Kerry's anti-Iraq War record

[yurbud]

What has John Kerry done to show he opposes and wants to end the war in Iraq?

[JeffR]

1. ..

:popcorn:

[JeffR]

2. ..

:eyes:

[still_one]

3. excellent question

there is no ambiguity when it comes to Feingold or Murtha

As far as I can see Kerry has said effectively as soon as the Iraqii forces are able to take over, but was against any type of time table, which in my view is ridiculous

[blm]

6. Feingold SAID we should withdraw by end of 06 and Kerry submitted a PLAN

to get troops withdrawn by end of 2006.

Even Feingold acknowledged Kerry's plan.

And where have you been that you don't know about it? no one could be that busy to have missed it here at DU.

[still_one]

11. but Kerry said if the Iraqiis were not up to the task

we would have to stay as long as it takes

[blm]

15. Here's his exact plan

submitted on the floor of the Senate in Nov. 2005. What did Feingold say specifically?

11/10/2005
Kerry Introduces Strategy for Success in Iraq Act in United States Senate
Plan Would Bring Home 20,000 Troops After Iraq Elections, Demands Benchmarks for Success

Washington, D.C. -- This afternoon, Senator John Kerry introduced in the Senate his plan to succeed in Iraq and bring the vast majority of our combat troops home in a reasonable timeframe tied to specific, responsible benchmarks to transfer responsibility to Iraqis – beginning with the draw down of 20,000 U.S. troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. These additional troops are in Iraq only for the purpose of providing security for the upcoming elections. If they remain in Iraq after that benchmark is achieved, it only exacerbates the sense of American occupation.

"We are entering a make-or-break six month period in Iraq. We need to be taking action now if we are ever going to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict," Kerry said. “We cannot pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay ‘as long as it takes. There is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives.”

Kerry's legislation, the Strategy for Success in Iraq Act, lays out a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home. Its goal is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing both a political settlement and the draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.

Kerry’s plan calls for:
• The U.S. to begin a phased draw down of American troops as a series of military and political benchmarks is met, starting with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as the first benchmark –the successful completion of the December elections – is met.
• The U.S. to immediately make clear that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely.
• The Administration to 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 -- ideally by the end of next year.
• The Bush administration to prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq’s borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq, especially from Syria.
• The Pentagon to alter the deployment of American troops, keeping Special Operations forces pursuing specific intelligence leads and putting the vast majority of U.S. troops in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face.
• The President to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them.
• The Bush administration to accept long standing offers by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more training.
• The administration to immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia to implement a strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise that includes mutual security guarantees among Iraqis.
• Iraq’s Sunni neighbors to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas to show them the benefits of participating in the political process. • The President to appoint a special envoy to bolster America’s diplomatic efforts.
• The U.S. to commit to a new regional security structure that includes improved security assistance programs and joint exercises.
• The U.S. to jumpstart our lagging reconstruction efforts by providing the necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces, expanding job creation programs for Iraqis, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries.

“We must send this critical signal to the Iraqi people - that we do not desire permanent occupation - and that Iraqis themselves must fight for Iraq. History shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency,” Kerry added.

Senior American commanders and officials have said the large U.S. military presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency. General George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that 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.” Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, recently wrote, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency."

[still_one]

22. That is a good fair post, but

I also had the distint impression that things would be changed if conditions got worse

[blm]

25. His plan was first submitted in Oct. there was a window of opportunity

the day after Dec elections to start taking the steps necessary. Bush didn't. Kerry and others know that Bush FUCKED UP BIGTIME by not taking that last window to prove we would not be an occupying force .

hell, even Biden knows it by now.

[karynnj]

29. Kerry actually said the exact opposite

He said that we needed to very clear that we weren't going to stay forever because it would motivate them to step up. He also called at the same time for them to quickly take over the search and destroy missions and the policing - pulling Americans out of these jobs that increased anti-American sentiment and put the troops at needless risk. He gave his Georgetown speech, then repeated these points on Wolf Blitzer, Hardball, Diane Sawyers show, and Bob Sheiffer's TV shows. He was also on NPR, a NH radio station, AAR (pre-taped but played on Chridtmas), and Ed Schultz.

This was at least as clear as Feingold - who said the flexible target dates were subject to change if politic goals weren't met.

In recent weeks, Kerry has sounded very close to saying that we need to get out - he was saying if the Iraqis don't get a government we should leave.

[still_one]

49. I appreciate the information

[MH1]

26. Not true.

Kerry's plan involves negotiating benchmarks with the Iraqi government - an agreement as to when we will draw down specific numbers of troops. However that is NOT the same as BushCo's oft tendered notion "as the Iraqus stand up, we will stand down" - which Kerry has specifically denounced - because that allows the Iraqis to drag their feet and control the time that we actually leave. Kerry's plan, in contrast, would basically set goals for us to achieve - like getting them through an election without major bloodshed - and upon completion of each goal, some of our troops would come home, with an objective of complete or nearly complete withdrawal within a year.

I don't see why this is so hard to understand. There is a clear difference between the plans in terms of who controls when our troops come home.

>> Bush's "plan": Iraq does (altho actually he has NO intention of bringing significant numbers of our troops home before the end of his term, he let that cat out of the bag.)

>> Kerry's plan: America defines our goals - in consultation with the Iraqi government - and is in control of meeting those goals. Thus, AMERICA controls when we will leave Iraq, while giving the Iraqis some say in setting the initial framework.

[babylonsister]

4. Read his speech at Georgetown University, here:

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=247764

Then check this out:
http://www.returningsoldiers.us/whatskerrydoing.htm

Then, bookmark this!

