Great editorial by Thomas Oliphant.

[Mass]

Not linked to Kerry, but it is great to see that Oliphant understand what Feingold's declaration was about. (I wonder if the end is a plea to a certain senator to be the one).

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/23/when_should_troops_return/

That is an oversimplification. Feingold is a notoriously precise speaker, and it's worth letting him make his own case.

A great many conflicting signals have been coming out of the military and the Bush administration about the war in recent weeks -- specifically the duration of our involvement and the size of our deployment over time.

In what he acknowledged was an effort to ''jump start" a national discussion, Feingold proposed setting a specific goal for bringing US forces home. His suggested date: the end of next year. Equally important is his call for a detailed road map to that moment. Feingold emphasizes that his suggested date should not be put in concrete, that there could be factors or events that make it sooner or even a bit later.

....

Already, officials are talking in terms of a military presence in Iraq of at least 100,000 troops for the next four years. Surely the United States can do better than that. The real meaning of Feingold's challenge is to see who will step forward to insist that we do better than that.

[beachmom]

1. I can't BELIEVE I'm going to admit this about Feingold

It was 1992, and I was living in Wisconsin, and I was looking forward to voting for Bill Clinton for president. But I was young and still insecure about my political views, and thought my ballot should be "balanced". So I didn't vote for Feingold for the U.S. Senate, and instead for a Republican because they had an ad on TV that said Feingold was "soft on crime". I can tell you that that was the LAST time I voted for a Republican (although I did vote for bloody hell Zell Miller for governor in Georgia because I thought he was a Democrat, but I digress). After reading all the great things he has done in the Senate, it only confirms the futility of trying to "balance" your ballot. I have a friend who voted for Bush in November, and if I get the nerve up to tell her that she made a mistake (she was a swing voter), I will cite my Feingold blunder. We all mistakes with our votes, and learn valuable lessons from them.

[TayTay]

2. Well, Oliphant ws enjoying the off-year Dem agonies

"Politically, Feingold's initiative is delightfully disruptive. Until now, the Democrats' Big Four possible factors in 2008 -- John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton -- have concentrated on a critique of the status quo and a variety of suggestions for a more effective reconstruction and security effort. By now, however, it should be apparent that Bush is again turning a deaf ear."

This is provoking a meaningful discussion about the War and what should be done about it. We see this fight from the inside and see the name-calling, doubts and in-fighting. We sometimes need to take a step back and see that this is precisely the kind of discussion that the Dems should be having in an off-year before next year's crucial mid-term elections. It is ridiculous to think that Dems are going to , all of a sudden. come to complete agreement on an issue as compelling, wrenching and divisive as what to do about Bush's War.

The press loves to report about fighting in the political parties. Not all fighting is bad. Sometimes these kinds of fights result in a clarified position and in the issue being fully and completely vetted by those involved. This is a good thing. But it doesn't report well in the Press. (The MSM is two-faced, as we know. They mouth the words about loving discussion and big tents in both parties, but they secretly love the strong-arm tactics that result in a top-down management style that stiffles dissent. This is unfortunate, as Democracy thrives in the trenches where these issues are vehemently and completely argued out.)

[karynnj]

3. Feingold's description of his position on Sunday

seemed to be very similar to Kerry's - except he adds a target date which is actually pretty far in the future. He did say actual withdrawl depended on political actions taking place and the actions, rather than the date would determine when we would get out. He argued that setting a target date sets a goal. He cited several instances when setting a date did result in something happening.

In a way, his position seemed a middle position between Kerry and Kennedy. Were Kerry talked process (which seem to mean the same as political actions), while Kennedy wanted a withdrawal date set. Both Kerry and Kennedy insisted their positions were fundamentally very close, so if Feingold's position is between theirs - there can't be that much difference between them.

What stikes me as odd in Oliphant's editorial is that he ignores Kennedy's position. (I remember Mass (?) posting that he had changed his position, but Kennedy did call for a withdrawal date as did many Congressmen. Do you think his goal is to get Kerry, who has talked of "last chance" to get it right at least twice to clearly state that we are beyond getting it right and our presence is not beneficial?

It really is complicated, because the situation is so bad that civil war is likely with or without us. If the public shifts to demanding we leave, we do, and a civil war breaks out - the Republicans will argue the liberals caused it - even though the invasion of Iraq ultimately did. The problem for Kerry (or any Democrat, including Feingold) is that the "political actions" they want to encourage may not be in Bush's agenda. They don't have the power to implement an alternative plan.

