Carter Echoes Kerry Plan in Calling for Troop Drawdown in Iraq

[kerrygoddess]

Jimmy Carter Blasts Iraq as an ‘Unnecessary War’, Urges Troop Withdrawal
March 8th, 2006 @ 10:57 pm

Speaking at a news conference before a building dedication at the University of Washington today, former President Jimmy Carter criticized the war in Iraq and urged a “troop drawdown as the United States enters its fourth year of conflict in Iraq.”

“It was a completely unnecessary war. It was an unjust war,” said Carter, the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner. “It was initiated on the basis of false pretenses. All of those are true, but we can’t just pre-emptively withdraw.”

He urged the Bush administration to bring home as many troops as possible within the next 12 months.

“The violence is increasing monthly,” Carter said. “My prayer is we’ll see some kind of democracy eventually evolve.”

Carter’s call for a troop drawdown sounds vaguely familiar… It sounds a bit like John Kerry’s call for a troop drawdown back in November.

LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2182

[Tom Joad]

1. He wants an honorable peace.

Not to be had when a nation conducts an unjust war. Bring the troops home now.

[rodeodance]

2. Russ Feingold had the first proposal to withdraw troops. Harking wants

them out also.

[karynnj]

26. Actually Kennedy spoke of phased withdrawal in Feb or March of 2005

Feingold in August of 2005. Several House of Representative people actually called for it earlier than that.

Harkin has called for withdrawal now - though I don't know how "now" now is.

Carter's call is in the Feingold/Kerry/Kennedy/Levin group who are demanding a more immediate withdrawal than the bulk of the party (Reid/Clinton/Bayh and surprisingly Dean) lining up behind the Korb plan.

[sandnsea]

39. The Korb plan is a withdrawal plan too

The problem is that when anyone begins talking about withdrawal and it doesn't get implemented, then the next time they talk about it, the date gets pushed back. Kerry started talking about withdrawal in 2005, his plan didn't get implemented so the next time he talked about it, last Oct, the date got pushed back to the end of 2006. Now it's 2006, so the date gets pushed back because we aren't implementing the plan. I don't know where everybody is at on the phased withdrawal, I don't think we need to be getting bogged down in how many months. The point is to make the promise of no bases, stop the house to house search and daily policing stuff, and start bringing troops home in a visible way. Getting them all out can happen as quickly as the country becomes peaceful, provided that's what happens. If not, perhaps the rest of the world will recognize that the civil war is a regional issue between Sunnis and Shi'ites and has to be addressed as such. It's not an Iraqi thing, or an American caused thing.

In any event, if ALL Democrats are on board for a phased military disengagement, I don't know why the conflicting factions can't come together and say so.

[blm]

42. Feingold first suggested it, but did not craft a plan or submit one.

Kerry worked on his withdrawal plan for months going to Iraq and getting input from commanders on the ground there and Iraqi parliamentary members who wanted America to withdraw the greater number of troops within a year.

When Kerry submitted his plan in October, Feingold was supportive of it along with security experts like Gary Hart and antiwar leaders like Tom Hayden.

Not that the media would bother discussing the details of the plan. They were afraid the American people would see how much sense it made.

[FreedomAngel82]

3. I still think if Kerry runs in 2008 his campaign theme should be

"I told you so." And he should have a press conference calling all the big media and have Edwards with him and simply say "We told you so."

[Tom Joad]

5. He said what? I would like to hear his quotes against the war

prior to Bushboy's invasion in March 2003.

In his first debate with Bush. he said this:
Asked whether US soldiers were currently “dying in Iraq for a mistake,” Kerry replied: “No, and they don’t have to, providing we have the leadership that I’m offering. I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that.”

In one of his more chilling remarks, the Democratic candidate denounced the Bush administration for failing to prosecute the war with sufficient ruthlessness. “What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground,” he said. “And you have to do that by beginning to not back off from the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists.”


Seems to me that it wasn't the war he opposed, it was just that it was done under bad leadership. he conveniently offered better leadership for the war.

Many people were not enthused.

[sandnsea]

7. He opposed the war before Bush went in

"Do not rush to war" I don't know how much clearer it can get.

How many times did he have to say it:

"He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.

Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. "Last resort." You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, "I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter."

I don't believe the United States did that."

But he also wanted to avoid the chaos that we see today, since Bush decided to go ahead and invade. That's what he meant by succeed. And he also wanted to begin bringing troops home by mid-2004.