[still_one]

7. but he won't give a timetable

and that is the same crap they pulled in Viet Nam

You can look at it anyway you want, but as long as we are their we are a catalyst for civil war

and an indeterminate time table is too vauge

[blm]

9. A plan for most troops out of Iraq by Dec 2006 isn't specific to you, but

Feingold SAYING we should be out by end of 2006 and offering NO plan or details is your gold standard?

[still_one]

12. Frankly, as long as we are there, people will get killed

we are the CAUSE OF THIS, NOT THE SOLUTION

[blm]

19. Which is what Kerry said - he said there is NO MILITARY SUCCESS possible

and the only success we can hope to have is political.

That's why he keeps pressuring BushInc and the Pentagon on permanent bases.

What did Feingold specify?

[still_one]

23. Yes you are right

but he also indicated that if conditions get worse, plans would change.

In reality, neither Kerry's plan, Murtha's withdrawl plan, or Feingold's withdrawl are going to happen

[blm]

30. The saddest part is that truly thoughtful military minds are marginalized

and drowned out so they have no chance of being heard.

Kerry worked on that plan when he was in Iraq in Sept. with commanders on the ground and Iraqi parliamentary members who wanted a withdrawal plan from the US that would work for both countries.

The media is succeeding is silencing one of the best voices we have and too many Democrats helped them do it. Just like they did to Gore. And that is why I fight.

[still_one]

42. To be honest I really don't disagree with anything you are saying

what frustrates me is that it took Kerry, or anyone else two plus years to start saying something

and yes, you are right they weren't helped by the media, but that means you have to fight harder

[karynnj]

65. Kerry articulated a plan in September 2004

at NYU during the campaign. This was a major policy speech by the nominee of one of the 2 major parties - and mostly what you saw were talking heads saying Kerry was at NYU and then talking about the race.

His plan then was to providing security while excelerating training of the Iraqis, elections, and reconstruction using Iraqis (putting them back to work giving them a stake in success) and getting the countries in the area and the international community involved making it less of an American operation.

In Jan 2005, on Meet the Press on the Iraqi election day - he reiterated most of these points saing that the other 3 weren't being successfully pursued and that the election by itself wasn't enoough. He updated the plan in July to counter a Bush speech and then in October after a visit to Iraq (the plan posted). In each case, he spoke of a window of opportunity - in the October plan - he was adamant that the political/ diplomatic side had to worked on very quickly or things would get worse.

I'm sure it's excedingly frustrating to him that Bush is ignoring the military, much less members of opposite party. Each time Kerry has offered a plan it has been after consulting with the military, then using his judgement.

Looking at all his plans - the constants are:
-no permanent bases
-assure the Iraqis we won't be there forever
-do the diplomacy
-make it an international effort


T

[karynnj]

46. plans would change because workable options change

As things get worse, there's less that can be accomplished - which is why Kerry, Reed, Murtha every one in moving to very short horizons. Bush however is the only one who can do anything.

[still_one]

48. bush is irrelevent. Nothing will happen with him

and nothing will happen unless we take back Congress

[karynnj]

51. I wish Bush were irrelevant , but as CIC, it's his decision

[dionysus]

56. it's not Kerry vs Feingold, cripes, you don't have to bash Russ.

n/t

[ProSense]

10. Are you suggesting that Bush is waiting for a timetable from Kerry. n/t

[still_one]

16. I am suggesting we tell them we will be out at the end of the year

and they better step up to the job because we won't be their

No alternate change of plans if they cannot assume the job.

I am tired of young Americans, and IRAQII civillians getting killed because of our actions

[blm]

21. gee - just what Kerry said and you criticized him.

.

[still_one]

24. He left the door open if conditions got worse

and they will

This is a religious war and a civil war, and we are in the middle

[ProSense]

28. Unless Bush is impeached, he has three years to do just that. n/t

[karynnj]

45. on 3/17, on Imus - he spoke of LEAVING under those conditions

KERRY: I think you have to put it to the Iraqis and put it tough. This is ridiculous that we've taken three months since the election. There's no government. Young Americans -- you know, I was talking to Jack Murtha the other day. He was up at Bethesda Hospital, and said he saw a kid who could move his eyes. That's it. Can't move any other part of his body. His mother has been sitting by that bed for a year, and you got a lot of other kids over there who are giving their lives, and their limbs and shedding blood while the Iraqis are playing around, trying to figure out who's up, who's down.

You know, the last election, everybody said the mistake that was made is they lost the momentum after the election. They weren't going to let it happen again. Well, they've let it happen again.

And I think we sought to just tell them, look, you got, you know, whatever it is, X number of days. You put this thing together or we're out of here. And once you have put it together, we negotiate a period by which we shift it entirely over to them, get out, because if you don't do that, this is going to continue, and our guys are going to stay stuck in the middle of a civil war.

IMUS: Well, who would deliver that message?

KERRY: Well, it ought to be delivered by the president and the secretary of state. What they do -- you know, this ambassador over there, Ambassador Khalilzad, who's a good man. And I was over there about a month ago. He's working as hard as he can. But you need to have more diplomatic lift. You need to have a much more serious diplomatic effort to try to pull the other countries, the Sunni neighbors in the community and others, to pressure them.

[still_one]

47. Thanks, you have definitely caused me to reconsider my position

and I mean that in a positive way

[karynnj]

50. You are very welcome

I really hope he gives a speech some time soon - these comments were very informal - IMUS was in Boston at a St Patrick day's event and he was throwing out questions, like what would you do on Iraq - then quickly getting bored and asking Kerry brilliant questions like "How's Teresa?" "Does she still love you?" - he was pretty much a jerk.

