha being out there for symbolic reasons. A hawk for peace, who has advised people on both sides of the aisle. It seems to me he has picked up the baton from Cindy.

I'm glad more than one person has a plan. I hope that there is a process of hashing out that results in a plan that all the Dems can rally around.

What do you think of the plan that Dean likes? The Kolb plan. I've not seen it, but Dean keeps saying he thinks it's a plan that can gather consensus.

the thoughts you expressed are very similar to my own ...

Murtha's plan has the symbolic power (i like that phrase) to rally the American people ... this is what Americans want ... we don't want no more stinkin war ... the other plans will not have that power ...

i have no problem at all having multiple plans on the table ... for now ... starting with lots of ideas is fine ... but we need to find a clearer, more consistent, party-wide position on Iraq ... i've said this before but we cannot make our campaign slogan next year "Democrats have lots of ideas but we just don't agree with each other" ...

as for Dean's plan, i don't like it at all ... i believe Dean said that we would remain in Iraq for another two years ... if that's his plan, count me out ...

the Democratic Party has a real opportunity to "heal itself" and capture the enthusiasm of Americans if we break out of our "careful politician" mode and demonstrate the courage to lead ... i'm afraid i have very little hope these changes can be made by the current pack of party elites ...

That is the way it has been defined.

What gave the GOP that SYMBOLIC POWER it got from Murtha's plan? All the dummies on the left who jumped on Murtha's plan as immediate withdrawal without noting his use of provisional language.

Kerry's plan actually calls for the troops to be out within two years, not 10.

Kerry's plan calls for no permanent bases, meaning full withdrawal.

Kerry's goal at the end of the next year is as realistic a projection as there can be since Democrats do not control the WH or the Congress, with no chance to regain control of the Congress until November 2006.

Bitterness is calling people bulls*** goddesses and refusing to acknowledge that the facts above that have been repeated in dozens of posts.

Because you say he's playing a political game doesn't make it so.

Kerry calling for two years is meaningless because any timeframe he names is totally contingent on bush achieving positive results in Iraq ... and, unless you have far more confidence in bush than i have, that is NOT going to ever happen ...

what has been repeated in dozens of posts is the reality that you still haven't addressed the questions raised in the OP ... why do you trust bush to achieve the benchmarks on which Kerry is basing his entire plan ????? just answer the question ... you tap dance and twist and attack and you still haven't answered the main point made in the OP ...

anything about PNAC - EVERYONE knew about PNAC - but it was almost as if this was a policy that must not be named in that campaign, along with the drafters. (sheesh)

but getting back to the substance - i don't understand the point in having all these Democratic Senators with a DIFFERENT plan from each others. I like the idea mentioned in previous thread to lock all these guys in a room and come up with a meaningful draw down/exit plan and be all on the same page and be done with it.

Nothing has really happened despite what Democrats Russ Feingold, Jack Murtha, John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi has said. The most that has happened is that the ball has been advanced a little bit down the field. The Bush administration doesn't listen, that is the problem. They will also try and finesse this and hide their intentions in Iraq enough to get the press off their back and the public's attention turned elsewhere. The Sy Hersh story from last week shows that these people are not going to get out of Iraq, they are going to switch tactics and call in a just as devastating air war.

They are also not listening on energy. At all. There are reports in the paper and reported in other threads at DU that they are planning on undermining the global conferences that are coming up on climate change. They do not believe in this. They do not want to change course at all, and beyond public service announcements about conserving to get through the winter, they couldn't care less about conservation. They want those oil fields in Iraq under some sort of American influence. That's the objective.

Kerry has always said (gawd we could reference about a 100 times here going back to his first term in the Senate) that we have to change policies in the US about energy. We can't continue to rely on oil and natural gas, especially when the bulk of the world's supply of that oil is not in US hands. (And I think Kerry and most if not all Dems are just much better on acknowledging the damage that fossil fuels have done to the environment and contributing to climate change.)