"I didn't say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months."

Distorting John Kerry's views on Iraq hurt his chance to be elected and extended the war. It continues to. He's always had it right on Iraq.

[Tom Joad]

8. Quote "I didn't say I would bring troops out in six months"

and then setting up conditions for withdraw (being "successful", whatever the hell that means in this context)is an antiwar position?

His support for increasing the number of troops during his campaign was a disaster.

Don't blame antiwar activists for Kerry's mistakes, we don't write his speeches.

[The Magistrate]

10. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Mr. Joad

Who do you think bears the greatest portion of responsibility for the war in Iraq?

[Tom Joad]

13. Mr. Magi, beside the point.

Bush and company should be held accountable for his deeds. I truly hope that he is impeached, convicted and removed from office, even if the Dem leadership has shied away from calling for this necessary step.

What that has to do with Kerry's position on the war I do not understand. Kerry said he was opposed to an unconditional withdrawal, that he thinks we can be "successful" in Iraq, and that he supported military engagement in Fallujah, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis when it was carried out by bushie. I don't think the US will be successful in 100 years in Iraq.

Time to get out now. The Iraqi people demand it. A growing number of Americans want it. Kerry disagrees, and we should see that honestly.

[The Magistrate]

17. It Is Precisely The Point, Sir

The element that bears the greatest share of responsibility should bear the greatest share of the criticism. You seem to focus a good deal more effort in criticizing figures who bear very little responsibility for the matter, by comparison to the autors and executors of the policy. Doing so seems rather beside any politically useful point.

No matter what is done now the situation will get worse: it will get worse if U.S. forces remain, and it will get worse if U.S. forces leave. A political figure who presses for departure courts the blame for the spectacle what occurs after departure, which skilled propagandists will be at pains to claim would not have occured absent the U.S. withdrawl, and they will have a good degree of success with persons who are not particularly knowledgeable or aware of the actual situation. Therefore anyone of any political stature will hedge a call for departure about with various conditions designed to make clear for that future debate that before withdrawl, everything was done that could be done to make the consequences of departure as favorable as possible. Treating the normal business of being a successful politician as a form of support for the war is disingenuous at best.

[Tom Joad]

22. Political Expediency trumps morality.

[The Magistrate]

24. Absolutely, Sir

It amazes me that you say this as if it were a bad thing.

Morality in politics is always and forever a murderous, damnable business, when it is not a mere poseur's affectation donned in a powerless condition.

Political expediency is simply another way of saying effective political action, which of course is a good thing, when done by people one sides with, and a very bad thing when done by people of whom one disapproves.

"I am a man of principles, Sir, and chief among them is flexibility."

[Tom Joad]

29. The lives of Iraqis are worth keeping the Dems look "tough" . I beg to

differ. And it isn't even working.

I suspect that the motives are not just keeping up in the polls,but a shared philosophy of the need for American empire. After all, Clinton kept up sanctions imposed on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands. Well, it's not all but a very few US voters knew any of those people, anyway, so why not?

[The Magistrate]

32. From Your Comments, Sir

One might, if not knowing the actual situation, draw the belief that Demcoratic Party officials are in control of events, and responsible for the presence of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. But of course, that is not true. Even if Democratic Party office-holders were to behave so foolishly as you urge, their doing so would not result in the departure of a single U.S. soldietr from Iraq in the near furure. At this point, their paying attention to the realities of political life in our coutry canbnot accurately be said to be doing harm to anyone.

It is also worth pointing out that you seem to be of the belief that a departure of U.S. soldiers from Iraq will end the killing their. It most certainly will not, and indeed, the mosty likely effect of the departure of U.S. troops wil be a great accelleration of the killing in the short term. The great bulk of the killing in Iraq is today being done by Iraqis, and by foriegn jihadist elements. U.S. forces serve as an odd sort of check on killing by Shia bodies, not because they directly oppose or prevent it, but because the major Shia leaders are content to lay back and wait while the U.S. nuetralizes their Sunni Arab enemies. Absent U.S. forces, these leaders will commit sizeable bodies of armed followers already in existance to that task, and the result will be bloody in the extreme. It wil be further complicated by serious rivalries within the Shgia bloc, that will doubtless then eruprt into the open as the prize of total control of the dituation beckons all the variosu factions. The fact of the matter is that by now, there is no course events can take that will result in an end to the killing of Iraqis anytime soon.