[still_one]

59. Imus is a jerk, but one way or another I know the democrats

will be speaking up more, out survival if nothing else

[wisteria]

64. Truer words were never said, Imus is a huge jerk. n/t

[karynnj]

66. Where will we be?

[yurbud]

36. good one

[blm]

5. You can access his withdrawal plan submitted last year from your thread

and post it here.

You can also access the speeches posted there. And his letter to Gen. Pace about permanent bases, and his Downing Street Memo letter of inquiry.

And you know this already, so what's your point?

[yurbud]

13. the original thread implied he was pro-war, evidence presented made it

clear it was a false impression.

I asked mod to delete thread, so I wanted to move the infor here.

[karynnj]

33. If that were your sincere reason, perhaps you would have

extracted the posted prove on the various issues - starting a thread saying (not asking) that Kerry is against the war. You could then have posted the information in a logical order.

Instead, you ask the moderators to delete a thread where the Kerry supporters had links to speeches and legislation from 2002 to 2006 and the attackers had snarky comments - so if looked at it ended up being positive. You then create this thread with the comment that people say Kerry is anti-war and ask for proof. Needless to say this brings out the trolls. I don't think that you are a troll, but I doubt that you didn't know precisely what would happen.

[yurbud]

35. I've got to go to work soon, and as you can see from the thread, I am

extracting some

[karynnj]

39. ok, sorry

it looked like a silly stunt to end up in the same place. I appologize that I misjuudged you - but there is a huge amount of Kerry bashing sudenly going on - that seems almost spontaneous. Nothing Kerry did this week started it.

[yurbud]

40. I saw the link on counterpunch--good idea, wrong target. If you are

in Mass, maybe you should talk to them.

[MH1]

44. Umm, just fyi

"Counterpunch" is site that was still trying to take Kerry down just before the 2004 election. I don't have the link handy but I saw one article there - I believe it was posted in October 2004 - that claimed Kerry wasn't really much of an environmentalist (and therefore people who care about the environment should have voted 3rd paryty - i.e. for Bush - rather than Kerry). Well I've got some news for them - I came to politics through environmentalism, it used to be my main, no scratch that, ONLY issue that I cared about; I know a whole lot more about ecology and related science than the average person who doesn't have a college degree in the field, and I know who real environmentalists are and who aren't. In other words that article had an especially foul odor to anyone who has a clue about environmental issues. The article contained lie after lie about Kerry's environmental record.

That's when I realized "counterpuke" was not a reliable site. Since then I've seen multiple Dem-bashing screeds there that are full of lies and distortions.

Counterpuke is a site that promotes third parties (Green mainly, I think) at the expense of the Democratic Party rather than the Republicans. They seem to believe that the way to achieve their ends is to allow things to get so awful that people rise up in violent revolution and denounce both major parties, and everyone joins the Green party who will then run the country perfectly and everyone will live happily ever after.

Guess you can tell I'm not buying that.

Anyway, be careful around sites like that. It helps to know what an information (or disinformation) purveyor's objectives are before taking anything they say too seriously. In Counterpuke's case, they are out to discredit Democrats to make their own party look better.

[yurbud]

67. they have Feingold's censure piece up right now and have posted

other Democrats.

While Cockburn, who runs the site, is a bit more like what you said, they run a pretty wide range of the left of Bushies stuff from Paul Craig Roberts out to Nader with all the variations in between.

[MH1]

69. They lied about Kerry and worked to help Bush win in 2004.

I don't know why any Democrat would even read them. They told people not to vote for Kerry in 2004. What friggin' more do you need to know?

They may get something right once in a while, but that's like the "stopped clock" thing.

Also, Feingold is a natural ally because he also trashed the rest of his party. (Well - the Democratic party. Maybe he is another kind of "DINO", and the name of his real party starts with some letter other than D?) I like many of Feingold's stances on the issues but it will take a while before he wins back my trust, after that bullshit "cowering" remark. And it was bullshit - there were other times HE could've taken a stand, and didn't, and there are good reasons for Democrats not to jump right into line behind without a) being consulted upfront and b) being consulted for a reasonable amount of time after his announcement before he starts dissing them.

So yeah, it's not surprising that they are backing Feingold...in fact that's like the Republicans cheering him on because they think it will divide the Democrats and give them more power. Similar motives.

[ProSense]

8. Are you collecting information on Kerry for some reason?

May I suggest the Internets?

[yurbud]

14. penance

[ProSense]

17. Internets n/t

[yurbud]

18. not for my own edification but restoring balance in the DUforce

[blm]

32. Well, that is a welcome change of course.

I, for one, loathe inaccuracies that actually spread harm for the left, and certainly don't educate.

[karynnj]

34. or additional sin??

We aren't that naive. Implicitly Bearing false witness on a board about John Kerry - I may be wrong - only you know your intent.

[yurbud]

37. if I liked the sin, I would have let the original thread stand.

geeze!

[yurbud]

20. someone else's excellent collection of Kerry anti-war actions & words

MH1

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=952 - John Kerry - “The Path Forward”

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=955 - Kerry Offers Specific Starting Point for Iraq Withdrawal

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=957 - NPR: Kerry Urges Troop Withdrawals Post-Iraq Elections

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=960 - C-Span Alert: John Kerry - “The Path Forward”

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1117 - Kerry Introduces “Strategy for Success in Iraq Act” in United States Senate

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1120 - Remarks of Senator John Kerry Introducing the Kerry Iraq Bill

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1119 - John Kerry Responds to Senator McCain’s Mischaracterization of His Iraq Plan

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1145 - Kerry Takes Bush to Task on his Veteran’s Day Speech

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1157 - Kerry Takes Bush to Task on his Veteran’s Day Speech - Video

