The Kerry/Kennedy Split on Iraq means "lines are drawn" in the Party.

[KoKo]

The Transcript of Russert's interview with John Kerry this morning, where he is asked about Senator Kennedy's statement on Troop Withdrawal from Iraq:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Edward Kennedy, the senior senator from Massachusetts, a prime sponsor of your presidential candidacy...

SEN. KERRY: I've heard of him.

MR. RUSSERT: ...gave a speech on Thursday. Let me show you what he said and come back and talk about it.

(Videotape, Thursday):

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, (D-MA): Once Sunday's elections are behind us and the democratic transition is under way, President Bush should immediately announce his intention to negotiate a timetable for a drawdown of American combat forces with the Iraqi government. At least 12,000 American troops, probably more, should leave at once to send a strong signal about our intentions and to ease the pervasive sense of occupation.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Specifically, do you agree with Senator Kennedy that 12,000 American troops should leave at once?

SEN. KERRY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe there should be a specific timetable of withdrawal of American troops?

SEN. KERRY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: What would you do?

SEN. KERRY: I understand exactly what Senator Kennedy is saying, and I agree with Senator Kennedy's perceptions of the problem and of how you deal with it. I would--in fact, last summer, if you'll recall, I said specifically that if we did the things that I laid out--the training, the international community, the services and reconstruction, and the elections and protection--we could draw down troops and begin to withdraw them. I think what Senator Kennedy is saying--and here I do agree with him--is that it is vital for the United States to make it clear that we are not there with long-term goals and intentions of our presence in the region. I agree with Senator Kennedy that we have become the target and part of the problem today, if not the problem. Now, obviously, you've got to provide with some of security and stability in order to be able to turn this over to the Iraqis and to be able to withdraw our troops, so I wouldn't do a specific timetable, but I certainly agree with him in principle that the goal must be to withdraw American troops.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the new government, as soon as it's possible, begins to negotiate some modality like that. And I wouldn't be surprised if they even asked us to leave in some way over a period of time. I wouldn't be surprised if the administration privately, behind closed doors, asked them to ask us to leave. I think there are plenty of ways to skin this cat. But the most important thing is that you've got to have stability.

What Iraq is after this is important to the world. It cannot be a haven for terrorism. It cannot be a completely failed state. Now, you'll notice the administration has backed off significantly of its own high goals of full democratization and so forth, and I don't think you're going to hear them pushing that. There are a lot of conservatives, neo-cons and others in Washington debating now sort of what the modality of withdrawal ought to be.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/6886726/

[Darkhawk32]

1. I don't think their thinking is that far off, to tell you the truth....

Kennedy would like something put down in writing and a goal to be out of Iraq.

Kerry doesn't want a specific timetable, but they both know the steps needed to take to get out.

[katinmn]

2. disappointing statement by JK

so we're supposed to just continue to flounder in Iraq until whenever?

[mdmc]

35. you go die for a mistake

JK...

[aikido15]

78. Perfect example of why Kerry lost

Is this guy serious? Can he ever just give an answer without a bunch of doublespeak? How can he say he doesn't think we can pull out of Iraq now after all that's been exposed? Just keep blathering on about what he WOULD have done? I'm ashamed that I voted for him...sickening.:puke:

[blm]

3. That's a bit overthetop, KoKo. They are both outlining similar steps

but with different emphasis. Kennedy wants a certain timetable, and Kerry doesn't see that happening.

No difference in their basic goals.

[Darkhawk32]

4. Exactly. It's just another way that Russert is trying to put a wedge in..

the Dems.

Quite disturbing that some people fall for it.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

40. No, that's not "a bit overthetop, KoKo"...

...it's either:
1) an accidental misinterpretation; or
2) a deliberate, inflammatory misrepresentation.

I agree with the rest of your post, blm, just not with your understatement about KoKo01's degree of exaggeration. Exploding those statements into The Kerry/Kennedy Split on Iraq means "lines are drawn" in the Party is inexcusable.

[KoKo]

52. As an "Anti-Iraq Invasion" Protest DU'er...you have to understand where

I come from on Iraq...so yes, to some I might be OTT...I understand.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

66. Fair enough...

... I am also anti-Iraq invasion. I just thought that you interpreting this one exchange between Kerry and Russert as being evidence of a Kerry/Kennedy Split and meaning "lines are drawn" in the Party was one hell of a big stretch.

I appreciate your very reasonable response to my post and I apologise if I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. Please help me understand why you saw Kerry's statements on MTP as being so contrary to Kennedy's statements. I agree with other posters here who saw it as Kerry giving a more specific answer to the question. I know that he said "No" twice when asked specific questions by Russert about Kennedy's statements, but I thought that Kerry's explained his position as a refinement of Kennedy's, not a total negation. What did I miss?

[kerrygoddess]

5. Kennedy & Kerry

have often disagreed on things... however they support each other 100% and always have. Kennedy is a Co-Sponsor on the Kids First Act, there are no Party lines dran because of this.