Although the difference may be almost one of semantics, Feingold's plan moves the discussion from process to getting out. By changing the emphasis, his plan seems much more palitable than Kerry's to the anti- war crowd. (Or it may be Feingold rather than Kerry) There were reports that Feingold was backing away from running - if so is it possible that his plan gives Kerry and others cover, making them seem the middle choice?

[TayTay]

4. Are we ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room here?

I don't think the challenge to Kerry comes from Feingold. I think it comes from Hagel. Russ Feingold didn't serve in Vietnam, he didn't protest the war when he came back and he doesn't possess the same resonance that Kerry, Hagel and the rest of the Sen. crew who did serve in combat have. (This may not be fair, but it is true.)

I don't think that the sole reason Kerry's name comes up in the Lib Blog forums so often in connection with this war is solely due to his being the last Dem Nominee. It comes up because he is such a unique figure in the Senate and in modern American politics. He both served in a war that history has shown was a major American blunder that took 58,000 American lives and he came home and openly and courageously opposed that war (at great personal risk. He showed courage, integrity and honesty in doing this.)

A young Kerry, the VVAW protester, was once asked, "How can we get our troops out of a disastrous war?" He replied, "In ships." When George HW Bush was gearing up for the first Gulf War, Kerry very vocally spoke up against it on the floor of the Senate. He mentioned, very eloquently, his service and his emotions and his sense of horror about went on in VN and his fear about it happening again to a new generation of Americans. Then he kind of changed his mind. The first Gulf War was a quick affair and the troops who returned were overwhelmingly welcomed home with warmth. This is the break moment, the time when I think Kerry changed his mind (a little. Still not anything even close to a hawk. But he never again took to the floor of the Senate to blanket condemn the use of force by the US, such as in Kosovo, the ongoing skirmishes in Iraq and so forth. Something changed a bit.)

I don't think there is that much difference between Kerry, Kennedy and Feingold. (And I don't really think we will much remember these differences in 2008.) But there is something to the Hagel challenge. Hagel, a Repub conservative, is a two time purple heart recipient and a decorated combat vet. Hmmmm. He has spoken out about what a disaster VN was. Hmmmm. He thinks we are on the slope to disaster in Iraq and has openly likened it to VN. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. That is the real challenge to Kerry, in the long term.

Funny, Hagel also has those, at times, sad eyes that indicate that he has seen too much. In some ways, (not all, just some ways) he reminds me of Kerry. In this regard, it is he, as a former combat soldier, that offers the real call to conscience and reality for the Bushies. This is the real challenge that Sen. KErry needs to respond to.

[karynnj]

5. Interesting

So far, Hagel has not said even as much as Kerry - but he's a Republican. I agree that Hagel as the candidate could be really strange if we have Hillary, Bayh,or Warner, postioned to the right by Bill Clinton. If it's Feingold, Kerry, or Clark it would almost be 1968 with both parties talking getting out. (With a hopefully more honest Republican.) If it's the latter, Kerry (as candidate or not) could argue that Hagel,who seems to have agreed with Kerry's 2004 plan, should have tried harder to pushed Bush pre-election when it could have helped, but he was unwilling to put country and the troops above party.

I would bet that a Republican anti-war campaign wouldn't get pass the primaries, but it is only 2005. The RW is already smearing him - Soon they'll question his purple hearts. I like Kerry's 1971 answer, but can't really see the 2005 Kerry saying it unless he is absolutely certain that we are doing more harm than good. (I really do think he would refuse to take a position on politics alone.)

I remember Kerry referring to Hagel and Lugar on Iraq and know they're both on the SFRC and part of that now much smaller group of Senate veterans, are they friendly?

[Pirate Smile]

7. I don't think there is a chance in hell that Hagel could win the

Republican nomination.

Last night on Scarboy, he said he would vote for Hillary before Hagel. While I don't believe that, Hagel is now viewed as a traitor by the Republicans.

It is looking more and more like George Allen may get the Repub nomination.

[TayTay]

10. I'm not thinking of 2008 yet

My apologies for not being clearer. I was thinking of Hagel, as one of the few combat vets left in the Senate, coming out against a war that reminds him of the last truly huge military screw-up.

So tell me, where did you hear this one before:

"I used to kid people, saying, 'What are you going to do? Send me to Vietnam?"' said Hagel, who put nearly $1 million of his own money into his campaign. "I mean, I've been to hell, so I never saw anything I've done as a risk."

Reminds me of something someone I read about once or twice who said pretty much the same thing. Or how about this:

NYTimes article about the build up to Iraq War, 9/7/02 by Bill Keller

It was about whether or not people who did NOT serve in war can have strong opinions about agressively going to war:

"Variations on that theme abound these days. Senator Chuck Hagel, another Vietnam vet, recently sneered that if Richard Perle, the gung-ho Pentagon adviser, was so feverish for an invasion of Iraq perhaps he should be part of the first wave into Baghdad. I wondered what Mr. Kerry thought of that remark. "I know where he was coming from," Mr. Kerry replied. "I might have thought it. I wouldn't have said it." Pause. Sly smile. Then again, "I might have said it."

Or this quote from 1999, when the topic was Kosovo and how the US efforts were going there: (The reference is to the grouping of VN Senators and how they regarded each other's actions and opinions.)

"Mr. Hagel said that the six keep an eye on one another's positions, even though they range from liberal to conservative. "If one of us is too far out and maybe somewhere where the others aren't, you kind of wonder why," Mr. Hagel said."

I think that allows for a Hmmmmmmmmm moment, don't you. Again, I don't think Sen. Kerry would be thin king as much about Sen. Feingold's quotes on withdrawal as he would on Sen. Hagel's. They have a shared history and a shared respect and regard for each other based on a shared past.

[Pirate Smile]

14. You were clear. I was just responding to karynnj's discussion of

Hagel.

I agree with you about the special relationship between the Vietnam Vets. That was why McCain's activities during the 2004 election where so painful to watch.

I don't remember Hagel doing a lot during the 2004 election. I don't remember him responding to the Swift Liars or campaigning much for Bush. Perhaps he just laid low.

I was disappointed in him during the Bolton Hearings but I'm glad he is speaking out about the Iraq War. No-one can just dismiss what he says although the Bushbots will try.

[TayTay]

8. Yes and yes and no

Kerry Gets Boost From Surprising Sources
Ex-Bush Aide Criticizes President, and GOP Lawmakers Come to Senator's Defense
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 23, 2004; Page A06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16133-2004Mar22.html

Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign is getting an unexpected boost from an unlikely bunch: former Bush administration officials and congressional Republicans.

In the past week, GOP Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.) have broken ranks and defended Kerry against President Bush's assertion that the Massachusetts senator is weak on national defense.

(SNIP)

On Sunday, Hagel, a maverick Republican with a reputation similar to McCain's for speaking his mind, criticized the Bush campaign ad that called Kerry "weak on defense." Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Hagel said: "The facts just don't measure the rhetoric." He said it is unfair to isolate one or two votes over a 19-year career to make such a sweeping assessment of Kerry. "You can . . . take any of us, and pick out the different votes, and then try to manufacture something around it," he said.

Or consider this longish exchange on when the crisis over Sen. Bob KerrEy's Medal of Honor actions came to light:

Kerrey's Comrades in Arms, Senate Urge Understanding
OMAHA WORLD-HERALD (NE), p 1 04-26-2001
By Matt Kelley
(SNIP)

For members of the U.S. Senate, collegiality remains the rule even at the worst moments. But among the Senate's small band of Vietnam veterans, the war has forged an uncommon friendship, an allegiance that transcends politics and goes beyond good manners.

The six Senate vets - four sitting senators and two who have left elected office - stick together when it comes to Vietnam.

"It's very difficult to understand what was going on," Hagel said Wednesday. "We were engaged in a war where we didn't know who the enemy was. We didn't know where the enemy was."

Among the Senate veterans, Kerrey is the most decorated, earning a Medal of Honor for a March 1969 mission in which he lost the lower half of his right leg. Seventeen days before, Kerrey had led the mission in the Mekong Delta in which his unit ended up killing civilians.

Kerrey didn't speak publicly of the incident for 32 years. But he was given a Bronze Star with a citation that credits his unit with killing 21 Viet Cong soldiers. Kerrey concedes that that isn't what happened, saying his report to senior officers told a different story.

According to Kerrey, his unit returned enemy fire that night, only to find dead women, children and old men afterward.

Hagel, who spoke for 20 minutes with Kerrey on Tuesday, said they didn't discuss the disparity between the citation and the actual event. Hagel said he would leave it to Kerrey to explain the discrepancies.

Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who lost both legs and one arm in the war, said the discrepancy could have happened because a more senior officer changed Kerrey's account to boost the enemy body count. Whatever happened, he said, probably resulted from the massive confusion that was Vietnam in the 1960s.

"It wasn't Bob's fault," Cleland said. "He was the junior officer there."

Kerry, Hagel and former Sen. Chuck Robb, D-Va., all spoke of the bedlam of combat in Vietnam. And they all spoke of the reality of civilian casualties in any war.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Kerry urged the news media to resist a "32-year-later binge" over fading and conflicting recollections of a confusing night in a free-fire zone.

Kerry spoke of the U.S. policy of clearing out entire swaths of territory used by the Viet Cong as supply routes or bases. Once clear of civilians, Kerry said, American troops were told the area was wholly enemy territory.

While common, Kerry, Hagel and Cleland said, those zones created confusion and uncertainty.

"I remember those free-fire zones," Kerry said. "And I remember our feelings about them and the great confusion."

Hagel, an Army foot soldier in Vietnam who still carries shrapnel in his chest, said it's impossible to understand the context and "universe" of combat in Vietnam without having been there. He said the free-fire zones meant that American soldiers were under orders that they could fire back if fired upon.

"It's almost indescribable," Hagel said, "the chaos, the fear, the basic uncertainty of who your enemy is."

Hagel said Kerrey was not alone in having a role in civilian casualties.

"I can understand it," Hagel said. "I'm sorry for Bob. I'm sorry for all for those families and civilians who suffered through that 32 years ago.

"But that is unfortunately the reality of war."

Now Sen. Hagel is a very conservative Repub and he campaigned for Bush last year. But the bond with Kerry and with the other VN vets is most definitely there. That's why I think he represents a far greater challenge to Kerry and to the rethinking of the views on what the hell is going on in Iraq than Feingold does. Cuz, he knows what it's like in combat. And so does Kerry. And they both know a screw-up when they see one.

BTW, you can read Sen. Kerry's very poingnant (and short) speech about Bob KerrEy's ordeal in April 2001 when the revelations about what had actually happened in VN to him came out. Go here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r107query.html Enter as Kerry as Sen, 107th Congress and KERREY as the search term. It is very poignant.

[Pirate Smile]

6. Hagel is being attacked by the RW for speaking the truth instead of

just following the party line. I think his comments are bigger news because he is a Repub, of course, and he is given more credibility by Republicans and Independents.

In a way, I think we should be glad Hagel is putting this message out there. If Kerry did it, he would be crucified. It would be called sour grapes, he is weak, it is a partisan attack, etc.

If a Democrat had stated the type of harsh criticisms that Hagel has stated I'm afraid the Country would have reverted to its standard polarized partisan stances.

The Democrats have had this long Congressional recess to access the situation and hear their constituent's concerns so I hope they will be ready to challenge Bush strongly very soon.

Now when Dems criticize Bush's Iraq policy it can't simply be viewed as partisan.

August has been terrible for Bush without the Democrats really having anything to do with it.

Perhaps that has been a good thing and they will be ready to fight when they get back in September OR maybe I'm just being little Mary Sunshine. :)

[ginnyinWI]

13. Hagel sounded like a Democrat Sunday.

Especially compared to Allen who towed the * line all the way. Hey wouldn't it be cool if he changed parties? Ok not likely.

The eyes--I recently heard Max Cleland talking (Dspan) about the "hollowed-out eyes" that he saw on the returning Vietnam veterans when he was en route there. They had seen so much. And I remember reading that Kerry's eyes had changed after his tours of duty.

[ginnyinWI]

12. they should still outline their plan, though.

Even though it has a snowball's chance of being implemented. Wait, I take that back--* has been known to co-opt Dem ideas before. So who knows. He (*) is really flailing about in disarray right now--and the Right is uncharacteristically off-message, going from Hagel to Robertson!

From articles I've read recently, I believe that most of the violence is caused precisely because our troops are there. Most (90%) of the insurgents are Iraqi Sunnis. If we left, but still provided money, the Iraqis could deal with their factions some way or other. But with us there, there will be continued violence.

I was listening to RW talk radio this morning (Milwaukee's Charlie Sykes) and a caller was talking about how his cousin was killed saving a three year old girl from an explosion. His point was that our troops were doing so much good there (and to leave would dishonor his cousin's sacrifice). But what they fail to see is that if our troops were not there, would the explosion even have happened? It was targeting the troops, not the girl. And how many children are not saved from being casualties? It was really eye-opening for me to hear that viewpoint--unfathomable though it was.

[ginnyinWI]

11. I would like to see a unified Dem message

--if possible--lol! But I'd also like to see the discussion happen behind closed doors, again if possible. Listening to Feingold on Sunday, he didn't seem very far from Kerry's position.

[ginnyinWI]

9. this is a great thread- I'll be back later to digest it and comment

:)