Iraqis plan...

Our scoop on Friday was correct. I hope the Dems and particularly Sen. Kerry point out that this is what they were saying all along. Sen. Feingold is going to be on one of the Sunday shows. I'll be curious as to what he says.

really it was places like The Democratic Daily and DailyKos that projected this story out yesterday.

Any reaction from Sen. Kerry? He really needs to react to this.

is what Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton have to say about this. The Iraqis are wrong?

Ask for their press office and tell them you want an official statement. When I call them, I give them a time limit and I tell them I will be going to press (ie. blog) with it. You have to give them a time limit or they don't call you back. If they decline to answer then that is part of your story.

I'm really quite serious. You should call them and get their responses on record.

(edited to add: If they don't return your call then you keep track of that as well. Hint: When I call these people, I keep a journal. Name of the Rep. Name of their press secretary. Date. Time. Comments made. I take meticulous notes. And I have it to refer back to later when they try to twist words. ((Which they always do!)) Though honestly, I use this method more with my Republican guy than with Democrats too, but it's appropriate for both.)

Really want to know their thoughts on this.

And be upfront about that, so that they know they are on the record.

(This is the part I suck at. Because then they tell me stuff and say, "OH that was off the record!" I should say 'too bad' but... (that's the part I suck at...I feel awful about saying anything when they do that. So I trap myself.)

Ed Schultz said on his show that if this story turned out to be correct, that it's a HUGE story. He questioned how the London Times managed to scoop the US on the story. There was more than a little snark there.

I'm glad this panned out because that means Big Ed got to beat Newsweek to the story, thanks to Kerrycrats. I hope he remembers that and I hope he takes our other mails more kindly because of it.

JK should speak out on this. And we should hound every news station and write lots of LTE.

Hehe...I also wrote to Senator Warner. In the debate he said that he believed that Senator Kerry was wrong because we weren't ready to a timed withdrawal. Well, I asked him if the story proved correct if he would admit that Kerry was right. I'm going to sent one to Harry Reid and a few other snarky Dems too. Not that I think any of them will admit Kerry was right.

It is obvious that John Kerry is well verse in all of these arguments:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060701faresponse85412/larry-diamond-james-dobbins-chaim-kaufmann-leslie-h-gelb-stephen-biddle/what-to-do-in-iraq-a-roundtable.html

And even with this Peace Plan development, the info in this roundtable about Iraq is still VERY relevant.

The Summit Kerry called for is in there:



There are arguments AGAINST using troop withdrawal as leverage, but this article is not political. It's just throwing ideas around. I haven't read the whole thing, but I find it very interesting.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2242602,00.html




And most ominously:




So what Kerry said is STILL true -- we need to do an international summit. But you know all is not lost. We're in a negotiation period. If the * administration does what Kerry has repeatedly told them to do, there is still hope.

both reject the peace plan. Very bad logic, but this is precisely the RW logic that linked Democrats to OBL or in the 1970s, the communists.

Like you said, the Republicans do it ALL THE TIME - why shouldn't we?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/24/19951/6009

Some really smart and insightful commenting about this. This guy is particularly good, and this was his reaction to the insurgent rejection of the peace plan:



This is really facinating how quickly it is changing. The important thing to keep in mind is that a timetable for American troop withdrawals is the OPENING negotiation point. Another words -- if there is a peace plan agreed upon, that timetable WILL be in there.

Bush has to realize that it in America's, Iraq's and the world's interest to get it done! Anything else is senseless!

from the Reconciliation plan:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/25/232917/330

It looks like the amnesty is out, too, but I didn't read it in detail. Okay, so obviously, the * administration got to him. Damnit!! I won't forget this. A total betrayal of the American people!!

The poster thinks the Dem party blew it by not pushing withdrawal earlier (he only compliments Murtha, Kerry, Feingold for doing so). For some reason my brain is unable to calculate politics when I am looking at an extremely weak Iraqi government unwilling to stand up on its own. I am now very pessimistic about the Maliki government. I think by December we will find out how doomed we are.