Kerry is working hard in the Senate to garner support for this Bill (S 114). The Bill was introduced on Monday, January 24th. Currently five Senators are Co-Sponsoring this bill: Senator Maria Cantwell (WA), Senator Jon Corzine (NJ), Senator Edward Kennedy (MA), Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ), and Senator Patty Murray (WA). Please contact your local Senators and ask them to Co-Sponsor this Bill.
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=276

[cali]

11. You do realize that this bill has ZERO

chance of becoming law, don't you? I'm glad JK introduced it because it stands in sharp contrast to the cuts bushco's going to try and force through the Congress. It is indeed a partisan battle. He won't get a single repub to co-sponsor. Hell, it won't even make it to the floor for a vote.

[LittleClarkie]

19. I find it interesting that as I agree with you the bill has little chance

others here are against the bill because they say it doesn't go far enough to cover adults as well as children. I think they miss the point.

To me, since it has little chance, the important part is to make the Republicans look like bastards as they fight against health care for children. Having it be a children's bill makes a point that trying for a universal health care wouldn't make. And a univeral bill would stand even less than a zero chance.

[cali]

25. Absolutely.

It's a really clever tactic. It both draws attention to the plight of uninsured children and paints the repubs as ogres. I like the way JK is thinking on this one.

[kerrygoddess]

58. If people start hammering for support of this

If people start hammering for support of this it makes the Repubs look even worse. That is one of the reasons we started a campaign to support this on LightUpTheDarkness.org.

Kerry's got over 300,000 signatures on the petition and should have gained more from the last email. He said he was going to hammer this and bring it up where ever he can (which he did today). It will be interesting to watch. My attitude is that we support him on this regardless of how far it may go. http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/Press/kids1.htm

[cali]

62. Yep. It's an excellent hammer n/t

[TayTay]

13. The most interesting part of that exchange

was the idea that behind closed doors, the Americans might be asking the Iraqis to publicly ask us to leave. Wow! Although Kerry didn't say he knew this was happening (how could he) but he said these damning words in public. Talk about having trust issues. This, to me, was what made the Condi vote consistent with what he was saying about not cutting and running in Iraq. * lies and says one thing in public and another in private. And Condi did the same thing. This is consistent position held by Kerry for a while. So while we can't just get out tomorrow, watch out. The *ies might and call it a victory.

I took this to mean that he doesn't put it past the *ies to construct a false reason to cut and run. That is very dangerous. That region is extremely unstable and we have to fidn a quick way to get Iraqis trained to police their own nation as fast as possible. Then we can prove we do not have designs on Iraqi territory or assets by withdrawing.

[buzzard]

68. I really doubt * will leave without a leadership favourable to the US

or of his choosing. I think there will be a permanent base in Iraq before he considers leaving.

[Zhade]

24. Er...what does this bill have to do with the subject of the thread?

NT!

[moggie12]

6. Good post - I think you may be right about the split

More Dem Senators seem to take the Kerry position, from what I can tell. Even Carl Levin, who voted no on the IWR, didn't seem to be advocating an immediate partial withdrawal of troops (anybody see Levin today? -- I only caught 2-3 minutes and may be misinterpreting his position).

Is any Dem Senator on the record as agreeing with Kennedy?

[HideAndS]

7. Carl Levin, Sheila Jackson Lee and

Carol Mosely Braun have also come out and disagreed with Kennedy.

[Pirate Smile]

10. I was just going to point out that Levin said that on Late Edition.

Thanks and Welcome.:hi:

[stray cat]

8. Looks like agreement to me about what needs to be done.

The execution of the idea differs but if we call differences like this splits in the democratic party the republicans will always win. I can agree to disagree with anyone on details like this.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Kerry is still trying to justify his vote for the slaughter.

Maybe he should pin on his medals, don some camis, and go kill some Iraqis just to show that he's "tough on defense" and "electable".

[cali]

12. Inflamatory and uncalled for n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Care to enlarge on your comments?

Show me where I'm wrong. Kerry did vote for the war. Kerry still supports the occupation. Kerry is willing to have the troops kill and be killed while he attends to his political ambitions comfortable and safe in Washington.

[cali]

17. That's what you should have said.

The way you put it in your original post was inflamatory, and the thing is I basically agree with you. I deplored Kerry's vote, and still find it impossible to believe that he did it for any other reason than political expediency. But snide remarks about pinning on medals and going to kill Iraqis don't advance your argument.

[LittleClarkie]

23. Where I think you're wrong, you probably won't agree

He voted for the authority to give muscle to Bush's position. Even he didn't think Bush could fuck this up as badly as he has.

Kerry supports a slower pull out than you might want. To turn and hightail it out of there Saigon-style will result in more carnage, not less. We here at the Pottery Barn are trying to glue the thing together a bit before we leave. The cracks will still be evident. And there's a good possibility the glue won't hold. But yanking our troops out would also be bad. "Oopsie, sorry about your country... see ya, bye" (zip).

He doesn't support carnage. And he spent a week in Iraq, not being so comfortable and safe. Bush hasn't even done that.

I could say he's not attending to his political ambitions, but I suppose to some extent all politicians do that. And no matter what he does, what he votes for and what he says, someone will point at it and say he's feeding his political ambitions. It's a "running for 2008" filter I don't care to look through. It's distorting. Even going to a funeral looks distorted though that lens.