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1197 - Kerry Responds to Murtha Attacks on the Senate Floor, Debate Rages

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1340 - John Kerry: Real Security in the Post 9/11 World

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1348 - Kerry: Reduce U.S. Force in Iraq by 100,000 by End of Next Year

[MH1]

27. Thanks for posting these here!

btw just to set the record straight and not take credit that isn't due me, that is not "my" blog, although I visit it frequently, and have posted a guest blog there once (and hope to again someday if they'll still have me ;-) )

[yurbud]

31. Kerry on oil distorting Middle East politics and our actions:

Developing effective replacements for oil-based fuels also was key, he said. The West's insatiable appetite for petroleum from the Middle East "has frustrated every impulse towards modernization of the region, while giving its regimes the resources to hold onto power. The international community of democratic nations cannot afford to continue funding both sides of the war on terror. We must end the empire of oil."

http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4587425

[Old and In the Way]

38. He had ME energy independence as a cornerstone of his campaign.

He wanted to retool the infrastructure and economy to address the realities of a post peak-oil economy. One that would have created meaningful jobs and a future here.

Too bad we are stuck with war profiteers and Big Oil sockpuppets who steal our elections. We got one last chance in November to start making change, or there won't be a country worth saving until all the oil and our national Treasury is completely drained....at which time the Republican Syndicate will be raptured to some remote country in South America. Their Contract on America....mission accomplished.

[kerrygoddess]

55. That's from Kerry's Ireland Speech last month

The text of the speech is here -

John Kerry: “Security in a Dangerous World”
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2133

"We must also, finally, liberate not only ourselves, but 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. The international community of democratic nations cannot afford to continue funding both sides of the war on terror. We must end the empire of oil. And these efforts have to be truly international — all linked to the rapid emergence of new energy technologies, in order to ensure that growing economies like China and India don’t just replace us as the enablers of Middle East despots."

[yurbud]

41. Kerry letter to Pentagon: No permanent US Bases in Iraq

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=250172

02/08/2006
Kerry Asks Pentagon to Clarify that America Will Not Have Permanent Military Presence in Iraq



WASHINGTON – Today Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) sent a letter to General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asking him to clearly and publicly state that there will be no permanent American military bases in Iraq. Earlier this week, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said that the United States will “not maintain any long-term bases in Iraq.” Kerry’s letter calls on General Pace to clarify and back these statements, for the good of American troops and our long-term goals in the region. Kerry has long argued that announcing that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq is key to undermining the insurgency.

Below is a copy of the letter.

February 8, 2006

General Peter Pace, USMC Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff 9999 The Pentagon Room 2E878 Washington, DC 20318-9999

Dear General Pace:

I was interested to see reports of Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt’s speech to the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London where he reportedly said the United States will “not maintain any long-term bases in Iraq. . . . Our position is when we leave we will not have any bases there.”

For some time, a number of us have argued that it is vital to the success of our mission in Iraq for the United States to make clear in public that we seek no permanent military bases in Iraq. We know from General Casey that the insurgency in Iraq has fed on the sense of occupation. A simple declaration that the United States seeks no permanent military bases in Iraq, I believe, will help undermine the claims of some home-grown insurgents who argue that the United States seeks to steal Iraq’s oil and dominate its people.

In the interest of clarity, can you state unequivocally that the United States will not maintain any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq? If Brigadier General Kimmmit’s statement is accurate, I urge you to personally state it clearly in public. I believe that doing so would be a great service to those brave Americans serving so well in Iraq and to the goals of American policy in the region.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry

# # #

[welshTerrier2]

43. Kerry's "withdrawal plan"

Kerry's "plan" is a conditional plan ... he says, we can't just set some arbitrary timeline and then leave ...

that would be, well, arbitrary ... so, instead of an arbitrary plan, on what contingency does Kerry base his plan ...

here's what he said last October ... you can find the "Kerry contingency" by looking for the word "If" ...

The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of next year. If the Administration does its work correctly, that is achievable.

Do you support tying a "specific timetable" for troop withdrawal to whether bush becomes "suddenly competent" and his administration "does its work correctly" ?????????

i sure don't ...

[kerrygoddess]

52. Tom Hayden's response to Kerry's seech in October

This from one of the foremost leaders in the anti-war movement...

I think the Kerry speech is a good step, especially in the context of the appalling silence of other Senate Democrats. It is an anti-war speech that contains a more detailed alternative than yet elaborated. It will not satisfy “out now” advocates but at least it says “out soon”.

The defense of dissent as patriotic is a nice addition. The demand for 20,000 troops out by Christmas is excellent and will prevent Bush from taking total credit if it happens.

I would hope the Senator will call for hearings and discussion on an exit strategy followed by a Senate resolution, but his proposals are ice-breakers in the official discussion in the Senate chamber.

What has been proposed are “benchmarks” for US senators. We should demand that the Democratic Senate bloc respond to the Kerry speech with their own ideas for an exit strategy, or sign on as supporters. I would hope that Sen. Kerry keeps giving and elaborating this speech as a year-long effort.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=970

[welshTerrier2]

53. references furnished on request?

that's nice that Mr. Hayden had a few positive remarks to make ...

but you didn't answer the question i raised which was: "Do you support tying a "specific timetable" for troop withdrawal to whether bush becomes "suddenly competent" and his administration "does its work correctly" ?????????"

[TayTay]

60. Yeah, I do.

Although, those timetables are not in the hands of the Democrats. They can suggest, they cannot implement. The Democrats are trying to get the Bush Admin to admit that they must start to plan for a troop withdrawal. The Bush Admin, as evidenced by the remarks Bush made on Monday of this week, has no plans to withdraw. I believe Bush said that a withdrawal would be up to the next PResident in Jan of '09 to ponder.

