How do we get the message back: Kerry's Iraq plan and Iran

[beachmom]

I'm browsing all over not just the MSM World but also the blogosphere, and what am I seeing and hearing? Iran, Iran, Iran. What started this? Sey Hersh's New Yorker article as well as the one in the Washington Post. Then the Iranian president does his big publicity stunt, and here we are.

Doesn't this all feel a bit . . . manufactured? Who are these sources for Mr. Hersh and the WP? Are they whistleblowers or are they actually working to get the administration's message out, but oh so cleverly through lefty icon Seymour Hersh? I don't know the answer to that, but regardless of the motivations of these Pentagon sources, we find Kerry's Iraq plan to be yesterday's news, not just being ignored by the MSM but the lefty blogosphere as well.

This is what I think. I think Kerry's plan, if known by more people, would be VERY popular, enjoying broad based support from people across the country. And that just won't do for you know who. . . so here we sit, talking about Iran, nuclear weapons, war, and suddenly Iraq seems so small, when in reality, it's still the biggest problem we have to deal with. I take what Senator Kerry said about getting the message out about his plan very seriously, but how do we accomplish that against a story of nuclear war with Iran? When all of this Iran talk started, I thought about checking quotes of what Kerry had said about Iran, and that's when I realized we had completely lost the message. How do we get it back? How do we get a top diary on dKos that gets Iraq back into everyone's consciousness; that this is a war that is killing people NOW, not a speculative war that hasn't happened. And John Kerry has the BEST overall plan to stop this war. Because here's the little secret -- * has lost this battle of ideas to Sen. Kerry. So the best way for him to win was to change the subject. Now how do we proceed to shake off those distractions and get back to the real problem facing America -- the Iraq War?

[TayTay]

1. Somebody was listening

Iraq parliament to convene April 17
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1673302,00050004.htm

Press Trust of India

Baghdad, April 12, 2006

Iraq's Parliament will convene on Monday, the speaker of the assembly Adnan Pachachi told reporters on Wednesday.

"There are signs that there will be agreement on all problems concerning formation of the government" and so "the parliament will convene on April 17 at 11:00 am," Pachachi.

The previous session of the Parliament was held on March 16, when the newly elected members were sworn in three months after the election.

However, that session swiftly adjourned amid little sign of a deal on a government of national unity.

[beachmom]

2. Thanks, there's a blurb in my paper, too.

But I guess the key problem is within the Shiite faction, with some insisting on al Jafaari, while others saying he has to go. It said in my article that it was "unlikely" to break the impasse. But we can hope . . .

In sad news, my main source for Iraqi political analysis -- Iraq the Model -- has not been posting. Finally, he wrote this:

http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Sorry for disappearing without leaving a note, but we suddenly found ourselves dealing with the totally unexpected loss of a close friend.

Thanks to all of you who sent emails asking about us and I apologize for not answering them all. We will be back in a few days.

Posted by Omar @ 11:31

I guess, in the end, that's the big difference between Iraqi bloggers and us. We can read, study, and analyze, but they're actually living it.

To be fair on Sey Hersh, BTW, I haven't received my hard copy of the New Yorker yet, although I watched him on CNN. I would much rather wait and read it from paper (my brain works better with paper than the computer).

[Island Blue]

3. I take the administration's* talk of Iran seriously

for the simple reason that they are insane and don't seem to have a clue about reality. It might be true that they are beginning to talk up the "situation" in Iran to draw attention away from the debacle that is Iraq, but I do believe that they are planning to attack Iran at some point in time.

As far as Sen. Kerry's plan is concerned, I was disappointed today when listening to Tom Oliphant on the Al Franken Show. He said that he didn't like Kerry's May 15th deadline because he thought it was artificial (fair enough, constructive criticism) but then went on to say that he favors what Biden has proposed, and that we need to have Dayton Accord style talks which is EXACTLY what Sen. Kerry outlined. Oliphant gave no credit to Kerry for this idea at all. I know Oliphant is usually in JK's corner (correct me if I'm wrong) so I was disappointed by what he said.

[sandnsea]

4. Did you hear Biden?

He said Bush would be making a serious drawdown this year. Murtha said the same thing, that the troops would be out of Iraq by the end of the year. So poo poo Kerry.

Never mind that Biden also said that drawdown meant 100,000 troops still in Iraq or that they both appear to be trusting Bush. I don't know what gives Murtha the idea we're going to be out of Iraq by the end of the year. But as long as they're saying stuff like that, most people won't see any reason to draw the deadlines Kerry is talking about.

[karynnj]

5. Out of Iraq is not 100,000 troops,

so one of these people are wrong.