The fight is to keep up pressure on the Bushies but it is also to keep them from playing political games and finessing the outcome. The Bushies could well cut deployments in half by the summer. But they are not talking, like Murtha and Kerry, about keeping in troops at the peripherals and away from day to day military operations in Iraqi cities, they are talking about big bombing runs.

We can discuss the fine points of the Kerry or Biden or Murtha or Feingold or, heaven help us, the Leiberman ideas for Iraq. But they are not the enemy. Except for Leiberman, the idea is to keep the issue in front of the public, attack what the Bushies are doing and point out alternatives and keep talking about HOW to reduce the troop levels. This is extremely important. This is what will eventually make a difference. (If we can keep the media focused on what is going on. If not, as Kerry stated today, we may wind up back with a dictator in Iraq, but one who will sell us oil. This is horrible beyond words.)

please explain ... your post talked about energy, climate change, etc ... i'm not sure how that relates to the main themes i raised in the OP ...

you said "we can discuss the fine points ..." i don't consider the most important issue facing the country "fine points" ... i don't consider differences between Kerry's plan that, at best, will leave as many as 40,000 American troops in Iraq into 2007 and very possibly beyond and Murtha's plan that understands continued US military presence in Iraq is killing our troops and our country ...

some may consider these "fine points" ... i don't ...

The Murtha plan resembles -- and may have been inspired by -- one put forward in October by Korb and Brian Katulis at the Center for American Progress. They call for redeploying 80,000 troops in Iraq during 2006 -- 20,000 would be sent to Afghanistan, 14,000 to Kuwait, and the rest (all the Guard and Reserve troops, more than 40,000) would come back to the United States. Then, in 2007, the rest of the American force in Iraq would come home.

"By the end of 2007," Korb and Katulis write, "the only US military forces in Iraq would be a small Marine contingent to protect the US embassy, a small group of military advisors to the Iraqi Government, and counterterrorist units that works closely with Iraqi security forces. This presence, along with the forces in Kuwait and at sea in the Persian Gulf area will be sufficient to conduct strikes coordinated with Iraqi forces against any terrorist camps and enclaves that may emerge and deal with any major external threats to Iraq." (A PDF version of their paper is available here.)

If this careful withdrawal is what Murtha meant to call for, it's not what most observers took from his speech. Murtha's rhetoric emphasized bringing troops home immediately (the version of his speech on his Web site renders this phrase in all caps: "IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME"). Even many in his own party thought Murtha to be calling for something more precipitous, and did not immediately endorse his proposal. Still, Murtha's speech opened the floodgates, and put pressure on other Democrats, not to mention on Republicans, to discuss their ideas on Iraq.


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/12/09/withdrawal/index1.html


This is his statement:

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/statement_051117iraq.html

that's exactly what Murtha's speech did ...

references i've seen both Murtha and Pelosi make to his "over the horizon" force implied numbers much, much smaller than 80,000 although not specifics were given ... what was provided was Murtha's statement that enough forces were needed to deal with a "terrorist camp" should one spring up inside Iraq ... he clearly provided the sense that he was talking about a very minimal force ...

and leaving 40,000 troops behind (did Kerry call for that last October? i don't remember his doing so) plays right into bush's hands ... that's exactly what bush wants to happen ... why?? because those troops are not going to be ensuring that terrorists can't take down the new government in Iraq ... that's what we'll be told ...

but those troops will be guarding Halliburton's oil and protecting their PSA's ... let Halliburton pay for their own security force ...

and just for the record, if Murtha's proposal isn't perfect because it deploys an excessively large force, than let's support something with fewer troops over-the-horizon ... i'm not wedded to Murtha ... we just need to get out of a country whose people don't want us to be there ... Kerry's plan takes way too long and is based on pie-in-the-sky, somehow-the-WH-will-get-its-act-together contingencies ... we need to rally the American people behind ending the war; plans that extend into 2007 and beyond "lack soul" and are uninspiring ... inspiring the American people is the only political power we currently have ...