Yeah, I can see the training of Iraqi troops as a condition for complete withdrawal. However, I agree that the main bulk of troops should get out of Iraq and be redeployed away from the day to day life of Iraq. I think that is a smart way to go.

[welshTerrier2]

63. do you think progress is being made in Iraq?

because i don't ... to whom would trained troops be loyal even if more troops were being adequately trained? if during the US Civil War some outside country had trained Northern and Southern troops, would that have stabilized the country?

do you accept the premise that we are training "pro democracy" forces that will support a democratic Iraq against Shia militia? will US-trained Shia soldiers stand for democracy against these militia?

and its not all that clear that troop training is going all too well either ... one recent report indicated that there are now a big fat ZERO Iraqi battalions capable of fighting on their own ... ZERO ... you do the math ... 36 months of war divided by ZERO self-sufficient battalions equals infinite war ...

there's nothing in Kerry's plan that says bush has to meet a timetable ... what if he never meets the timetable? what then? and the Kerry plan says??

[karynnj]

71. Kerry doesn't say stay forever

Kerry's answer to it getting worse and being unsolvable is NOT to stay forever - in the past he compared Iraq to Vietnam - and in Vietnam, he reached the conclusion that nothing we did would positively affect the country - so it was wrong for people to lose their lives for nothing. He had said if he thought that was the story in Iraq, he would call for leaving.

He sounds pretty close here - on Imus (3/17)
KERRY: I think you have to put it to the Iraqis and put it tough. This is ridiculous that we've taken three months since the election. There's no government. Young Americans -- you know, I was talking to Jack Murtha the other day. He was up at Bethesda Hospital, and said he saw a kid who could move his eyes. That's it. Can't move any other part of his body. His mother has been sitting by that bed for a year, and you got a lot of other kids over there who are giving their lives, and their limbs and shedding blood while the Iraqis are playing around, trying to figure out who's up, who's down.

You know, the last election, everybody said the mistake that was made is they lost the momentum after the election. They weren't going to let it happen again. Well, they've let it happen again.

And I think we ought to just tell them, look, you got, you know, whatever it is, X number of days. You put this thing together or we're out of here. And once you have put it together, we negotiate a period by which we shift it entirely over to them, get out, because if you don't do that, this is going to continue, and our guys are going to stay stuck in the middle of a civil war.

IMUS: Well, who would deliver that message?

KERRY: Well, it ought to be delivered by the president and the secretary of state. What they do -- you know, this ambassador over there, Ambassador Khalilzad, who's a good man. And I was over there about a month ago. He's working as hard as he can. But you need to have more diplomatic lift. You need to have a much more serious diplomatic effort to try to pull the other countries, the Sunni neighbors in the community and others, to pressure them

[welshTerrier2]

72. "positively affect the country"

just to clarify, i have never suggested Kerry said we should "stay forever" ... but i haven't heard his "contingency plan" for what we should do when he finally concludes Iraq is totally hopeless ... my point was that he hasn't said anything like "if bush doesn't "X" by "Y" date then we "Z" ...

the Democrats need to say, whether they can enforce it or not, "bush, you got 6 months and that's it" ... after that, we will vote against all continued funding and all pro-war measures ... will they ever stand up to bush??? it sure doesn't look that way ...

as for Kerry's comments that he will stop supporting the war when he concludes we can no longer "positively affect the country", one then must infer that he believes that bush and rumsfeld still may bring about a "positive effect" ... maybe he's willing to put his faith in bush; i'm not ... it was the mistake he made voting for the IWR in the first place and he's still making the exact same mistake ...

bush is in Iraq to grab control of oil and control of power ... if he succeeds, the Iraqis lose; if he fails, the Iraqis lose ... bush's motive for war is the primary reason we should get out immediately ... the war does not make any sense ...

but it does to Kerry, apparently ... he thinks, if bush does well, the war is worthwhile ... he's betting on neo-con horses and their track record is both obvious and hideous ... frankly, and sadly, i believe Kerry knows better ... and that, i'm afraid, leaves me with the genuinely disappointing belief that his position is based primarily on political considerations ...

btw, as an aside, my cornerstone also reads "1950" ... it's no small thing to share that ... i expect we have walked many of the same paths ...

[karynnj]

76. I think he was betting on Bush acting

to salvage the situation for his own (Bush's) sake.

Kerry has spoken out more on the need to commit to no permanent bases and has spoken about the problem of being so dependent on oil as it relates to the mess in the ME. I see Kerry's plan as more "an alternative path". In reality, nothing he could say would change what Bush does - but by doing the work to create a plan, to explain the logic of its pieces, he lets people see an alternative. I think he may think that doing what he said was what he thought most likely to work. (This is no different than what any other politician has done.) Also, the media is constantly berating the Democrats (who can't implement a plan) about not having one rather than evaluating the plan(?) in place.

In his questioning of Dr Rice, it's clear that the administration won't rule out permanent military bases even though 2 generals said we did. Bush now says we'll be there beyond his term. Kerry seems closer to simply saying we should be out of there - he came very close on the Imus show. Strangely they repeated it once, paired with McCain's statement then dropped it. I hope Kerry speaks to this soon in a more established forum - if MSNBC though it would hurt, they'd have played the comment more.

From that thread there seem to be several of us 1950 people - a start that put us at the right age for interesting times.

[welshTerrier2]

77. "Kerry seems closer to simply saying we should be out of there"

is that your position?

[karynnj]

78. I put in the Imus show quote that seems to say this

In addition, his comments when questioning Dr Rice were in that direction too. My interpretation of the quote was that he was coming very close to "out now" if they don't resolve the govrnment - he has said since the beginning of the year that we are in a civil war, at first qualified as low level. He went to Iraq in January - he hasn't given a real speech or even detailed statement. I agree with Tay that he is due to say something. (Last year he went in late August and gave a major speech shifting his position in October after speaking to various people.)

