Kerry calls for international summit to quell Iraqi insurgency

[truthpusher]

http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4934749

Kerry calls for international summit to quell Iraqi insurgency

BOSTON -- Sen. John Kerry on Monday called for an international summit to help stabilize Iraq and end the insurgency that has been killing Iraqis and American troops in the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion.

The Massachusetts Democrat, his party's 2004 presidential nominee and among those who voted for a congressional resolution authorizing military action, said: "It's long overdue for a Congress that shares some of the responsibility for getting us into Iraq to help get us out."

(snip)

On Monday in Chicago, President Bush told the National Restaurant Association: "The progress we've made has been hard-fought, and it's been incremental. ...Yet we have now reached a turning point in the struggle between freedom and terror."

Kerry, speaking with reporters after touring areas flooded last week by heavy rain, said the summit should include representatives of warring factions in Iraq, as well as Europeans, Iranians, Syrians and other Middle Eastern players. The goal should be to stabilize Iraq so Iraqi forces can assume control and the U.S. military can stand down by the end of the year, he said.

Kerry accused the administration of engaging in "platitudes" rather than a dispassionate assessment of the military and social reality in Iraq.

(snip)

link: http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4934749

[blm]

1. We need to push OTHER Dems and moderate GOPs to support this

because it's probably the only way out - bring in a group of regional leaders to work out the problems because Bush can't be counted on to take the actions needed to assure pullout.

[peaches2003]

28. Bush doesn't want the troops out

You don't build all the military bases Bush has and the monstrosity of a Taj Mahal embassy if you have any intention of getting out of Iraq.

[blm]

29. I think that is why Kerry's calling for the REGION'S leaders to make the

commitment to meet. By putting it up there and making the call more widespread, Bush will be more likely to have to form some answer WHY he doesn't want this to happen.

[Rex]

2. We don't need a summit, pull our troops out NOW Mr. Kerry!

Do it now before the civil war starts up in ernest and our KIA numbers jump way up there! Do it now!

[fedupinBushcountry]

4. Please tell me

how Kerry from the minority party can achieve that? He can push and hope that others join in his demand, but you are reaching to far to think that Kerry can do this on his own.

[blm]

11. A summit will be the only way the troops DO get out. The leaders of

every faction and neighboring countries are going to have to agree to something substantive that they can TELL Bush it's time for the US to go, because Bush CANNOT be counted on to come up with a workable plan to get our troops out of there.

You want troops out sooner - Demand a Summit.

Kerry knows what he's doing - he's probably the closest US lawmaker to Kofi Annan. Kerry's plans don't occur in a vacuum.

[Rex]

13. True. Maybe the closest thing to a statesmen the Senate has.

At least he ain't praising Bush as a good person.

[goforit]

3. Now this is another spineless suugestion from Kerry!Try IMPEACHMENT

[blm]

12. It's a key part of his withdrawal plan. Come up with a better one and

submit it - then contact your COngressperson, because ONLY THE HOUSE CAN CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT. Senators shouldn't even really comment on impeachment at all, since their designated duty is to JUDGE the impeachment case after it's sent to them.

[iilana X]

15. What have you ever done that gives you the right to call an American

patriot and hero spineless? He went to war and got his ass shot at because he was spineless? He busted Iran-Contra because he was spineless? It takes a whole lot of courage for you to sit there on your ass at your computer and bitch. If you ask me, that is the very definition of spineless.

[ConcernedCanuk]

5. USA is busy building bases and an embassy in Iraq

.
.
.

They'll let/make the Iraqis kill each other as long as it suits their purposes.

The USA has close to 1,000,000 troops stationed around the globe.

The fact that they have only around 15,000 in Afghanistan (the FIRST centre of purported terrorism) and less than 140,000 in Iraq should let the world know where their priorities lie.

The USA is building bases and amassing weapons in and around Iraq for control of Europe and Asia

The simple facts that the Iraqis have less electricity, clean water, hospitals, affordable fuel, etc., etc. than BEFORE the USA invaded and occupied their country speaks volumes as to the "success" of the USA's led invasion to "liberate" the Iraqi people.

That's my Canuk Observations anyhoo . . .

[Martin Eden]

36. Of course it's about power, money, and control

I don't think the neocons are delusional enough to think they can actually control Eurpoe and Asia, but it's quite obvious Iraq was a ploy to increase the US power base in the Gulf and exert a measure of control over the vital resource of that region.