He used to be a soldier. He doesn't not support their deaths. But neither does he want Iraq to collapse in chaos. He knows the region better than I do. He knows the forces in play, he saw them in his investigations into BCCI and Iran/Contra. He's somewhat more hawkish when the subject of terrorism comes up. But then he's the Senate go-to guy on that subject. I found his book "A New War" to be illuminating to his mind set in this area. Whether or not I agree, I respect his knowledge. But I fear no matter what we do, we broke Iraq and won't be able to glue it back together. I suspect that his anti-terrorism stance is blinding Kerry somewhat to that fact. Then again, I hope I'm wrong and we can leave Iraq somewhat stable. Those people deserve a stable country. I just don't know if they will be able to get it, esp. with us there.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. "We broke Iraq.." And, we still are, with Kerry's support.

The nonsense that we have to fix it by keeping the occupation going is just that. Just as in Vietnam, the much ballyhooed "bloodbath", is a presumption based on nothing but the arrogance that "we know what's best for you poor dumb Iraqis".

The fact is that the Iraqis want us out of their country and will continue to fight us as long as we are there. That in itself de-stabilizes the country and invalidates the elections.

As for Kerry once being a "good guy" and doing the right thing re: Iran/Contra, I agree. But, that's like saying that LBJ did great things...except for that little disturbance in SE Asia.

I voted for him despite my contempt for his vote for the war and his continued support for the occupation, but I'm not about to applaud him.

[katinmn]

41. I have to agree.

Kennedy is the only one so far who is showing true leadership through his honesty about our occupation.

Everyone else is watching to see which way the political winds blow.

Or are they still waiting for leadership from Bush-Cheney-Rove-Rumsfeld-Rice? That will never happen.

[angrydemocrat]

21. KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

[propagandafreegal]

46. Kerry is so pre Nov '04 nm

[IndianaGreen]

74. LOSER! LOSER! LOSER!

Ted Kennedy is saying what needs to be done, GET OUT of Iraq NOW! Kerry is still stuck on a "stay the course" path.

Iraq is the bullet that the Democrats will have to bite, or else they will become as irrelevant as the Whigs.

[mattclearing]

15. Or lines are drawn in the Massachusetts Senate delegation, anyway. n/t

[KoKo]

16. I think our party is very uncomfortable with the "Anti-Iraq Invasion"

protestors...and the "Count the Vote" Folks. I think Kennedy was giving us "cover." And, I think those of us totally against the "Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Strike" are also being marginalized by the Lieberman wing of the party.

I saw Kerry as being "centrist" in his comments, but Kennedy was giving voice to those of us on the Left who want to serve warning that we don't believe in Iraqi Occupation with bases and then onto Iran and Syria.

That's why I think "lines are being drawn" on this issue in the party. Those of us Lefties needed some support on this.

[JoshK]

18. Has Kerry not yet figured out why we invaded Iraq?

Kerry: "...it is vital for the United States to make it clear that we are not there with long-term goals and intentions of our presence in the region."

Does he not even understand that the only reason the US is there, is to achieve its very obvious "long term goals?" Or is he simply such a devoted stooge of the ruling class, that he wishes to help deny the obvious, to continue the deception of the American public?

It's precisely this sort of disgusting weasel-behavior that just made him lose an election that should have been unlose-able. The public is poorly informed, but they could instinctively smell something wrong with a candidate who won't acknowledge plain truths & often has a foot on both sides of a given issue.

[leesa]

32. He was complicit in the crime...hard to back off without losing face

He can no more say "We were dead wrong" than Bush can. Same rotten core.

[zulchzulu]

20. There's this thing called "nuance" that some can't understand

I agree with both Kennedy and Kerry on this issue. While Ted wants a specific timetable, Kerry has alluded to the fact that after the elections, we may be given one by the Shiites that want their theocratic government (hence civil war)...

I guess some people think that foreign policy is like sports radio where one guy yells some shit and the other guy yells shit back...it's more complicated than that and based on many variables yet to come to fruition.

[Ruth]

82. Exactly.

It is absurd to demand that 12,000 troops be immediately removed at this point.

That is not supporting an occupation; that is staying to protect those "we" endangered in the first place.

A specific timetable does not allow for things we don't know of right now. By that, I mean that one can intend to get out ASAP, then something horrible happens and the timetable has to change.

Kerry is simply being pragmatic.

Your sports radio analogy is perfect.

[welshTerrier2]

22. sadly, the difference between Kerry and Kennedy IS VERY SIGNIFICANT

i wish this were not the case ... some may see similarities but on the essential issue, there is a great chasm between Kerry's view and Kennedy's ...

Kennedy stated "The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem" ... implicit in this view is that "staying is making things worse, not better" ...

Kerry, in direct contrast, is still seeking a "win" ... he is foolishly clinging to the belief that continued U.S. military presence can help prevent Iraq from becoming a "haven for terrorism" and a "completely failed state" ... these are valid goals and might be achievable through non-military, post-withdrawal means ... but Kerry just doesn't get it ... he continues to put faith into a process that has failed, continues to fail and will always fail ... we cannot build stable governments with our military ... the only path to peace and stability in Iraq will either be through regional negotiations supported by an international framework or by civil war ... more of the same madness has not and will not achieve the objectives Kerry is seeking ... calling for more troop training, internationalization, reconstruction and election is a non-policy ... the troops we've trained won't fight ... the international community is more alienated ... the "coalition", pathetic to begin with, is leaving in droves ... the elections are an absurd fraud ... candidates were unknown, 40% of Iraqis mistakenly thought they were electing a President, issues and debates did not occur, the Sunnis did not participate and the Americans are seen as installing more puppets to do their bidding ... and reconstruction funds are not being spent ... Kerry's "solution" is DOA ... it's a non-solution ...

so there is not a minor disagreement over whether to endorse explicit "timetables" or not ... that view misses the main point ... Kerry is arguing for continued darkness in Iraq; Kennedy is walking towards the light ...

they are as far apart as day and night ...