[Tom Joad]

36. Oh boy, white man's burden thing.

You'd think the 21st century would have done without that. "We have to stay there because the backward people can't do it on their own".

There are a few office holders who do "act so foolishly" as i suggest. James McGovern has introduced bills to defund the war.
http://www.house.gov/mcgovern/pr102505outofiraqbill.htm

Even Murtha has said that all the troops should be out, without conditions, in less than 6 months (I strongly differ with his insistence that troops should be stationed nearby, in my view they should withdraw to Kansas or Iowa, not Kuwait) still a lot better and more clear than anything Kerry has offered. He also knows that US troops, though not often the target, are the inspiration of the resistance. If we were to withdraw, then Iraqis will not be seen as collaborating with invading forces, and there would be a better chance that things would calm down. The Iraqis will have to work this out for themselves. The US just makes it worse.

Finally, the truth is, whatever ones station in life, we can all speak against this illegal and immoral war that has been waged against the Iraqi people without stopping since 1990. We don't have to be a member of the ruling class to do so.

[The Magistrate]

41. Not In The Least, Sir

It makes no difference to me whatever how many Iraqis kill however many other Iraqis, and the fact that they will continue to kill one another after the withdrawl of U.S. troops, and probably at a greater pace, does not constitute to me any argument at all for maintaining U.S. forces in the place. The only argument for that action, to my mind, would be that their presence there was of benefit to the United States, and in my view their presence there brings the United States no benefit whatever, and in fact does it harm. Therefore, the soldiers should be withdrawn, as quickly as is practicable. No other consideration is of any importance to me, save as it might bear as a tactical or strategic factor impinging on the practicalities of extricating U.S. forces, and dealing with the long-term consequences of the whole foolish venture.

[Tom Joad]

16. Let me reverse this. Do you think that continued US military involvement

in Iraq serves any useful purpose? Do you think the US should have any troops in Iraq for another year?

Do you think it might be better to announce a plan for complete withdrawal from Vietna..er... Iraq, rather than merely a start, at some future date, of a "drawdown"?

[sandnsea]

19. He's listed 2 dates so far

Six months after he was elected, were that to happen. And 20,000 last December. He has a plan for complete withdrawal, he's committed to no permanent bases in Iraq and has written to Bush demanding that he state that pubicly. Wish Bush won't do. The differences are stark. Kerry is the only one with a sensible plan to get out of Iraq, ALL the way out.

[The Magistrate]

20. My Own View, Sir

Is that we ought to withdraw yesterday, if not sooner. The U.S. suffers serious harm by occupying Iraq, most noteably in the demonstration of the impotence of our military power in the situation, and the first rule of holes, that when in one, the first thing to do is stop digging, seems to me to apply with great force. Withdrawl will also do harm, and in precisely the same manner, but it will be a finite harm, that will not be continually increasing, and it will have to be faced sooner or later anyway, as it is the inevitable cap to this foolish adventure in any case. But it does not much trouble me that established political figures are not so quick to make public calls for such a writing off of sunk costs, as they have to contend with the consequences of their statemenmts, and of policies they propose if those are enacted, neither of which is required of me. It seems to me best to focus on the plain fact that the present regime of the Republican Party got the country into this mess, and that it will certainly continue so long as the Republican Party holds control of the national government. A Democratic adnministration could be relied on to liquidate the matter as quickly as would be feasible, give all the various political and international concerns involved. None of these are minor: there will be repercussions. "Who lost Iraq?" will become a Republican rallying point; real enemies of the United States will be emboldened by the defeat; the region will much more chaotic than it previously was, with the power of Iran considerably augmented. None of these are good things.

[sandnsea]

11. "begin drawing troops down in six months"

I'm really not sure what you think you're accomplishing by distorting a Democrat's view of the war when they clearly want to end it. Between the debate post and the speech he made last October, it's quite clear. Why do you choose half a sentence and drop the other half???

[Tom Joad]

14. *Begin* drawing down in 6 months. Completely out? Who knows?

When will the troops be out completely. He should say the troops will be completely removed from Iraq within (reasonable time frame... should number weeks, not months, but any time frame would be better than an open-ended, ambiguous "begin drawing down" statement, because it gives no answer as to when the US will be finished.

I would not be satisfied (nor will the Iraqi people), if in 6 months, we had only 100,000 troops, and then a year from now, 50,000, and then in 5 years we were down to 10,000... "Begin drawing down" says nothing about when the troops will be completely removed from Iraq.