"based on pie-in-the-sky, somehow-the-WH-will-get-its-act-together contingencies"

Is Bush going somewhere before January 2009?

Bush has got to get his act together, no doubt.



If Bush implements Kerry's plan, the soldiers come home safely, Iraqis get their country back and the Arab world can continue, without American disruption (no permanent bases over the horizon) to find solutions to their own internal conflicts.

if we can get out of Iraq sooner and keep bring all troops home, that would be better ...

but Murtha's plan woke up Americans unlike Kerry's DOA plan ... so, Murtha's plan is OK with me ... but wedded to it? not at all ...

i have no idea what you're asking me (or why) with "Is Bush going somewhere before January 2009?"

"If Bush implements Kerry's plan, the soldiers come home safely" ... well, the ones who don't get killed do ... and the "soldiers come home safely" IF benchmarks are achieved ... Kerry has made it clear bush has screwed up just about everything he's done in Iraq ... but if he suddenly starts getting it right and things start going well and benchmarks are magically achieved, THEN AND ONLY THEN, the troops, well all but 40,000 troops, can "come home safely" ...

no thanks ... I'll stick with Murtha's plan or one like it ... plans based on "bush achieved contingencies" will keep us in Iraq for another 10 years ... do you honestly believe bush will achieve these mythical benchmarks ???

Bush and the Republican majority in Congress calls the shots for now. Democrats can regain control in October 2006. Nothing happens without Bush and Republican support until then, or unless he and his administration is remove from the equation (unlikely).


Do you honestly believe that any of this matters until that equation changes?


Kerry's plan is realistic.

what's "what you mean?"

do i honestly believe any of this matters until that equation changes ???

no, of course not ... there's no point in Kerry going on TV ... there's no point in Reid or Dean saying anything ... there's no reason to speak to the American people about our views ... there's no reason to really do anything ... might as well wait for the campaign to start ... nothing to see here ... just move along ...

first you tell me that nothing will change until Jan, 2007 (that's the earliest the Dems could have control in Congress) and then you tell me that Kerry's plan is "realistic" ... does that actually make sense to you??? really??? how is Kerry going to bring about a reduction of 100,000 troops if the Dems are out of power???? that is the point you were making isn't it???

so what i believe doesn't matter because the Dems have no power and Kerry's plan is "realistic" even though the Dems have no power ... yup, makes plenty of sense, i suppose ...

as i said in my OP, the power the Dems have is NOT a power inside Congress ... no matter what they propose will be outvoted ... unless ...

the unless is that Democrats, if they ever get their act together, could rally the American people which would put huge political pressure on the republicans to end the war ... but, Mr. Realistic has decided to rally the American people with a plan that takes us into 2007 or beyond ... not exactly inspirational ...

It demonstrates that there is an alternative to Bush's failed policy. Maybe that could forces Bush's hand. Realistic time frame; Murtha's plan is realistic, I don't think the right now (immediate) aspect of the plan that people assume it calls for is possible. Like all the plans, it's contingent on the elections and Bush. Kerry's plan is realistic because sometime before the 2006 election Bush and the Republicans are going to have to begin answering to the public for fear of losing Congressional seats. More than likely this is going to be closer to mid 2006 than the beginning of the year. When that happens, there will be movement and if the Democrats rally behind a plan they will force the Bush's hand. Nothing happens before then as I see it. And just as people believe that out in six months is possible now, out in six months will definitely be possible by the end of 2006.

That's the political pressure process: how long do long does political pressure take to work? Immediately? No.

refuse to acknowledge that HIS plan could also take 12 months, too, and included provisional language specifically so that it COULDN'T be labeled as surrender or cut and run, even though BushInc is succeeding in defining it as such in the media.

or the withdrawal. We are discussing plans, be they Murtha's or Feingold's or Kerry's or Biden's that won't come about. We are not the party in power. You alluded to that in an early post. Democrats do not have the power to implement any of their plans. They have some power to move the debate. This is the apple.

