Reply #6: Inspired by you, my letter [View All]

[karynnj]

Dear Ed or Wendy Schultz,

Over the last year, I have enjoyed listing to your informative and interesting radio show via the Internet. I have been amazed at how often I agreed with the positions that you have taken. It is refreshing to hear someone speak about each issue, based on its merits, rather than an ideological position. This was why I was so disheartened to hear your show yesterday.

Various pundits have pushed the idea that a party has to have only one position or they are disorganized and not united. They apply this idea only to the Democrats, implicitly implying that the Republicans are in complete accord. Both Senator McCain and Senator Hagel have positions on the war that are significantly at variance with the (unstated) Bush plan. The difference between McCain’s call to greatly increase the number of soldiers and to change their mission is a at least as great as the difference between Kerry/Feingold and Levin’s amendment. Yet not one talking head has called McCain to task for not supporting the CIC of his own party.

Both Democratic plans emphasize the need to change a policy that is not working. Without Kerry, Feingold, there would have been no Levin amendment. The Democratic position would have continued to be (in Nov 2006) that "2006 should be a year of significant transition." In Nov 2005, this was a consensus position, weaker than some would have liked, that then had value as it did move the discussion. To talk about transition in 2006 in the second to last month of 2006 is nuanced beyond belief.

Kerry, Feingold and Harkin each submitted amendments that had substantive ideas on what was needed to succeed. Ideas from these amendments were combined as the Kerry/Feingold amendment. At minimum, these Senators initiated a real discussion of what can and should be done in Iraq. This plan is also consistent with Kerry plans from 2004 onward. The media has said for the last 3 years that the Democrats don’t have a plan – then mocked Kerry for having put up at least 4 plans as circumstances have changed.

Like his earlier plans, Kerry includes a call for a diplomatic summit between all the factions in Iraq, all the neighbors (all of whom are better off without an unstable country on their border) and international organizations developed to foster peace and stability. Unlike Biden, who is pushing a plan for the US to redefine the Iraqi government, this plan facilitates Iraqis making these critical decisions that they will have to live with. Notice that the media is not criticizing Biden for his plan, which he has actively promoted while distorting Kerry/Feingold .

In the Kerry/Feingold amendment, the Senators have a real alternative plan that will not be implemented - because Bush is President, not because it is either impractical or not thought out. It is a plan to succeed as much as McCain's is. It includes long term anti-terrorist forces, intensive diplomacy and it respects the sovereignty of Iraq - which Bush and McCain (permanent bases, wanting control of who's elected and ignoring their desire that we leave) don't.

Both John Kerry and Russ Feingold are speaking from their hearts and are using their collective intelligence to find a path out of the mess we are in. This is clearly not politics for either of them. They have put together a plan that can be thought of as an alternative path.

Senator Warner, in his debate with Kerry in the Senate on Wednesday, said it was well thought out, though he did not agree with it. That debate, which for me suggested what the Senate could be, showed there could be civil discussions of policy recommendations. The great thing about many, intelligent, well meaning people discussing alternatives is that it can lead to solutions none of them came in with. To me this is more productive than the Levin amendment or the earlier Democratic consensus position – both hide disagreement behind vague language. It does lead to consensus, but at the cost of saying almost nothing and offering no real ideas. In contrast, Kerry and Feingold deserve credit for outlining a real substantive plan and putting their ideas out in public.

I hope that you will re-examine what was in the Kerry/Feingold amendment. At any rate, I will continue to listen to your show.



Sincerely,