[sandnsea]

18. "reasonable time frame"

Riight. Based on what set of circumstances? And you didn't answer my question about only choosing half a sentence, or parts of comments, which distorts the intent.

Face it, if Kerry were in there we would have started withdrawing troops in 2004. If we'd had 100,000 six months after that initial withdrawal, and 50,000 a year later, that would be 50,000 now. Probably less. Because he also would have done the international diplomacy, brought in help from the region and NATO and/or the UN, changed the reconstruction to locals, promised not to build permanent bases. That's what he has said for 3 years now.

"I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.

And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace."

You chose to confuse the public with Kerry is the same as Bush warmongering talk. You did that. You helped keep Bush in power and every day you continue to distort people's views on Iraq, you help extend the war.

[Tom Joad]

21. 50,000 is acceptable to you?

It seems that for some, the only concern is lessening US casualty rate. Swell as that is, it is not enough.

For me, and many others... the United States, Europe, NATO has no business in Iraq. If more European allies were in Iraq, there would be less US casualties, i very much doubt the Iraqis would have given them flowers, however. And under such a scenario, it is unlikely there would be less Iraqi casualties, which i think is paramount.

[sandnsea]

23. Peace and 50,000 troops? Hell YES that's acceptable

A damned site more acceptable than what we've got today.

Let me ask you, you care about the Iraqi's right? Your opposition to the war, at its base, is because innocent Iraqi civilians are going to be harmed and die, correct?

[Tom Joad]

28. Peace with 50,000 US troops in Iraq?

Please explain how that would work.
The overwhelming majority of Iraqis want the troops out now. It is a large part of the problem, as even warhawk Murtha, to his credit, has seen. I don't know how a drawdown, over several years time, will be helpful.

Eventually, the US will be forced to leave Iraq just as it did in Vietnam. seeking some sort of "victory" or "success" is a terrible waste of human lives.

[sandnsea]

30. If we were leaving

and it was visible to them, then they should stop fighting. That's the whole case for leaving, right? The more they stop fighting, the more we can pull troops out. 50,000 was your number, not mine. I'd suspect there would be very few troops by now if we had taken a different path.

Isn't a peaceful Iraq with troops better than continued death and destruction?

[The Magistrate]

33. And The Problem With That, Ma'am

Is that the departure of U.S. troops will not end the killing: if anything, it will accellerate it. Most of the killing in Iraq today is carried out by Iraqis, in pursuit of their own goals versus other Iraqi factions. The departure of U.S. troops will not halt that.

[sandnsea]

34. It might have

If it had been done a couple years ago with the rest of the reconstruction and governance handled correctly. Giving people a real stake in economy and stability goes a long way to keeping the peace.

Besides, my real point is to get to the deaths of the Iraqis. Some people seem to put their own political agenda, troops out, over the very killing they claim to care so much about. Sounds like political expediency to me, simple politics of being right over all else.

[The Magistrate]

35. That Is Quite Possible, Ma'am

Even something that is wrong-headed may be done poorly or done well, and there is no question that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was horridly botched in its execution, to such a degree that even people who view it as a right thing to have done are pretty much forced to acknowledge its failure in consequence. It is quite likely that competent handling of the matter would have resulted in far less bloodshed all around, and a somewhat better outcome than that which confronts us now.

[Tom Joad]

38. If the Iraqis see us load up the troop planes, then i agree.

But if it means that troops are there for years to come, even if there is a very gradual "drawdown" is occuring, then i don't think it would help much at all.

[sandnsea]

40. Nitpicking over words?

No Democrat has ever called for staying in Iraq for years to come. Disengagement, phased withdrawal, drawdown, whatever, why nitpick over words. The point is to start getting out of Iraq so they can have their country back, which ought to lead to peace and an acceleration in bringing troops home. Other than the Joeblows, most all Democrats support a plan to get out of Iraq, and not leave behind death and destruction. Success. Why would calling a peaceful Iraq a success make you so angry?

[Tom Joad]

48. Hear what Lieberman is saying? Not like he is just some obscure

Dem, but once the vice-presidential nominee of the party. where does his plan differ than that of bush. He wants to stay until the job is done. (Bush also claims this, even claims there will be no permanent military bases, even as they build ones that clearly will be there for decades).

What makes some people so unclear on what some Dems want? Just want to believe despite of the facts.