Here in the States, of course, the above concept has no mainstream traction. It was "faulty" intelligence about WMD but we still liberated that darn country, right? When the Iraqis stand up we'll stand down, right?

Pay no attention to the permanent military bases or the gigantic "embassy."

[PSPS]

6. This is the best idea I've heard so far

Kerry made such a suggestion during the campaign.

Let's face it. The bush disaster will just continue ad infinitum until something "new" happens. His sociopathic nature precludes him from accommodating this, as it would infringe on his messianic complex and require an empathy that is absent in his nature. Bush is insane and inadequate, and his cabal of criminals profits too much from the status quo to be motivated to change.

The way things are right now, the only hope for change is from outside the country. Congress is too corrupt and marginalized to have any effect.

Maybe this would provide a "face saving" way of putting a stop to the bush murder machine.

At least it's on the table. If it takes something like this to begin withdrawing the troops, it's worth considering.

[Bacchus39]

24. other nations will not participate

sorry, but this is no solution whatsoever. other nations not already involved will not get involved in Iraq at all.

[Gloria]

7. Glad to see someone the press likes to cover is getting Clark's

idea out there.....Clark has been calling for regional participation in dealing with Iraq and the region's problems for many, many moons.....

[iilana X]

19. So has John Kerry. They agreed on more than they disagreed back in

2004 and they are still pretty much on the same page on many issues. Kerry and Clark are both great Americans. Both are easy on the eyes too. ;)

[tocqueville]

8. Sorry Mr Kerry, it's too late

nobody is interested in sending TROOPS to clear up the mess after the US/UK adventure. There was a possible window for doing that in 2004, but efter Fallujah, Abu Grahib etc... and most of all a "victorious" insurgency in the central parts of the country, the chances are non-existent. Because the insurgency can only be quelled by a political settlement, probably by granting a division of the country into a loose confederation, after a time table for withdrawal. But it's not probable that the Turks, Iranians and Syrians would accept a more independent Kurdistan.

If Kerry expects a coalition of Iranians, Syrians, Turks, French, Germans etc... "peacekeeping" under UN-mandate he must be dreaming. This would only create a multitude of insurgencies for special local agendas. The central mistake is the one of the "Iraqi forces". There are no such forces, there are only elements ready to increase militias fighting for their own religious and ethnic interests.

This would too imply direct negotiations between the US on one side and the Syrians/Iranians on the other. It's not plausible.

Even if the Europeans are not interested at all to see a complete explosion of the region, there is very little they can do except contributing with money and infrastructure rebuilding if some kind of stability arises.

[iilana X]

20. What are you talking about?

Troops? Who the hell said anything about sending troops.

What part of summit don't you understand? Diplomacy and negotiation between opposing factions is the only way attempt peace. And we will have to do this one way or another, whether we are in Iraq or out. We withdraw our troops and let civil war take its course. The US and other nations will still be involved on a diplomatic level. Why not start the process now as we begin to power down toward withdrawal?


You have a better idea? What would you suggest we do?

[tocqueville]

22. a conference doesn't quell any insurgency

"Europeans, Iranians, Syrians and other Middle Eastern players. The goal should be to stabilize Iraq so Iraqi forces can assume control"

the result of such a conference would be to back up the non-existent Iraqi forces with some alternative. Or it would be empty words.

[iilana X]

31. Oh I see.

You believe in Bolton-style diplomacy: none.

[ckramer]

9. Withdraw the troops, then there won't be insurgents

it's that simple.

[iilana X]

21. Please read about the nation and its history. There is going to be

trouble internally with or without us there. Call them insurgents when they are attacking us, but when they attacke each other, it is called civil war.

Bush Sr. knew what would happen if Saddam were removed from power. That's why he left Saddam in power after the Gulf war.

When we leave there will still be violence. We pulled apart a country that consisted of three distinct cultures that had been superglued together against their will for decades. We freed them, sure. Freed them to fight each other. When we leave they will. No avoiding that except through diplomacy. And we do have some responsibility to at least try diplomacy.

Nobody disputes that we have to leave. Nobody disputes the fact that our presence is causing insurgency. Kerry's said that. The generals have said that. That does not mean that there won't be violence and civil war after we leave. It is very likely there will be. However, diplomacy might avoid it. We owe the Iraqis that chance. After all, we destroyed their country.

[Bacchus39]

25. correct...

It is approaching hopelessness. although in the Kurd areas they are probably quite content right now.