You're from Massachusetts - so have had to follow him to some degree over the years - so, the quote is there to parse and consider what he meant or why he said it. I am just trying to not read more into what he said than was there.

What surprises me is that MSNBC opted not to run with it. There has been a lot of movement with Reed and others at least urging an exit plan.

[welshTerrier2]

79. perhaps my question was not clear

from your response, it seems you thought i was challenging your comments about Kerry's position ... i've read the Imus transcript and that was not the intent of my question ...

When you wrote "Kerry seems closer to simply saying we should be out of there", i was asking you whether you believe that "we should be out of there"?? i was not asking about Kerry's opinion; i was asking about yours ...

[karynnj]

80. Oh, sorry

I agree that if we are in the middle of a civil war, it means that we have absolutely failed in facilitating a joint government that repects the rights of all. Then everything Kerry correctly said of Vietnam will be true of Iraq. The argument that we were preventing the descent into chaos was compelling - but we may be at a point where we are sacrificing people for no gain. As Bush has done nothing right this has been the case.

The problem is that Bush is President. It is clear (to me) that had Kerry won, we would be in a very different situation. (unless his life and everything he's said is a lie.) I did agree that it made sense to do the things Kerry suggested in 2004 and 2005 - it's possible they could have avoided the current chaos. Now, I think that we need to get out. This however won't happen.

In a way, it's hard to know the reason for Democratic plans - they won't be implemented. Are they offered with the hope that logical sensible ideas will be picked up? Is it to suggest what we would be doing - to spell out the alternative? As a devil's advocate, which of two things would you prefer a ficticious Senator to do:

- Demand that Bush leave Iraq now and vote against any budgets, appropriations etc that fund it.
OR
- Suggest a plan that minimizes the danger to our soldiers, shows greater respect to the Iraqis, and aids the diplomatic mission - knowing it will get little recognition and may get not consideration in terms of implementation - on the off chance that in desperation Bush may adopt as his some components of it.

I trust that Kerry would not keep the soldiers there for one day longer than possible if there was no reason for it and he had any real impact.

[welshTerrier2]

81. "Now, I think that we need to get out."

we have no choice ... we don't belong there ...

as to your hypothetical, which really isn't all that hypothetical, i would without hesitation choose choice #1 ... demand immediate withdrawal and vote against funding ...

here's why ...

choice #2 offers "the off chance that bush might adopt some of the ideas" ... this gets to the heart of my frustration with most of the Senate Democrats ... you've really phrased it perfectly ...

and it's even more frustrating when so many here say to me "well, even if we said this or that, we still have no power" ... that makes it even worse ...

here's my message: we should not be formulating policy on the "off chance" that bush will do anything ... he's inept and he is marching us all blindly over the cliff ... and in "tinkering around the edges" and trying to coax even an iota of cooperation from bush, we are FAILING TO LEAD ... we are failing to speak to the American people about what we really believe in ... it's almost the perfect formula for what many label "republican-lite" ... we have to be "close enough to bush so that he might shift his position just a little - if we're too far off of HIS VIEWS, he might not respond" ... that's crazy, isn't it??

someone posted a cautiously optimistic poll about the Democrats lead in Congressional polling but warned that Democrats are not strongly preferred because they don't seem to have any deep convictions or direction ... yeah, yeah, the media blah blah blah ... i don't disagree ... but that's the reality we're dealing with ... we can make all the excuses we want to but that doesn't change the battle we're in ... and i don't think Democrats can formulate a message that's overly cautious, is close enough to bush's message "on the off chance he'll respond", or that puts political calculation and "winning" ahead of genuine, deeply held convictions ...

two years to the day this coming April 4, i attended a small gathering to raise money for Kerry's presidential campaign ... i got a chance to speak to Cam Kerry and told him that Iraq would end up in civil war and that he should tell his brother to rethink his views on Iraq ... i could have been dead wrong ... i only wish he had taken the advice ... one can only wonder whether events would have changed ...

i would be very interested to know whether other Kerry supporters, if any are reading this, believe it's time to leave Iraq ...

[karynnj]

82. I actually think there is value to #2 as well

as long as he/she also loudy protested what was actually being done - at this point, that may be a mote point, if there is nothing we could do to make things better.

I'm sure all of us were aware of civil war as the worst case scenario - and one that was quite possible. Kerry's own statements warned of the dangers - and in all cases his plans were attempts to prevent it and get out. I know, from the other posts that you would have preferred just get out now. (like you, I preferred not getting in and protested with my kids and husband in NYC and DC.)

I actually see a huge difference in Kerry's and Feingold's positions compared to Bush's.

[TayTay]

58. Everyone's plan is conditional

Murtha's, Feingold's, Kerry's. There are extremely important places where they all agree:

"Staying the course in Iraq is not an option or a policy. I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. I believe it can be accomplished in as little as six months but it must be consistent with the safety of U.S. troops. We must insist that the Iraqis step up and seize their own destiny.

Jack Murtha
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/statement_051117iraq.html
Nov. 17, 2005

"Today, I come to the floor to talk about why I think we need a timeframe for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I do not mean a rigid timetable, nor do I mean a timetable that is not connected to clear and achievable benchmarks. But what we do need is a public, flexible, realistic timetable that will tell people when and how we expect to finish the military mission in Iraq.

As my colleagues may know, I have suggested a target date of December 31, 2006, the end of next year, for the completion of our military mission. Today, I want to talk a little bit about why a flexible timetable for withdrawal will help make the U.S. stronger and our enemies weaker."