[blm]

43. No - the window of opportunity to secure Iraq had not yet closed back then

Big difference.

[zulchzulu]

49. MP3 of Kerry on March 1, 2003 talking about Bush entering the war

He warned Bush NOT to go into Iraq. His IWR vote was based on getting the UN to go in and do inspections....not invade...

http://www.kerrysupport.com/media/kerry-war.mp3

[pstans]

4. It sounds like Feingold's call for withdrawl last summer

[lojasmo]

31. Indeed. And let it be said

Feingold never voted FOR the IWR in the first place (or even "voted against it before voting for it")

[Radical Activist]

37. I guess that tells us who the real leader is

and who is the play-it-safe follower.

[blm]

44. If Feingold had the military expertise he would've crafted the withdrawal

plan instead of suggesting it. Kennedy also made the suggestion months before Feingold. However, it was Kerry who did the footwork IN Iraq and came up with the actual plan to make it happen.

Feingold was supportive of Kerry's work and his submitted plan.

Surely you folks didn't miss this back in the fall.

[Radical Activist]

45. A plan that will never be implemented because

Kerry is not President. What I didn't miss before the war started is that Bush was clearly lying and it was an unjustified war of aggression. Kerry has said some nice things about the war but they were all far too late, long after November of 2004.

[blm]

46. You mean like Don't rush to war, let the weapons inspectors do their work?

.

[sandnsea]

6. Yep, A Very Clear Path on Iraq

I really wish we would have rallied behind the Home for the Holidays campaign so we could have forced Bush to implementing a strategy to end the war and bring our troops home.

"..At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays...

"The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn...

"our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.”

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2005_10_26.html

[Tom Joad]

9. Sounds like Nixon plan for "Vietnamization" of that war.

Nixon then used increased bombing, and reduced the number of US causalties, while dramatically increasing the Vietnamese suffering. All in support for the US puppet govt in South Vietnam.

Kerry is suggesting that the US policy should not feed the "notion of occupation” ... I can't see how until all US military troops leave Iraq, it is reality, not merely a "notion".

Demand immediate withdraw from Iraq and from the Middle East. NO US bases in Iraq. No more money for the war, condition all Military spending bills to immeidate withdrawal from Iraq.

Cut and run like hell. Illegal and unjust wars deserve nothing less.

[kerrygoddess]

12. Kind of sad

That anyone would compare Kerry to Nixon. Not sure what your motive is, but considering Kerry was on Nixon's most hated list, it's a sorry assed comparison.

[Tom Joad]

15. Tragic that Kerry turned out that way, indeed.

[TayTay]

27. Tragic indeed that concern for being 'right' trumps

concern for the people who are actually dying in Iraq. The United States has a moral obligation to the people of Iraq. We invaded their country and upended the order that was in place. The present instability and the resulting deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis is the fault of that invasion and occupation and incredibly inept and incompetent 'planning' if this Administration.

It is simplistic and immoral to reduce the issues in Iraq to 'withdraw' or 'stay the course.' It is much more complicated than that and our obligation to the people of Iraq in light of this invasion is more complicated than that. We have to start planning for a withdrawal, and we have to use our power to try and stabilize that country. Part of that stabilization will come from drawing down US troops to what amounts to training forces as quickly as possible. The credible estimates that I have heard for this kind of a withdrawal is six months, at the least.

We also have to recognize that the actions the US took in Iraq have consequences. We can't just run away from the fact that we destroyed much of the infrastructure of that country and have made the lives of countless Iraqis less safe and less secure. We have a moral obligation to face that. We have to consider what our actions or even lack of actions do to the people there.

That is a strong consideration on the part of many people who have deeply mixed feelings on this war, withdrawal plans and the consequences on the native population of those actions. It is a moral issue. It is also one that is not dependent on the actions of the Democrats. They do not have the White House, they do not have the Congress and they do not have the ear of the military establishment that conceived of and implemented this war. I would rather stand with the Murtha's, Kerry's and Feingold's of the Democratic Party on this and I would gladly back anyone of their plans over the present Admins course of action. They are more mindful of the true cost of this horrible and ill-conceived war than Bush and Rumsfeld are.

[coalition_unwilling]

47. To your eloquent post, I would only add two items . . .

a) an international war crimes tribunal, a la Nuremburg

and

b) an international reparations tribunal.

[ProSense]

25. Great!

Looks like the Democrats are all on board: withdraw.