I think we are finished in Iraq with little hope.

I think this is spin, and this is going to go on for some time.

7 Sunni insurgent groups reportedly seek truce under reconciliation plan
By SAMEER N. YACOUB/Associated Press Writer
Published: Monday, June 26, 2006 7:13 AM CDT
E-mail this story | Print this page

http://www.leesvilledailyleader.com/articles/2006/06/26/breaking_news/news3.txt

Then it talked about Casey's plan which IMO is NOT a real withdrawal.

See this comment, which will no doubt make us all mad again about this disgusting Bush administration:

Two brigades (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by: beachmom
The only real reduction in Gen. Casey's plan is the two brigades in September '06, two brigades that are scheduled to rotate out of Iraq and will not be replaced. That's 7,000 men and women. There are 127,000 members of the American armed forces in Iraq. 49,000 are combat troops. Is a 5.5% reduction a "sharp reduction" as the NYT reported? Beyond the initial two brigade reduction all future reductions are in the realm of "the six-monthers", future reductions will be made when things improve down the road. We've been there again and again.

At a certain point it's on the American people to be informed citizens.

April 2003 - 100,000 US forces in Iraq (invasion)
March 2004 - 130,000 US forces in Iraq
July 2004 - 112,000 US forces in Iraq
December 2004 - 150,000 US forces in Iraq
December 2005 - 160,000 US forces in Iraq (elections)
June 2006 - 127,000 US forces in Iraq

Notice the drop in forces before the 2004 US election and immediate increase after the 2004 US election? What changed in the conditions on the ground between November and December 2004? It was the political conditions in the US that changed. The Casey troop reduction plan is the latest is a series of troop reduction plans that never get completed.

Today we have 27% more troops in Iraq then when the war started. When voters go to the US polls in November we'll still have 20% more troops in Iraq then when the war started. In addition we'll have 2,517+ US deaths, 18,356+ US wounded, and more than 50,000+ Iraqi deaths and upwards of half-a-trillion dollars spent. For what?

None of this excuses the tepid response of many elected Democratic leaders. But if a two brigade rotation can be sold as a sharp reduction, a rotation that is dictated by the broken state of our military, then people are not being good citizens. It's easy to blame the lying GOP and timid Democrats but at some point it's the people that believe the lies or turn a blind eye to reality must shoulder the burden of blame for the Iraq disaster.

Rep. Louise Slaughter for President in '08!

by joejoejoe on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 05:27:19 AM PDT

< Reply to This |Recommend Troll >

The WH is still downplaying Iraq troop withdrawal reports. There will be a lot of back and forth, spinning in the media, reports coming out of Iraq and the WH.

The key thing here is that withdrawal is in sharp focus because Kerry pushed it. When JK said Casey's report was leaked, he implied that Bush panicked. Here's why: If Casey had a report that was Bush's idea (desire), Bush could have simply trumped Kerry-Feingold and made the vote a non issue. I truly believe the GOP anticipated that voting down the Dems plan coupled with the barrage of division stories in the media would sway public opinion slightly their way. All Bush needs is a slight majority showing to justify staying his arrogant course. That didn't work.

The Iraqis probably felt emboldened by the debate and released their plan. They obviously were working on it, and Bush probably knew. I do think if withdrawal wasn't being debated, it would have been easy for the media to overlook the timetable in the Iraqis' plan, something the media did by not reporting that Iraq's Sovereignty Committee wanted a timetable last year. The British handed over a province, so that process in underway. There really is no stopping it, and Bush found out there is no changing American's or Iraqi's views.

Another thing, the situation has gotten worse, but every time Kerry states how to deal with the realities on the ground, Bush magically produces a watered down version shortly thereafter. Problem is he never follows through or proceeds so slowly that the situation worsens. That can't continue.