[IndianaGreen]

10. What a bipolar news story!

Here is Kerry, who already called for US troops withdrawal at year's end, trying to come up with some practical steps for disengagement, and then there is Bush in some delusional rant on an apocalyptic "the struggle between freedom and terror."

I am still getting over watching HBO's Baghdad E.R.!

[iilana X]

17. I am so sick of Shrub's delusional rants.

The only thing that gives me hope is knowing that Kerry will never give up on us. He is trying to come up with a real solution, but will the madman listen?

I take heart in this one statement made by John Kerry, "We don't know yet whether this will prove to be an indictable offense in a court of law, but for it, and for misleading a nation into war, they will be indicted in the high court of history."

don't know yet...indictable offense

[arewenotdemo]

14. Kerry still playing the "blame the Iraqis" game

what a tool

"I think that what we need is pressure on the Iraqis to move forward in these next days," said Kerry, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "We cannot tolerate delays, jockeying for position and the playing of political games while our troops are putting their lives and their limbs on the line for Iraqis. Iraqi leaders, so far, have only responded to deadlines."

[iilana X]

18. Not the Iraqis. The Iraqi leaders And he's pretty damn smart in

the statements he's made about the number of trained Iraqis. This is subtle so you have to read everything Kerry's said very carefully, but there is a lot of putting Bush on the spot in his "blaming the Iraqis" as you call it.

He's calling Bush's bluff.

Bush can't come out and say, "But the Iraqis can't take over now because we lied about the number of Iraqis we've trained."

You've got a high-profile United States Senator calling for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq by year's end. What is Bush to do? He's going to have to get his ass in gear and get some of those Iraqis actually trained so he isn't caught in yet another lie.

It isn't going to work. All will come out in the end.

We need the summit Kerry is calling for. We need someone who understands diplomacy and negotiations, not somebody who touts an attitude that might is right. What is passing for diplomacy now is like a butcher trying to pass as a surgeon. God help the patient!

[confludemocrat]

27. yes, a total enabling tool just go away JK n/t

[blm]

30. Typical - YOU always side with the coverup lawmakers over open the books

lawmakers.

You loathe Kerry BECAUSE he has the best record of exposing government corruption, so you always pipe up and denounce him EVERY TIME he submits IMPORTANT PROPOSALS.

Funny, how you ALWAYS pop up on these threads to tell Kerry to go away - just like Ann Coulter has been saying.

[iilana X]

16. You know anyone who appointed John Bolton to the UN , and did so

without Senate confirmation, is nobody to do anything that even remotely resembles diplomacy.

Kerry's right about Congress. They are responsible and most of them are heming and hawing and not willing to take a stand. They won't even support Kerry's is setting a deadline to be out of Iraq this year.

We need a summit and we need someone who has a sense of international community.

[stepnw1f]

23. This Needs to Happen

The GOP has made a mess. We need to get these psychos out of office.

[confludemocrat]

26. Iraq PM called for an early withdrawal-w/o a GD summit-JK behind curve

On TV5, Iraqi people interviewed in the street about the Iraqi PMs call for a June withdrawal essentially said yes, we want them out- we know why they are here: OIL
Bush and Tony DONT WANT TO LEAVE and Kerry is playing along with this. An enabler always. His number one foreign policy advisor in his pussified 2004 campaign now works for Rupert Murdoch on Sky News, essentially reading the news.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/iraq-pms-plans-for-pullout-catch-blair-off-guard/2006/05/23/1148150255168.html

"President George Bush, who will meet Mr Blair this week, with Iraq the main item on the agenda, warned that despite the formation of a unity government, progress in Iraq was likely to be incremental and "hard fought"."

hard fought? They are wanting you to leave in June, you dickwad.

[Egnever]

32. Kerry is a tool.

While a summit might be a nice idea to get potential leaders together. It wont quash any insurgency.

We walked into a country held together only by the Iron will of a dictator and destroyed that iron hand. The idea that talking people into just getting along after feuds going back hundreds of years is going to work is beyond ludicrous.

The unfortunate reality is that we completely fuxored Iraq and unless we want to sit there taking the heat for 20 years or so nothing we are going to do in the short term is going to fix it. I personally don't want to take the heat there for 20 years.

Our only real option is pulling out and allowing the country to settle on its own. It wont be pretty but then its not really pretty now either.

