What kind of crap is this?

[jillan]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14426647.htm
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posted on Tue, Apr. 25, 2006
Senators want to pressure Iraqis to form a new government

By Drew Brown
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - A bipartisan group of senators on Tuesday introduced a measure that says Iraqi leaders must meet deadlines to form a Cabinet and must appoint a commission to write new amendments to their constitution or face the possibility that U.S. troops will withdraw.


"The bottom line is this: that we must keep pressure on the Iraqis to reach a political settlement to maximize their chances of success in defeating the insurgency and to avoid an all-out civil war," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., one of the sponsors, along with Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Jack Reed, D-R.I.
...

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


How can they do this??? They took Kerry's idea and put their names on it.
Kerry's name is not mentioned in that article.
I'm fuming :nuke:

[JI7]

1. it might have to do with the commitee they are in

but all 3 are people Kerry works with .

[JohnKleeb]

2. Collins is small business chair correct?

I'd assume that he's probably done a bit of work with her.

[JI7]

3. yes

i think that's the area where i usually hear about them working together on things.

[JohnKleeb]

4. I heard a speech on how important small businesses were

from a friend of mine in speech class. I really learned a lot and got a new appreciation for small business owners.

[JI7]

5. yeah, most people are employed by small businesses

one of the problems for us is that when Democrats speak out against big businesses , i think people in small business often think they are going after all businesses.

i like Kerry's idea of having a cabinet specifically for small businesses.

[kerrygoddess]

7. No Snowe is Small Biz Chair

http://sbc.senate.gov/members.htm

[JohnKleeb]

8. D'oh I knew it was one of htem lady Mainers

Collins heads something though right.

[JI7]

9. yeah,i think i was thinking of Snowe also

i guess i just had "Maine Senator" on mind.

[karynnj]

15. No - Olympia Snowe is

They may feel that Kerry being on the committee might make it harder for Bush to accept the policy. I think that Kerry's name IS associated with this though.

[jillan]

6. It is from their committee, but to me it is just another example

of Kerry being brilliant, and someone else comes along and gets the credit for his work.

[wisteria]

10. I agree, I am glad he has been outspoken about "his plan" because

it's on the record, on tape and in some people's minds. In a way it is important that they like it enough to put up an amendment, but still, why no mention of Kerry in the paper or from the Senators.

[kerrygoddess]

11. The three are on the Committee on Armed Services

Levin is the Ranking Member, Reed has been the Dem point man on Iraq on that committee. Take a deep breath -- he said he was going to be or was talking to his fellow Senators - this is a good thing. It's a step in the right direction.

[wisteria]

12. Clinton, Kennedy, Bayh, Byrd,and Nelson of Fl. are on the committee too.

I wonder why a couple of them didn't sign.

Oh, McCain is on the committee too.

[Mass]

13. Because this is probably another of these empty bills that is a sense

of the Senate and nothing else.

Note it does not say at what date the govt should be formed and does not say that they WILL withdraw, but that the Iraqis may face a withdrawal.

But at least, it shows that people are evolving in this direction and it is a good thing. Last Sunday at MTP, Kennedy was supporting a solution like that as well.

[ProSense]

14. Could be.

This isn't a bad thing because it shows they support withdrawal. Kerry's plan is solid and has received tremendous support. I even heard a Republican caller praising it on Ed Shultz show yesterday.

[kerrygoddess]

20. I'm working on more info. N/T

[Mass]

16. Actually, Levin has been saying that for months, now.

However, if this is all that is in the bill, this is a VERY SMALL part of what Kerry proposed, and it does not give the deadline, which waters down the bill a lot (just as the Levin Amendment was 6 months ago).

I dont understand the need to make a bi-partisan bill rather than trying to make a good solid bill that would actually address the problems.

[beachmom]

17. Yes, to be fair, Carl Levin actually TOLD the Iraqis this last month

From a NYT article (sorry I lost the link) which came out on a Friday. Kerry's op-ed piece appeared the next week:

The indication of President Bush's stance came Tuesday as he met with members of Congress who had just returned from Iraq. Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said he had told Iraqi politicians that the continued presence of American troops should be directly linked to the formation of a government.

"That is a useful message for the Iraqis to hear," Mr. Levin said the president told him. "He looked me square in the eye and said, 'That is a helpful message.' "

Mr. Bush did not go so far as to endorse this approach, which would be a reversal of his policy, according to several officials. In public, the administration continues to say that American forces will stay as long as they are needed.

Mr. Levin, in contrast, has advocated linking the presence of American troops to political progress, a stance that Pentagon officials have called reckless. His views are influential among Democratic critics of the handling of the war.

Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia, who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, also was there and confirmed in interviews that Mr. Bush wanted lawmakers visiting Iraq to send a firm message to Iraqi politicians. The president told the members of Congress "that you are a separate branch of government, with the right to make your views known," he said.

The president added that "sometimes Congress can express things differently than the administration, and it can be helpful," he said.

This also further proves that * secretly backs Kerry's plan, ridicule as the RNC may make of JK. Anybody else hear the deafening silence from the RW about Kerry? They really haven't gone after him with as much lust as usual; partly because they agree with him.

Edited to add: The WH agree with JK on this one point. That the Iraqi government needs to be kicked in the butt with a threat of troop withdrawal. If a unity government is not formed, I don't care where you are on the political spectrum, everyone agrees that that is an absolute disaster. As far as the rest of Kerry's Iraq plan . . . well that's a different story.

[Mass]

18. Bush does not back anything. He may be coopting the words,

(he is VERY GOOD at that), but he certainly does not want to withdraw. (He may be forced by events, but this is not what he wants).

I am listening to Kerry on Ed Schultz right now on Energy policies. What he is saying about Bush giving lip service to the issue but no concrete step can be applied to everything, including the Iraq policy.

As for Levin, he talked about giving a deadline for forming an Iraqi government last year just before the elections were held.

[beachmom]

19. Well, * is out of ideas

But even if he has an idea that he likes, he doesn't have the will or the ability to carry it out. (I edited my post slightly above, that it's only the one point that there is secret agreement). That's where a president is at when they have 32% approval rating.

[sandnsea]

21. Which is what Kerry said in October

The first benchmark was the election and we should pull out 20,000 troops after that happened. Then, troop withdrawal should be connected to political and security benchmarks. So many Democrats have been saying the same thing and it is really beyond my comprehension that it hasn't been coordinated into one cohesive Iraq policy.

[karynnj]

22. The plan Clark outlined (and the Levin amendment ) tried to do this

The problem is there's a trade off between geting all (or almost all) the Democrats to sign and having anything specific enough to call a policy. The party placed having a plan that all could not reject over a cohesive, coherent plan.

I do not belittle Clark's work here - it was a tough task and the variety of opinions may it hard to get anything of substance out of it. The real problem is that the party out of power rarely has commonly agreed to positions. As many are angling to be President, this is more difficult than usual.