[angrydemocrat]

28. Kerry isn't arguing for continued darkness

Kerry and many democrats realize you cannot cut and run. You can't go destroy a damn country as the United States has with this damn war and then walk off and leave innocent people holding the damn bag. You have help these people get to the point they can defend themselves and take care of themselves. It really says alot for anyone who would think that you could just pack up and go. It's not that damn simple. And thanks to Bush's damn quagmire his vietnam as Kennedey called it himself it has become a breeding ground for terrorists. So you have to help protect the innocent people until they can get enough forces and police trained of their own to be able to protect themselves. All Kerry and other democrats are saying it is hard to put a time table on it and they refuse to do that because you don't know what will happen it is not that simple. They all agree you have to step up the training and get it done a whole lot quicker than what it has been then the more of them you have trained the more of ours that can come home.

Hell is it was left up to some people around here we would be packing and leaving now and say fuck you to all the innocent people of Iraq and then what does that say for the United States. Hell it is like many democrats have pointed out they were told they had a hell of alot more Iraqi's trained than what there was. They all started finding out the facts when they started making trips to the Middle East and checking things out for themselves. It is not there fault that * and his administration are all a bunch of damn liars and have given them faulty bullshit reports on what is going on. Why don't you people blame the right damn ones here. Quit blaming democrats and start blaming * and his lying ass administration. Democrats are not the blame for this damn mess hell ask Kennedey himself and see what the hell he tells you. They may not agree on everything on exactly how to go about doing something but they do have since enough to realize they are on the same damn team working for the same damn goals.

[welshTerrier2]

29. "do no harm"

there's a big problem with your position ...

but first, let me say that you ruined what was otherwise an intelligent post with your "you people" outburst ... most of the "you people" you're complaining about worked our asses off for Kerry because we understood the insanity of the Iraq invasion is bush's fault ... it's silly to suggest we are ONLY blaming Democrats and don't hold bush primarily responsible ...

now, here's the problem i see with your (and Kerry's) position ... i think you've created a false dichotomy between "cutting and running" (i.e. to use your words, saying fuck you to all the innocent people of Iraq) and staying there to "get to the point they can defend themselves and take care of themselves." ... the reason i call this a false dichotomy is because implicit in your arguing of staying there is the belief that we can achieve the laudable objectives you've defined ...

that's the crux of the disagreement ... i don't believe, for all the reasons stated in my previous post, that we can achieve any of the objectives militarily ... in fact, i believe continued military occupation is making any progress totally impossible ... details explaining why i believe this are included in my previous post ... instead of making this about "blaming Democrats", it would be useful if you don't agree with my conclusions to explain why ...

what you're arguing, that we have to do our best to achieve stability, is nothing I would argue with ... we are not disagreeing over desirable outcomes ... we are disagreeing over methods to achieve those outcomes ... my belief, as i stated in my previous post, is that doing more of the same will do nothing but yield more of the same ... and to the extent Kerry is calling for changes, i've already cited why I believe the changes won't work ...

i hesitate to offer an analogy to clarify how i see the situation because they are so often "not analagous" at all ... but perhaps it will at least make my position a bit clearer ... imagine a guy with a large family ... the wife is very ill and needs expensive medical care ... the kids are ill and need money for school ... the rent is way past due ... the guy is sitting at a blackjack table ... he's lost hand after hand after hand ... he's down to his last $1000 ... i see your call for staying in Iraq like telling him how much he needs more money for a very worthy cause ... you're encouraging him to bet in spite of the odds against him and in spite of the realities of how badly he's doing ... your focus on legitimate needs is honorable ... the problem, though, is that foolishly gambling in the face of such unlikely success is what got him into trouble in the first place ... recognizing the need does not in and of itself prescribe the remedy ... sometimes the best available option is "do no harm" ... you gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em ...

[angrydemocrat]

33. Believe What You Want

This you gotta know when to hold'em and know when to fold'em crap is ridiculous we are not talking about a damn game here. We are talking about the future and what happens to Untited States and Iraq and our troops as well as all the innocent people of Iraq as well. And it is clear that you don't understand that what has to be done and I'm not going to argue with you about it. But Kerry is not the only one that has disagreed with Kennedey others like Biden, Levin, Dodd and others have the same position on this issue as Kerry. In fact the majority agree with Kerry on this.

[welshTerrier2]

37. vacuous emotionalism

if you don't want to analyze the issues, that's fine with me ...

see ya ...

[TayTay]

84. I agree that the US screwed up the occupation

There doesn't seem to be any way to fix this. The Abu Ghraib scandals, the horror of Fallujah, etc, all these things have poisoned our ability to convince the Iraqi people that we want to help them and then leave them to run their own country. * has bungled the job, he won't listen to or respect any voices of disagreement and he rigidly believes that his way is the right way. (And will result in a puppet regime in the Middle East that will intimidate other countries into dealing with the US under the fake banner of 'democracy.')