I think there is a remote possibility of them getting their shit together when faced with a deadline for withdrawal. Knowing that it will be dumped in their lap by a certain time might just get them motivated to actually affect a working government. As long as they can lean on big daddy US to "provide Security" there will be no solving the crisis.

Also Kerry assumes too much here in thinking that the Bushistas have any real interest in allowing that country to determine its own fate. They are propping up american tools in the government over there and its a large part of the reason why it still isn't working. However what they will get if they truly allow a natural progression is not to their liking whatsoever.

So Yes John your tea party is cute and all but Far blown from reality.

This is why John Kerry gets absolutely no support from me. He lives in a fairy tale land.

He may have been a great fighter in his youth but that fight has long since gone. If he was truly a fighter he wouldnt have signed on to this BS in the first place.

[blm]

37. His appeal is for OTHER COUNTRIES and regional leaders to convene and

put Bush on the spot to answer WHY he hasn't even attempted to make this happen already.

Kerry has the ear of Kofi Anna and Iraqi members of Parliament. I think they know a bit more about what CAN work than cynics out to attack Kerry.

You don't even KNOW John Kerry. Anyone who only points to his Vietnam testimony as his strongest effort, PROVES they don't know Kerry and don't know much about American history over the last 35 years.

[Egnever]

50. Cry me a river

I think he sucks.

[iilana X]

56. yawn

[MindPilot]

33. While I certainly appreciate Kerry's efforts to end the Quagmire,

we must remember that he was but one of many Democrats who thought it was good idea to start it.

[Mass]

35. Nope - He did not want to start that. Bush did.

[MindPilot]

39. OK, then. I grant you the semantic hair-splitting.

Kerry thought it was a good idea to rubber-stamp the IWR which gave Bush the authorization to start it.

[blm]

49. Bush already had legal authorization for military action via original UN

resolution from 1991.

The IWR gave him guidelines he didn't want to have to follow, and those Dems who negotiated got Iran and Syria off the table as additional targets - the left really needs to reframe this whole issue regarding the IWR. Turn it against Bush for once.

[blm]

38. No he didn't. He said Bush SHOULDN'T go in because the weapons inspections

and diplomatice efforts WERE WORKING.

Corporate media perception at work - just so they can let Bush off the hook for his violations of the IWR.

[MindPilot]

41. But Kerry voted for the IWR.

While you are correct in that Bush violated the terms of the IWR, anybody with two brain cells and a modem knew that Bush was all about using that as an excuse to invade Iraq. The fact is a vote for IWR was a vote for an invasion and occupation of Iraq and that was as obvious then as it is now.

[blm]

42. And every time you blame the IWR instead of Bush for VIOLATING the IWR

you let Bush off the hook.

To blame the IWR as if it was the defining reason for war, you buy into the media portrayal as the IWR being a vote FOR WAR, instead of being a resolution that, had it been honestly administered, would have PREVENTED WAR.

The media jerked the left around but good on this one. By focusing the blame for war only on the IWR vote, Bush gets let off the hook and NO MEDIA questions how he was VIOLATING the guidelines that were set for him in it.

[MindPilot]

46. I ain't the media and I ain't letting nobody off the hook

Bush violated the IWR, no question. However the Democrats who voted for IWR share some responsibility for starting the war because it was totally obvious that Bush would use the terms of the IWR--or more accurately Saddam's "failure" to honor them--as an excuse to invade.

The IWR would've likely still passed, but Dems who voted no on the IWR have a little bit more credibility--at least with me personally--(like that's important to anybody) than those who voted yes.

[blm]

48. But, it still enables the media to ignore the truth when THEY use the IWR

as the reason for war.

I know many on the left never expected to help the media out like that, but that's the end result - there is a DISPROPORTIONATE amount of attention and blame to the IWR while there is NO scrutiny of Bush VIOLATING The IWR.

[MindPilot]

51. OK. I see your point now.

:think:

[blm]

53. Thanks - sometimes people don't get it and it becomes frustrating.

I appreciate the effort you made.

[coalition_unwilling]

52. Even before the IWR, massive numbers of U.S. troops

were already forward deployed in Kuwait staging areas. The evidence is clear (to me at least) that Bush had already decided on war well before the IWR. The IWR to me seems like a fig-leaf for domestic political consumption, just as the U.N. presentation by Colin Powell was a fig-leaf for international political consumption.