The orange is the stated goals of the Bush Administration. They do not line up with any plan that any Dem has publicly stated in the last six months or so in opposition to what is going on in IRaq. They will do the bare minimum to get the press and the public off their backs so that they can continue to do what they want in IRaq. We can debate the fine points of Dem plans forever, but, in reality, they are not going to make any difference to the Bush Admin which will not fully implement any of them. That's just the bare truth.

We can discuss the fine points of each Democrats plan if we want. But, honestly, they are not going to be adopted. The Bush Admin has no real interest in ending this war without securing the oil fields and those bases that they want so bad. They might steal some surface stuff from these plans but they want to stay in Iraq. In light of this, and in light of the fact that they might be planning on being in Iraq when they leave office in 2009, I find the differences between Dems who say out in six months or out in 12 months less important. (Again, the Dems do not have the power to do this. We have some power to move the discussion, but not to implement policy changes needed.)

I have been somewhat reluctant to play the Dem against Dem game here on DU because I really don't think it makes much difference. I am glad that the Dems are inching closer to core principles on how to get out of Iraq. But's it not the Democrats who have to be convinced to bring the troops home. It's the Republicans and it's the Bush Administration. It is, after all, their war.

you said: <<<There it is folks !!! ... could that be any clearer?? ... First, Kerry said that: "It (i.e. withdrawal) has to be results coordinated." and then he said: "And yet, there they are, still managing this." ... see the problem????????>>>

But you are assuming that he means that the WH is going to produce results. I disagree. He's expecting the Iraqis to take over control as we withdraw troops. This means both military results and political results. They are going to have to deal with their different factions and their insurgencies, and they can do it much better than we can. So I see no contradiction in what he is saying.

Iraq belongs to the Iraqis, and they are the ones who can best fix it, not the ones who screwed it up. As Americans, we've got to get over ourselves, and get past the idea that we are the answer to every problem.

thank you ... it's nice to see that someone can actually make an effort to answer the main point raised in the OP ...

having said that, it is not my understanding that Kerry intends to be the judge about what the benchmarks are ... and it's also clear that he didn't intend for the Iraqi government or the Iraqi people to define the benchmarks ...

he called on bush to define the benchmarks ... and, correct me if i'm wrong, but i have always thought that the main benchmark, not the only one but the main one, was the preparedness of Iraqi troops ... at the rate we're going, according to Murtha, that should take about another 25 years ...

do you believe real and substantial progress is being made in Iraq and the Iraqi people are well on their way to achieving benchmarks so that US troops can come home?? or are you suggesting that we should just withdraw and this will pressure the Iraqis to get their act together?

Not "just" withdraw. Withdraw with warnings, so that they will get serious. As Kerry has said, it's not such a big job: it's mainly a matter of security operations, not all-out battle.

It's becoming not a question of whether we'll draw down the troop levels, only a question of how. As a member of the minority, all Kerry can do is put suggestions out there and hope someone in the majority will latch onto them. I'm not sure if he's mainly speaking to the public, or to other Senators who might have some influence, or both. He feels he has good ideas and is in a position to speak out, so he is.

I think it is mainly a matter of seeing what's happening on the ground, but we can't just sit around waiting indefinitely for the Iraqis to "step up"; there needs to be more pressure. No, I agree--they're not very ready at this point, and I don't think the WH has been in a big hurry to do anything about it, for various reasons. I do think Kerry, Murtha and others are trying to pressure them to pressure the Iraqis.

And there are signs that a quiet shift is going on within the administration. Rice seems to be trying to do something about torture, for example. Nick Burns is working with her at State--and he has worked closely with Richard Holbrooke. Gordon England, the #2 at the DoD, has a better grip on reality than Rummy and is gaining more and more influence, according to Newsweek. The old "cabal" is out of ideas and others are quietly stepping up. So I'm hopeful.