Actually, whether Kerry's deadline made sense or was superfluous will depend on if they form a government soon without it. If they don't and there's no progress it could suggest Kerry was right, but of course you can't prove it will make a difference.

I think Biden is likely using similar words to mean very different things - if he's talking 100,000 at the end of the year - he's really still on his 2 year plan. Even though there is by all accounts a civil war.

I'm surprised at Oliphant, as earlier he seemed to be begging Kerry or someone else to step up and it sounded like - speak of withdrawal. He seemed to like Kerry's last plan and it like the current one have the same diplomatic piece. (In fairness to Biden, I think he and Kerry both have spoken of diplomacy forever.) Could Oliphant be concerned that a deadline might box us in? - if threatened we need to live by it.
i find it hard to believe he wants us there for another 2 years (Biden) or 3 years (Bush). I think Kerry's plan does make sense and it's crystal clear that he is willing to be the Senator who speaks out because he thinks it's right. I honestly think he would rather resolve this war and lose than win having played games with it. (As I suspect the "tough" Mr. Biden may be doing or staying silent as others do.)

[beachmom]

7. My "Navy to fight upriver in Iraq" story refutes that

This Navy operation will not be ready to go for another year. Obviously, the military doesn't know that they're going to be out of Iraq by the end of the year. So what do Biden and Murtha know that the Navy doesn't (or . . . how many rivers are there in Iran?).

I don't want to add to people's fears, but . . . I live near an air base. Jet noise here is very erratic, unlike a commercial airport. Sometimes there's a lot, sometimes not much at all. This whole week, every night, has been VERY noisy with lots of activity. I remember before Afghanistan hearing a lot of noise, same as before Iraq. Of course, once the wars started, it was quiet here. Fedup can probably tell me that I'm imagining these changes in jet noise activity, but I have to say, I am nervous about all of this.

Going back to IB's question about Iran. Who created this CURRENT crisis? Now before all of this, it was really all Iran's fault. They were the ones causing trouble. But here comes these two articles back to back about war, possibly nuclear war, against Iran. Was it supposed to be kept secret, or was it leaked out on purpose? When were they planning on using this war plan? I saw Mr. Hersh on CNN, and he said these were not contingency plans, but operational plans. I still think this is taking Iraq out of the news, but I agree it also might be real. But is it going to happen soon? I just don't know.

[karynnj]

8. God I hope you're wrong

and that there is a major training exercise. Did you see the Faneil Hall post?- I wonder what is up with that. It really sounds like Kerry intends to lead something and I'm glad he is - even if it kills any chance he has. He may be the only person who could wake up this country and it needs to be done - on both Iraq and Iran, as well as the loss of rights.

[beachmom]

9. But it's a week from Saturday, so it doesn't seem like it's an

imminent emergency, right?

Maybe I'm whipping myself in a frenzy for nothing. It's mostly that Josh Marshall from TPM sounded alarmist and scared (and he is always so cool headed normally) that started me getting more nervous about this. Yesterday, Andrew Sullivan (who was FOR the Iraq War), "gulped" at the prospect of a nuclear bomb on Iran. He said to listen to Farrow of the Atlantic that the military option in respect to Iran was the WORST option. When more moderate people are scared, that makes me scared.

Another thing to remember with Iraq and Afghanistan -- when you think it's imminent, it still doesn't happen right away. There's still time to stop this. But what scares me is that * REALLY doesn't give a s*** about the polls. Obviously, if you get too poll driven it can lead you to having a lack of vision or leadership. But even dictators look at polls. It's only the crazy ones who flagrantly ignore what their populace wants (polls showed support for the Afghan and Iraq Wars before they started). Before I thought the worse case scenario was if * went back to drinking. It never occurred to me that the worst case scenario was for him to double his religious fervor and think of himself as having power from God to bomb Iran!

[sandnsea]

10. Weeelll, that's what Matthews just said

Talking to Biden, coincidentally. I don't know where he got the blather from, but he just said Bush thinks he has to take care of Iran because he can't risk that the next President will do it. So, yikes, maybe you're right. Messianic complex. :scared:

[karynnj]

11. What was Biden's response?

[sandnsea]

13. A screed,

for lack of a better word. Matthews wanted to know if Democrats were going to rally around the President if we woke up and discovered Bush had bombed Iran. Pointed to Hillary as an example of someone who still hadn't criticized Bush on Iraq. Then Biden went on a little screed that Bush shouldn't bomb Iran. No meat behind it at all, just don't you do that Mr. President. He had a lot more heat when he was talking about the dangers of Iran, bla bla, so he still doesn't get that that helps push the idea for needing war. Then they went into high testosterone with some bizarre talk about secret agents going into Iran or something, and Biden said there was no way to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Good lord. Way to build confidence in the Democratic Party's ability to keep the country safe. You'll need to either watch later or read the transcript, I thought the whole thing was straight out of a Marx Bros movie. Just friggin' weird.