Thus, the IWR served merely as a symbolic gesture for politicos to decide that they supported * or opposed him. That Gephardt and Daschle chose to make their Rose Garden Concordat with * didn't save either one in the ensuing 2002 elections. Kerry would be Prez now had he voted against the IWR, imho.

[iilana X]

59. That's not true. The vote allowed the war to take place but it wasn't a

vote for war. I was one of those people who was absolutely in support of the resolution and so were most of the people I know. We all thought that there were WMD in Iraq and that Saddam was looking to acquire nuclear materials. That scared the shit out of many of us.

Even though I supported the IWR, I held my breath over the inspections hoping that we'd get somewhere. But I was horrified when Bush just up and attacked Iraq. I couldn't believe the fool actually did it. Sure the vote gave him the power, and sure it was a mistake in retrospect, but that doesn't mean it was a vote for war.

What I supported was a little arm-twisting to get the inspectors in there, but I didn't really think Bush would be stupid enough to use that power to actually take us to war. I was wrong. So were many of us, but don't say that we supported war.

Personally, I'm glad that many of our senators were able to vote for the resolution. It means they were looking out for us. Maybe people who see things in black and white can't appreciate that, but I respect the vote and hate the war. Inconsistent? Not really.

We give our police officers guns so that they can defend us when necessary. We do not give our police officers guns so that they can start shooting indiscriminately. We armed the President of the United States so he could show force in order to protect us, but he used that power indiscriminately. He should be indicted for this crime.

Our senators kept faith with their oaths of office and I think it is wrong to criticize them over this.

[Mass]

34. Once again, Another perfect example of how AP distorts what Dems say,

Where did Kerry say "quell the insurgency".he has always said that it was the American troops that were fueling the insurgency and that they needed to be pulled out, but AP must have judged that quell was better.

He is proposing an international conference to find a solution for Iraq AND he is proposing to find a solution for withdrawing the troops before the end of the year (still the best proposition in the US senate, unfortunately).

[magellan]

40. Shutting the barn doors after the horse is out

More meddling by the international community isn't going to stop the violence in Iraq. The US needs to withdraw its troops now. Our presence only exacerbates the terrible situation and further feeds into the counter-productive mentality that we can't leave until Iraqi forces can take over.

[blm]

43. Are you deliberately ignoring he said the leaders of the insurgency groups

the warring factions AND the regional leaders from the surrounding countries.

Kerry EMPHASIZED in all his speeches and in his plan that the US troop presence is fueling the insurgency. Have you not read his entire withdrawal plan or are you assuming you know it from a few paragraphs in an article?

[magellan]

44. :-) I read the article

I stand by what I said. Too bad if you don't like it.

[blm]

45. Too bad for you if you think you're drawing conclusions using facts.

Sorry, but I'm loyal to ACCURACY.

[magellan]

47. Whatever

:eyes:

[iilana X]

58. I agree.

I haven't been here very long, but long enough to recognize logic when I see it. And long enough to recognize nonsense too. It must get very frustrating to keep presenting logical analysis only to get juvenile mantras in response.

Bush has about as much respect for diplomacy as he does for the concept of global warming. Neither concept exists for him. So it is rather hard to believe that anyone so vehemently anti-Bush could also be anti-diplomacy. It seems a bit inconsistent, doesn't it?

[The_Casual_Observer]

54. Leaders of the insurgency groups?

That seems highly unlikely and impractical wouldn't you say?

[blm]

55. No. How else are you going to prevent civil war? Or at least buy time

enough to get a safer withdrawal?

[iilana X]

57. If diplomacy is considered meddling, no wonder why we're screwed.

[wisteria]

60. A summit is an important step in aiding Iraq's new government.

Senator Kerry has been out front and pushing this step as necessary once the government was formed.
Where are all the other Dem's? Where is Biden? He mentioned this summit also. How come Clinton hasn't commented on the latest developments in Iraq. How about Feingold? Surely he has no objections to a meeting of world powers. How about Gore, what does he have to say about this? He apparently is considering running for President again. He has been a major critic of Bush and the war, he must have something to say about this new development. I could go on and on, Bayh,Warner, and former President Clinton who usually has something to say about most everything else. Where are they? All or supposed leaders and those who want to be President?

If they don't come out and acknowledge the developments in Iraq and suggest a further plan of action, then screw them all!

Senator Kerry has proven to me that he is a true leader and has spoken out,taken a risk and presented the best plan I have yet to see on Iraq. he deserves more recognition for his efforts. Thank you Senator!!:toast: