White House Rejects Kerry Op Ed Call for Iraq Pullout

[ProSense]

White House Rejects Kerry Op Ed Call for Iraq Pullout

By E&P Staff

Published: April 05, 2006 4:30 PM ET

NEW YORK In an Op Ed for The New York Times on Wedsnesday, Sen. John Kerry broke ranks with most of his Democratic colleagues in proposing not one but two “deadlines” for a U.S. exit in Iraq.

A few hours later, the White House, via Press Secretary Scott McClellan, threw cold water all over any pleadings for a pullout. McClellan repeated President Bush's oft-stated assertion that most Americans won’t be satisfied with anything less than a clear cut “victory” in Iraq. Pulling out soon would be "retreating," he said, and "we will not lose our nerve."

Kerry, on the other hand, had recalled that half of those killed in the war in which he served, Vietnam, died after Americans came to believe our strategy was off-course there. He proposed two deadlines this year: May 15 (when Iraqi leaders must form a true unity government or we will immediately exit); and Dec. 31 (if the unity government does come to be, we pull out all combat troops by this date, leaving behind troops to train Iraqis).

But McClellan, asked by reporters today about fresh calls for a U.S. withdrawal, said, “I think all Americans want our troops to come home. I think most Americans recognize the importance of succeeding in Iraq, as well. And I think most Americans want to see our troops achieve victory. And that's what's important. It's important that the Iraqi leaders continue to move forward and form a unity government that is based on strong leadership and represents -- that represents all Iraqis.

more...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002312680

[LisaM]

1. I think Bush should write an Op-Ed in response

I would definitely read it if he did.

[Midnight Rambler]

2. I don't think newspapers accept badly spelled Op-Eds written in crayon

n/t

[mdmc]

3. when can we leave? When a hooters opens in Baghdad?

:shrug:

[wisteria]

4. Have them define victory. With their logic we could be fighting

this "war on terror" until we all are dead and buried. We have accomplished what we can in Iraq, it is up to them now to accept democracy or continue in a civil war. Hasn't Bush already said we will be there as long as he is in office. It will be up to the next President to decide what to do in Iraq.

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. Their rhetoric NEVER CHANGES

"We want victory, success in Iraq."

If you haven't achieved "victory and success" after three years, numbnuts, it ain't coming. You can stay ten more years and you won't be any more successful than than you were in Vietnam. What pigs - if they cared about the country they'd heed Kerry's call for withdrawal.

[ProSense]

6. Classic Republican response to Kerry's call for withdrawal:

Mis-characterize the war in Iraq as a war against terror, insult the military and insult the Arab world.

KERRY CHIMES IN

(Cliff May)

John Kerry has an op-ed in the NYT today, headlined “Two Deadlines and an Exit.” (Is that meant to be a play on “Two Weddings and a Funeral”?)

For what it’s worth here are some of his key points and some responses:

“As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must be won politically.”

Some generals may have said that, but it’s wrong. It’s what is said by generals who love to train and parade and buy expensive weapons systems and then retire to cushy jobs at Lockheed. The fact is we have to win both militarily and politically.

We have to learn to fight and win a war against terrorist and insurgent groups. If we have a military that can’t win this kind of war, then Iraq will be only the first of many defeats--Afghanistan, Jordan and Pakistan will soon follow. What would prevent that?

If we have a military that can’t fight and win a war such as this, then we have a military that is close to useless, because this is what war is going to look like in the 21st century. We’re not going to have a chance to fight Rommel in the desert again. We’re not going to send tanks into Poland.

more...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_04_02_corner-archive.asp#094277

[Clarkie1]

8. The person who wrote that is out of touch with reality.

Completely.

Edit: I believe they meet the classical definition of insanity.

[LittleClarkie]

9. And how much you wanna bet they're talking academically

as in, while they're dissing generals who say what Kerry is saying, they themselves have had on a uniform in their lives.

[Clarkie1]

7. I hate the language "broke with most of his Democratic collegues."

He didn't. Most Dems are united on the basic principles of how the approach in Iraq should be different than what it is now. Repeating that we will stay until we achieve "victory" does not put the pressure on the Shia which needs to be applied in order to have any chance of forming an inclusive government there. It's stupid. We need to be putting more pressure on the Iraqis, and they need to know our patience does not last forever. That is not being done effectively.

I like what McClellan said:

“I think all Americans want our troops to come home. I think most Americans recognize the importance of succeeding in Iraq, as well. And I think most Americans want to see our troops achieve victory. And that's what's important. It's important that the Iraqi leaders continue to move forward and form a unity government that is based on strong leadership and represents -- that represents all Iraqis."

Someone posted today that the Democrats argue too much over what kind of bagels to bring to breakfast, when we just need to bring the bagels. I say keep bringing the bagels. Americans are seeing that the difference between Democrats and Republicans re: Iraq is that the Democrats have thoughtful ideas for making the best of a bad situation, and the Republicans don't even have half a bagel.

[karynnj]

10. I agree that he didn't break with the rest of the Democrats

In a way, it's a parallel to Feingold's censure - most Democrats have made strong comments on the need for investigation or called the NSA actions illegal. The constant media spin is that Feingold has no support - which is an attempt to weaken or isolate him. (We need to be careful here to emphasize that there is basic agreement among a huge % of Democrats think Bush is wrong, rather than concentrating on their different methods.)

That they are saying the same thing for Kerry is no surprise. The point you made is that, other than Lieberman, I hope that most Democrats are closer to Kerry than to Bush - and that variations in recommendations is healthy. (As you said the party position is that 2006 should be a year of transition.)

It is very clear that as Kerry continues to try to push his plan in the media, he will be demonize. He, more than anyone because of both 1971 and 2004, knows exactly what he is getting into. He also likely knows that he is likely to get flack from the left at the same time - as happened in 1971 and 2004.