[karynnj]

12. That's in 8 days

You think it's coming faster than that?

The only time I can think of having such imminent fear was the Cuban missile crisis. I remember going to school as a 12 year old worried that the war would break out and that of course they would strike Northwestern Indiana (because of the steel industry - LOL. I can imagine how people in more major cities od Florida felt. For some reason, this still doesn't feel real.

I hope everyone who voted Bush, starts to question why they did this.

[beachmom]

15. No it won't be that soon

My friend from the armed services told me in January '03 that the U.N. thing was just a charade and that we were going to war in Iraq by February '03. She was off by a few weeks. So I guess what I was saying is that you think it's coming, but then usually it takes a little longer than expected. She doesn't live here anymore; otherwise I would have asked her. She's very Republican as are all the military people I know here (FedupinBushCountry notwithstanding).

Cuban Missile Crisis -- that sounds about right. But is it real? We can't trust * to tell the truth, so I really don't know what's happening behind the scenes. I feel like JFK was a fine leader both up front and behind the scenes, not so with *, who really created this crisis by jumping the gun. We have a whole list of steps we need to go through before a military option. But since * hated the U.N. fiasco, he may decide to bypass the international community altogether "to save the planet".

[ProSense]

6. New poll.

The previous ones indicated a dissatifaction with Bush's handling of the war, but withdrawal always scored low. Opinions have changed:

[sandnsea]

14. Decreased isn't 'out now'

Decreased can mean start withdrawal in the hopes it diffuses the attacks. Immediate withdrawal is a very different question, they keep mixing up the way they ask this stuff. Like they did with impeachment, they asked "consider" impeachment which got good response. Impeachment right now is another question. People really do think in that kind of detail.

[beachmom]

16. Agreed -- they need to ask more exactly

My positions on both of these issues has changed in the last couple of weeks due to * being outed as the leaker. The political situation in Iraq and the civil war changed me from "not sure what to do in Iraq" to "withdraw by the end of the year". They should ask it better.

[ProSense]

17. True, but

compensating for the way pollsters frame the questions, opinions are changing. Also, I grab the chart, but there were other questions:

"Should the United States troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if it takes a long time, or should U.S. troops leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?"

4/6-9/06

Stay as Long As it Takes 47%
Leave ASAP 47%
Unsure 6%

Snip...

"From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"

4/6-9/06
Increase 12%
Keep the Same 25%
Decrease 30%
Remove All 27%
Unsure 6%

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[sandnsea]

18. It's changing for sure

But looking at the difference between decrease and remove all in your poll, we still don't have a large number of people supporting "out now". Some of them seem to have moved to stay as long as it takes when given the option between out now and staying, based on the even split between say and out ASAP. We've still got a ways to go to convince a solid majority that Iraq is a losing proposition.

[ProSense]

19. I think they'll come around quickly

when the civil war aspect, which the media has been down playing, becomes evident to them. Also they don't approve of what Bush is doing. (I should point out that the questions were from a CBS poll and the chart and the following question are from the ABC poll.):

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

4/6-9/06

Approve 37%
Disapprove 62%
Unsure 1%



Snip...

"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"

4/6-9/06

Worth Fighting 41%
Not Worth Fighting 58%
Unsure 1%

[sandnsea]

20. Not meaning to argue with you

But this is the kind of "nuanced" stuff that I think sometimes gets misinterpreted. Oddly enough, people can think Bush is doing a horrible job, think this wasn't a war worth fighting; and STILL think we owe it to the Iraqi people to not let their country turn into a killing field. Or let terrorists take over the country. It's like staying in a useless job with a horrible boss because you have to have the health insurance.

I only say this because I think this is why politicians like Hillary haven't gone one way or the other on Iraq. Or why JK would have been slaughtered if he'd ran on an ant-war platform, and why I'm not really sure a "voted against the war" candidate would actually be the best choice in 2008 either. Most people may well remember that in 2002 conventional wisdom was that Iraq had a nuke and "candidate x" wasn't going to do anything about it. Never know.

[ProSense]

21. I agree.

These polls show an even split with regard to that question as well. The problem really is that 70 to 85% of Republicans still support Bush on any given issue. His disapproval among Democrats is about 85% or higher and among independents is increasingly negative at about 68%. The high support among Republicans is helping keeping the numbers high.