Congressional Record Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On A Time Frame For U.S. Military Mission in Iraq: http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/05/10/20052525CR.html
October 25, 2005


"Finally, and without delay, we must fundamentally alter the deployment of American troops. While Special Operations must continue to pursue specific intelligence leads, the vast majority of our own troops should be in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face. Iraqis should police Iraqis. Iraqis should search Iraqi homes. Iraqis should stand up for Iraq."

John Kerry
The Path Forward: http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=247764
Oct 26, 2005

I can also list things from Sen. Clinton that show that she also wants a draw-down of troops as quickly as possible. Even Biden wants 50,000 troops out by this Dec and then all of them by the end of 2007. The Dems are not that far apart on this.

Then again, they don't get to decide. Like it or not, it's Bush and the Repubs in Congress who get to decide. Our side does not have the power to force these ideas through. We have to play this game through the media, which is hostile to Democratic ideas and incredulous that the Dems could ver reach basic agreement on what to do in Iraq. But they are in basic agreement. Read the statements at the various web sites for House and Senate members.

[welshTerrier2]

62. everyone's plan is "conditional"?

my plan is not conditional beyond withdrawing the troops as quickly as their safety allows ... it is certainly not conditional, as Kerry's is, on the bush administration "doing its work correctly" ...

i hope you really don't believe that "the Dems are really not too far apart on this" ... perhaps by "the Dems", you're referring to Congressional Dems ... the party best not see their constituents in that light ... you only need to look at the very real and deep divide in the recent Cegelis-Duckworth race to understand the political realities on the Iraq issue ...

so i ask you, as i asked in my earlier post, "Do you support tying a "specific timetable" for troop withdrawal to whether bush becomes "suddenly competent" and his administration "does its work correctly" ?????????"

why is it i get answers about Tom Hayden and Jack Murtha but no one seems to want to discuss the contingency Kerry put in his own plan??

and speaking of Kerry, has he called for any specific withdrawals since his initial 20,000 after the Iraqi elections? if he thinks no progress has been made since the elections, does it logically follow that he should push his timeline back since it was contingent on making progress? does Kerry believe things are getting better in Iraq? if not, has he amended his plan?

and this nonsense from Korb and Dean and Feinstein about all troops out by the end of 2007? they can't be serious ... we've had 36 months of this crap and we're supposed to feel all warm and fuzzy about Democrats who call for an additional 21 months of war???? forget it!!!

and then some offer the "we can't do anything because we aren't in power" ... but those same people compliment Kerry or Clark or whomever on their positions ... well, either taking a stand is meaningful or it isn't ... Democrats have plenty of power if they stood together and opposed the continuation of the war ... but noooooo ... they just keep voting for more and more funding ... i guess you're right; they all see this pretty much the same way ... "let's keep writing checks so bush can continue the war" ... a disquieting unity at best ...

on edit: just saw your earlier post responding to the question i asked ... i'll read that next ... glad you responded to the question i raised ...

[yurbud]

68. great Ted Kennedy quote

[TayTay]

70. Your plan is conditional

You can drive a truck through the phrase 'as soon as safety allows.' Even Jack Murtha has said this.

This is what Kerry said back in Dec, 2005:

MODERATOR: So just to try to quantify it, 160,000 now; this time next year, if you were in charge —

KERRY: I believe you could get at least 100,000 out over that period of time, bring it down to somewhere in the vicinity of 30(,000) to 40,000, and then, you know, you’re going to have to see where you are. But the — that would be my goal. And I would not do it on a fixed automatic table; it has to be results-coordinated. And that’s the way I would do it.

MODERATOR: And you don’t buy the argument of some who say that, look, Americans are the focus of the jihadists and the insurgents; let’s just get them all out, out of the — after the election?

KERRY: I think if the United — I mean, when you say after the election, you look at — look at Congressman Murtha’s proposal that has drawn such heated fire from the right and elsewhere. He has talked about approximately a six-month period. But he’s also talked about sort of a results-connected process. He sees it in six months. I don’t. I think it’s going to take longer, and I see it as more connected to the series of events that I’ve talked about.

But in the end, if you just up and left in a matter of a month or two months, and there isn’t a sufficient base underneath you, you will, as I said in my prepared comments, encourage the radicalization of the region, have an enormous negative impact on those who are seeking this transformation in the Middle East that I talked about, and, I think, endanger our interests as well as other people’s interests in the region.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9390/real_security_in_a_post911_world.html

That was his opinion in Dec of last year. He wanted US troops pulled back and not involved in active engagement with the Iraqi people in these military raids. The wanted 30-40,000 troops left in Dec of this year, and they would be training Iraqis, at the request of the Iraqi Govt and providing security for the trainers. Any other forces would be in the rear-guard. This is vastly different from what we have now.

It is also from Dec. 2005. I am looking for something new. I think the destruction of the Golden Dome in Samarra changed things. The country is deteriorating at a faster rate because none of the right things were done there. Which is the fault of the Republicans and their leader George Bush. The Democrats in Congress can press for change by using the press and so forth and can be completely ignored by the Admin and the Pentagon. Which is, of course, what happens. I have said this to you before but you completely disregard the point: Who is more responsible for this debacle in Iraq, the Democrats or the Republicans and Bush? Why do you reserve your worst vitriol for the Dems, who are least talking about withdrawal. Did you notice that Bush said no withdrawal until at least Jan of '09. Even Biden would have us out before then. If anyone would listen.

The Democrats are beginning to coalesce around some common points of withdrawal. That is happening. (Well, except for Leibermann, sigh!)