However, I don't completely agree with the idea of pulling out. (There are no good options in Iraq, so I don't disagree with it either.) If we were to leave right away that would be like jumping out of a speeding car and leaving a young, inexperienced driver to try to figure out a way to brake it fast enough to avoid going over the cliff. We cannot stay. As Kerry and Kennedy point out, we are a huge part of the reason there is a growing insurgency. We need to have some order or structure in place over there so that the Iraqis can take over governing their own country. (I actually don't trust * enough to believe this is his goal. He wants a long-term base and he wants US control in the region.)

Kennedy wants a schedule arranged that will lock in a troop withdrawal. Kerry doesn't as he thinks it's too rigid. Kerry, who has that poignancy of his own opposition to a war that could not be won in his background, feels it is too dangerous to do that. (Iraq could become what Afghanistan was before 9/11, even more of a training ground for terrorists and destabilize the Middle East and then Europe.)

It is a terrible choice. There are no good options. Leave or stay? Face the coming civil war or leave the Iraqis to sort it out. Take a chance that pulling out will force the political factions to come together or watch as Iraq slips back into a dictatorship, this time by religious leaders. This is a massive screw-up and the options to fix it are all costly and uncertain.

[no name no slogan]

51. NOBODY is saying "cut and run"

...not even those of us who want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Because we destroyed their country, we should pay to rebuild Iraq. HOWEVER, that does not mean that we should do the rebuilding.

When an arsonist burns down your house, do you allow the arsonist to decide what kind of replacement house you'll have? Of course not! YOU are the one who decides that!

We need to put $$ in trust for the Iraqis to rebuild their country as THEY see fit. That means that the US has to take a hands-off approach to the new Iraq. It is THEIR choice, NOT ours. We have no more right telling them how to rebuild their nation that Osama bin Laden has in deciding what goes up in place of the WTC towers.

Kennedy realizes this, and has said our "Pottery Barn" mentality (i.e., "we break it, we fix it") is not working. And he's right, as usual. Our presence (militarily, and via our "contractors") is NOT bringing stability and democracy to the country. It's doing the exact opposite.

This is not about "winning" the war or declaring "victory". Hell, it 's not even about the USA at all. It's about letting Iraq determine its own destiny.

[aikido15]

79. Well said.

Yeah, US put up the $$ to pay for your mistake and let the Iraqis rebuild, not Halliburton and Betchel or anything American.

[sandnsea]

30. That's not true

Kennedy is also calling for the training, etc. The timeline is contingent upon those things taking place. Kerry stated unequivocally today that if those things don't take place, Iraq will be a failure. Nearly everybody on the left states that a failed Iraq is not in the best interest of the Iraqis or the world. They disagree on laying out a date specific timeline and nothing more.

[angrydemocrat]

38. Yes Exactly

[welshTerrier2]

42. you made some good points

first, speaking as someone "on the left", i completely agree with this point you made: "Nearly everybody on the left states that a failed Iraq is not in the best interest of the Iraqis or the world." A failed Iraq will be a tragedy of global proportions ... but that doesn't mean that continued military efforts will prevent a failed Iraq ... the only way to prevent a "failed Iraq" is to get the U.S. military out of there ... we are part of the problem, not part of the solution ... if there's any chance of preventing a failed state, and i'm not sure there is, the future lies in a negotiated regional settlement with support, both political and humanitarian, from the international community ...

Secondly, you are absolutely correct to point out that Kennedy also called for training ... i have two responses to this ... first, i think Kennedy is wrong on this point ... the training will not be successful under any conditions ... it is rapidly becoming a crime punishable by death to be trained by the Americans ...

but more importantly, there is a major difference between the environment Kennedy said is needed for training to be successful and the one Kerry believes will work ... what is Kerry offering regarding training? what is Kerry's answer to the fact that trained troops have run away when the shit hit the fan? why would trained Iraqis put their lives on the line to fight against their own countrymen while the Americans are seen as occupiers?

Kennedy's answer to these questions seems to be that if the Iraqi troops realize the Americans are really leaving, they will understand that there is no alternative to them doing their jobs ... and they'll understand that they will no longer be seen as supporting the American occupation ... i'm not an advocate of this position but that's my understanding of where Kennedy's coming from ...

I disagree with your emphasis on the timeline ... Kennedy said, if we don't begin the withdrawal process, training troops will not be successful ... we need to provide clear evidence that we have initiated a withdrawal process ... Kerry seems to believe we can stay until the troops are fully trained ...

[sandnsea]

43. No, he doesn't

He's always supported a gradual withdrawal as troops are trained. He also stated nearly a year ago that putting Iraqi troops in the field before they were ready would be a disaster. His plan has always been to, first remove troops from being the frontline face with international assistance; and second remove them altogether. That's been his plan since forever. I think too many people read what KOS or MYDD said John Kerry's plan was instead of reading his words themselves.

[welshTerrier2]

44. internationalization ??

first, i've had several people tell me my views of Kerry's position are wrong because i read KOS and MYDD ... i don't read either one of them ...

how long is Kerry prepared to let this insanity continue without calling for withdrawal ... what signs are there that internationalization is still a possibility? the "coalition", as pathetic as it was, is crumbling ... while i never agreed with Kerry's call for "internationalization", because i didn't think it could happen, i thought it was at least a possibility IF KERRY got elected ... but with bush in office ???? it just doesn't seem possible to me ... again, how long is Kerry prepared to wait for bush to support internationalizing Iraq?

supporting withdrawal as troops are trained ... great ... i agree ... not putting troops in the field before they are ready ... yes, it would be a disaster ... the problem is though, i don't think the troops will ever be ready as long as the U.S. remains in Iraq ... they can't be seen as aligned with the American occupiers ... Kennedy's call for a convincing initiation of withdrawal is a pre-requisite for getting those troops to perform ... with continued occupation, there's no hope ... with a U.S. withdrawal, the outcome is less certain ...

btw, just to be clear, i respect the points you're making (and how you're making them) ... i just don't agree with them ...

[sandnsea]

45. For starters

Right here. We made a huge mistake in not supporting the UN resolution. Really getting behind true UN authority over Iraq. We didn't' because Kerry supported it and so the left decided to call it "stay the course", for reasons I will never understand. Kerry has been 100% right on every single thing regarding Iraq since day one. Every step of the way. The UN is still willing to become involved in Iraq. Do you think Kerry is lying about his conversations with ME leaders who say they want to help??? Many countries are willing to train Iraqi's and have said so all along the way. Bush puts roadblocks up to getting that help, then turns around and says it doesn't exist. The left's hatred of Kerry have blinded them to real solutions and has ended up helping Bush's position more than their own.

http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=1194

And what do you mean "not calling for withdrawal"??? He's been calling for withdrawal of the troops all along. It seems every speech he gave all summer called for bringing the troops home. He specifically called for withdrawing the troops today, I could have sworn I posted the quote in my last post to you. He said it has to be clear to the Iraqi people and the world that we're going to withdraw our troops, we'll never have success unless we do that.

I don't know what you read or don't read, but there are clearly people who exercise selective hearing when it comes to Kerry.

[marcologico]

54. Agree with that. Kerry has been calling for withdrawal all along.

The point he made today is that Iraqis have to be trained to take over their defense or they'll immediately plunge into civil war as soon as we leave. Is it our fault? Yes, and he said that, but now it's also our responsibility, and as usual BushCo is failing to fulfill it.

The difference from Kennedy's position is pretty slim if you ask me. It's basically a question of emphasis, but Kerry is making it look like more for legitimate political reasons. Kennedy isn't running in '08 (unfortunately!)

[arewenotdemo]

73. I couldn't agree more

makes one realize that a lot of us may have become very disappointed with Kerry on this issue had he been elected.

[Jack Rabbit]

26. If this is the dichotomy, I can live with it

While I don't agree with Kerry, at least it isn't the DLC position, which may as well be Wolfowitz'. There are a few Democrats who hold to that position (e.g., Senator Lieberman), but not Kerry.

The dichotomy here isn't whether Bush is right or wrong to invade Iraq. He was wrong; he lied to drum up support for the war; he continues to lie to drum up support for his colonial occupation. Few serious and informed people support Bush. So much for that discussion.

The Kerry-Kennedy dichotomy is about whether there is anything that we can do for Iraq now. I agree with Kennedy that the answer is No and that we should get out.

However, that didn't keep me from voting for Kerry last November. He would have tried a number of things first, each one would have failed in turn and then he would have gotten out. He would have taken longer to get out than I would have liked, but he would have done so.

This is a discussion worth having. For those who, like Senator Lieberman, continue to cheer-lead for the neoconservatives, I have no patience. However, I am willing to listen to those who believe there is a better approach to Iraq than the one Bush is taking yet is short of withdrawal.

We have time for this discussion. Since Bush has retained power, we won't be getting out of Iraq anytime soon. That is a fact that is unfortunate for everybody and everything except the short-term business prospects of war profiteers.

[leesa]

31. Kerry..living in fantasy land...as though launching an unprovoked invasion

of a disarmed UN compliant nation has been appropriate. If only he would check into reality land, he might be worth listening to.

[KittyWampus]

36. Kerry Isn't The One With The Reality Issues. BTW, He's BEEN In Iraq

and the Middle East.

Kerry has spoken with the regions leadership.

He could posit a time table as candidate since HE would be the one carrying out proposals as POTUS.

[marcologico]

34. I think the idea was, "I'm not Kennedy's puppet," or at least that's how I

saw it. The difference is pretty much semantic. Kerry can't risk being seen as weak on defense (cutting and running) because anything he says is going to wind up in a Rove commercial in three years.

[Cheswick2.0]

39. and that quote illustrates perfectly why Kerry lost

three paragraphs to answer a question he should have answered in three sentences.

WHAT PART OF "NOBODY IS LISTENING AFTER 30 SECONDS" DOES KERRY NOT UNDERSTAND? Christ, even his sentence structure is tortured.

[arewenotdemo]

75. and I bet you didn't like his use of "modality", either

:hurts:

I know smilie didn't.

[JerseygirlCT]

47. I'm really troubled by the idea that any difference of opinion

among Democrats signals some horrible chasm in the party. Here you have two experienced, highly intelligent men who disagree to an extent on a very important issue. This is a horrible break?

I think that going down that road only supports the Republicans and does nothing to help our side. I don't think "lines are drawn", I think there's healthy discussion -- something that doesn't often happen in the lock-step GOP.

[Q]

48. This crap is getting old real fast...

It's disturbing that the debate has turned the same way it did during Vietnam. One side defended the 'goals' of the police action and the other side saw that nothing good could come of it.

We're reliving the Vietnam era and I get the impression that many who defend the SLAUGHTER in Iraq are either too young to remember that time or they didn't learn the lessons of lies and deceit that drive nations to war.

Kerry has abandoned his principles and seemingly forgotten why he protested the Vietnam 'war'. He tries to pretend that THIS war is somehow different and just...but to those who know the truth he comes off as a pandering opportunist.

I wouldn't vote for Kerry again if he was the last Democrat on earth. And thanks to Kennedy for being among the very few Democrats with the courage to speak out against this generation's Vietnam.

[marcologico]

49. Agree with you about Kennedy but not Kerry. What they're saying is pretty

close; Kerry is just spraying a little Rove-proof on his analysis IMHO.

[katinmn]

59. Rove-proof?

Do you mean fight propaganda with propaganda?

I think there are many here that believe that's the way to go.

But propaganda doesn't get at the truth, does it?

The fastest way to effect change is to cut through the bullshit. Besides, Rove is a master of manipulation. It's his life's work to cheat, lie and discredit. Do you really want to get in the ring with him?

The Rethugs have lowered American standards. We are the only ones that have an interest in raising our standards and re-instituting justice. We must maintain credibility to do it.

To paraphrase Sen. Dayton: I am sick and tired of being lied to. It un-American and dangerous.

Why not speak clearly and say it was wrong to wage war on Iraq and let's get the fuck out? Hold Bush accountable!

[marcologico]

77. Yes, in the sense that Kennedy is emphasizing the withdrawal, and Kerry

is emphasizing what must be done (and hasn't been) to make a withdrawal possible.

Look, we converted their entire security force (mostly Bathists) into an insurgency. Very dumb. Now we need to train a new one to fight the old one, or the place goes up in flames as soon as we leave. We aren't moving fast enough to make that possible anytime soon.

That's the situation we're in. Yes, we caused it. No, Kerry isn't endorsing it. He's simply pointing out what needs to happen in a way that can't be edited into a "Kerry: he'll cut and run!" TV ad.

[KoKo]

50. I understand what you say "Q"

Kerry seems to have to go through "contortions" to explain his Vietnam Experience. And, he should have pulvarized that Pig Russert today...at least he should have said: "Tim, you might not be aware of what went on in War Time in Vietnam...because you got out of serving...but let me tell you what went on there, Tim!"

But, instead it was like he had to be differential to Russert...like Russert is the "Big Cheese Prosecutor"..the "know it all" the "Father Figure" who will call Kerry down about his service so he has to deferr to him.

I don't know what that was about...but I've got to hope that Kerry will be like Boxer to us on SS Privatization...that he will NOT SEE BUSH TURN THIS OVER...

I hope to believe that whatever his great conflicts about Vietnam...he now can move on to make up to us what he couldn't during his campaign run where he was so tongue tied over WAR...:shrug:

[Disturbed]

56. No matter what ...

Kennedey, Kerry or any Dems say about Iraq, the U.S. troops will stay enmass for another two years then hunker down in the 14 U.S. Military bases for years, maybe 50 or more. the edicts will stay in place and the U.S. Govt and the Multi-Corps will siphon Iraq.

[Q]

57. Kerry and other Dems are going to screw around...

...and allow Bush to escape accountability...again. Not only that...Bush will be lauded for some half-assed 'Iraqi freedom and democracy' after the phony elections and his media will make him look like a hero. That's why Kerry is kissing Bush's ass. He knows the Corporate Media will continue to lie about the 'success' of the occupation and democracy at gun point. He wants to be perceived as a 'winner' even though he knows that he must lie to do it.

This is an illegal occupation and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and CHILDREN are being needlessly slaughtered so that American politicians can advance their careers. Bush knows it and so does Kerry. Shame on them.

[despairing optimist]

53. I'm coming to think that Kennedy IS the last Democrat on Earth!

Good post. You said this in a different way, but I think the worst among those who defend the Iraq invasion and occupation are not those who are too young to remember Vietnam or haven't learned the lessons it taught. The worst are those who have UN-learned the lessons of Vietnam by accident, design, expediency, or just plain cynicism. That is what has disappointed me the most about last November and will guide my future choices in the voting booth.

[KoKo]

61. "Un-Learned the lessons of Vietnam." Ain't that the truth...so short a

time for folks to forget...but forget they did. Even those who were in the thick of it... What about those of us who didn't forget...

we don't matter...except we are out there protesting every where we can ...even if it's "candle light vigils" every weekend in the "hills and hollars" in the Red States...but we are out there...and we aren't going away. I'm glad that Kennedy spoke up for us. That's where the "lines are drawn."

[katinmn]

60. Yes, Q. Right again.

[truthisfreedom]

55. "skin this cat?" come on, Kerry. find an apt metaphor. skinning cats will

not do in 2005.

[Bouncy Ball]

63. Is the title to your post something you wrote

or a quote from somewhere?

Because to say it draws lines in the party is a gross mischaracterization and melodramatic, too.

I remember Kerry saying all that, and I agreed with him. There is STILL no widespread, systematic, effective training of Iraqi troops going on. WHY NOT???

[KoKo]

64. It signaled to "Me" a line drawn between the "Anti-Iraq Invasion"

wing of the party and the "Centrists." Kennedy spoke to us who want the troops home...sooner rather than later. And, we refuse to except the "Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Strike" policy that Senator Byrd has addressed on the Senate floor in very eloquent speeches. I believe Kennedy was recognizing that there's an "activist/grassroots" wing of the party who were out there working for Kerry/Edwards because we were against the Iraq Invasion and we wanted our party to win...even though Kerry/Edwards supported the right to Invade Iraq.

I think it was time someone besides Dean and Kucinich spoke up for us. We hauled our butts around to get Kerry/Edwards elected and we are out there still trying to change our party from within. But, it's not easy with no help from the "Centrist and DLC/DNC" Dem Party structure who wish we would go away now that Kerry/Edwards weren't elected. We are the ones pushing for vote counts and working to get the Touch Screen machines out of our States. We are here on DU in the Elections Forum trying to get information to give to our state party officials.

Neither Kerry nor Edwards have addressed what we are doing. So I was heartened to hear Kennedy at least address Iraq and our troops and to push for a timetable. It sent a signal to us...just as Barbara Boxer and John Conyers have done. We matter. Without us...it's "loser business" as usual with our party. :shrug:

[Bouncy Ball]

65. Ah,I hear ya.

:thumbsup:

[marcologico]

67. Sorry, Dean endorsed the capture of Saddam AND all other U.S. military ops

in the last 12 yrs:

Dean on Saddam:

"The capture of Saddam Hussein is good news for the Iraqi people and the world. Saddam was a brutal dictator who should be brought swiftly to justice for his crimes. His capture is a testament to the skill and courage of U.S. forces and intelligence personnel. They have risked their lives. Some of their comrades have given their lives. All Americans should be grateful."


Dean on past, present, and future U.S. wars:

"During the past dozen years, I have supported U.S. military action to roll back Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, to halt ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, to stop Milosevic's campaign of terror in Kosovo, to oust the Taliban and al Qaeda from control in Afghanistan. As President, I will never hesitate to deploy our armed forces to defend our country and its allies, and to protect our national interests."

Source: http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002698.html

[KoKo]

69. Dean said the world is " NOT safer with Saddam's Capture"..

and I, also, supported Afghanistan and Kosovo. But, Iraq was an illegal war, where we invaded a sovereign country who had not threatened us.

I will protest against Iraq Invasion in any way I can until we are out of there, and then I want those who got us in there prosecuted.

We went into Kosovo and Afghanistan with a multi-national force supported by the UN. We went into Iraq with a "coalition of the coerced."

[marcologico]

70. "The capture of Saddam Hussein is good news for the Iraqi people and the

world."

Source: http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002698.html

[marcologico]

71. You wouldn't be calling the good doc a flip-flopper, would you?

:D

[Clarkie1]

72. Kerry is correct, and their opinions on the big issue aren't far apart n/t

[Ruth]

83. Agreed. n/t

[CWebster]

76. I thought about this, because I received an appeal from Kennedy

but remember, Kennedy was instrumental in promoting Kerry.

Remember that Kerry supported Bush but promised to be the first to speak out and oppose Bush should the invasion be exposed as a fraud. But, when Kennedy and Byrd tried to get Kerry to sign on to a second resolution - to rectify the primary one, Kerry still refused. Yet Kennedy still went out and pulled strings for Kerry.

My guess would be that they are covering all bases.

[Q]

81. Kennedy has been against invading Iraq from the beginning...

...and was one of the few Dems to give speeches about 'rushing to war' and 'why now' while Bush was amassing troops on Iraq's border. Kennedy and many of us could see that George was going to use war to boost his own popularity and make himself a 'war president'.

On the other side of the spectrum...you have politicians like Kerry who saw that war was a foregone conclusion and thought it would be better for his career if he chose what Bush called a just war over the 'unpatriotic' dissent. Despite the warnings of Kennedy, Byrd and others...Kerry chose the path of least resistance and voted to attack a country that posed no threat.

And now Kerry and all the rest of the Dems who voted to attack Iraq must live a lie or be exposed as being no better than Bush when it comes to inventing reasons for war.

Kennedy supported Kerry for many of the same reasons Gore and every other Dem supported him. They wanted a Dem in the White House instead of Bush. But Kerry has no real support from Kennedy or anyone else on the progressive side and they wont' support him for a second run.

[marcologico]

85. "Kerry has no real support from Kennedy "? Give me a break.

And Kerry didn't "vote to attack Iraq," he didn't "choose" the illegal invasion, and he's never "supported" the war, as has been pointed out at least 10,000 times on DU in the last month alone. Okay 1,000 times.

Incidentally Dean is on record heartily endorsing the "capture" of Saddam:

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002698.html

[CWebster]

80. If the US occupation is the target

How does US presence help to stablize anything?