[welshTerrier2]

73. you think Cegelis supporters are "coalescing" around the war plan?

you're living in a dream world if you can't see the internal strife in the party ...

as for my plan being "conditional", my "as fast as safety allows" is intended to take no more than around a month ... calling that conditional is playing word games ...

[TayTay]

74. I don't know what Cegelis supporters are

coalescing around. I have no info on her or on her opponent in any detail. That was an Illinois race and I didn't really follow it or contribute money to it.

It would take more than a month to get out. That is one of the critical problems with withdrawal. This is part of the problem. There are logistics issues that would have to be solved and then the safety of the troops would have to be re-assessed after each movement of significant numbers of people out and so forth. It's not just a matter of getting up and catching a flight out of Baghdad.

Isn't that the Republican position? Are you saying that there is no difference between the Dems and the Repubs? Do you find any differences between what Feingold, Kerry, Murtha and others have said and what the Repubs say? It is the Bush people want to keep people where they are and build 14 (or more) permanent bases. They have not talked about getting our people out of the active war region and won't even admit that the US forces are contributing factors to the growing insurgency. (Not in any real way.)

There is strife in the Dem party, there is also a growing movement that is starting to coalesce around the idea of withdrawal. It is a good thing to agree on the goal first and then on the way to get there. I think that is happening. There will always be a range of opinion on this. Unless Dems find common ground they will not be enough of an electoral force to get anyone into office, whether they believe in withdrawal in 6 or 9 months. They will be neutralized as an effective force in getting this present Government to pay attention.

[welshTerrier2]

75. "Isn't that the Republican position?"

i'm not sure exactly what comment i made that prompted you to ask this but here's my answer (to both questions you raised) ...

both parties keep voting for more war funding ... does this make them the same or different?

some Dems have pushed plans that call for more aggressive withdrawal than some republicans ... does this make the parties the same or different?

republicans, bush included, have said that we need to create the necessary stabilization before we can leave ... does Kerry say that too? how about Clark? Clinton? Warner? Dean? does that make them the same or different??

i'd like to believe that Democrats are pushing hard to end the war ... frankly, i'd like to believe that republicans are as well ... i just don't see it ...

are there any differences? i suppose i could find some ... the bottom line is that neither party is willing to say that bush's motives for war are illegitimate ... neither party is willing to acknowledge that bush will never succeed in Iraq ... both parties, and specifically Kerry (see quote in an earlier reply), have put their faith, and their funding votes, in bush ... bush is under no deadline ... if he continues to fail, neither party has threatened to pull the plug ... does this make them the same or different???

here's a hint, and i genuinely offer this with no disrespect intended, the Boston Globe article that talked about the party's warm and fuzzies and how we're all coalescing was pure political propaganda ... it was written to create a mindset that Dems finally are unifying ...

two reactions are possible ... bury our heads in the sand and pretend all is well or work like hell, with a very inclusive process, to work out a real compromise about Iraq ... absent representation, I, and i believe many others, will not be supporting a "fund bush's war" Democrat ... i'm not talking about a mass exodus; i'm talking about 1 to 5 percent of regular Democratic Party supporters ... i have never voted third party; i will if the status quo continues ...

all the insults on DU about this will not work ... the party cannot ignore the anti-war movement without incurring real problems ... if they want more votes, they need to do a better job representing more voters ... the argument about what anti-war voters should do is DOA ... even if you're right, you won't win their votes by demanding them ...

if you care to understand alienated voters and win their votes, the "we're all coalescing" nonsense has got to stop ... trust me; i'm not coalescing ... and it's not just anti-war voters either ... there are tens of millions of people who have stopped voting entirely ... i believe most of them were previously Democrats ... yeah, you can call them names for not voting; i might even agree with you ... but that does nothing to win them back ... right now, they see a Democratic Party that is playing politics with almost every issue ... they do not see a solid core of integrity ... i've spoken to a number of these people and their feedback is always the same: "they're all in it for themselves" ... we're doing nothing to win back their support ... excessive partisanship, an emphasis on winning over values and a campaign directed by DC consultants ain't going to get it done ...

and you're doing your candidate a disservice by defending this nonsense ... the anti-war movement should be a natural constituency for Kerry ... it once was ... if it seems he comes under the harshest criticisms after the neanderthals in the WH, it's probably because we had the most hope for him as a leader on this issue and he's therefore disappointed us the most ... it's not that he's worse; it's that we expected so much more ...

so, let those who profess love and blind loyalty to Kerry attack away ... my vote, and the vote of many in the anti-war movement, is there for those who represent us ... if you're not interested in my vote, just say so ... we need not debate further ... if you're looking for support, work for compromise and i will do the same ...

added on edit: btw, i noticed the mods stuck one of those "flame" symbols on this thread in the forum's thread index ... because you support Kerry, i ask you if you think that properly categorizes this thread? fwiw, i don't ... just because people disagree or a topic is controversial doesn't mean posts in the thread are "flames" ...

[kerrygoddess]

54. Kerry On the Situation Room from Iraq in Janurary

Kerry was in Iraq in January. He was on the Situation 2 days in a row, the first day from Jerusalem and the 2nd day from Iraq. There's a synopsis of the interview here, with the complete video in 2 parts and a link to the transcript - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1701

[IndianaGreen]

57. Hmmm... a lot of anti-Kerry attacks lately

Who would benefit from this? Hillary?

[LittleClarkie]

61. They do seem vaguely out of the blue, don't they.

I wish we'd focus as much on Senators who haven't said boo about some of these issues as much as we focus on Kerry's every position. Sometimes I'm thinking "Maybe the position stated isn't to everyone's liking, but at least he's stated it. That's more than we've gotten from several Senators who are just sorta sitting there, hoping Bush will crash and burn on his own."