Kerry calls for Withdrawal Deadlines from Iraq

[madame defarge]

NYTimes editorial just released...Calls for Dayton Accord like meeting with deadlines for withdrawal & exit.

Two Deadlines and an Exit

By JOHN F. KERRY
Published: April 5, 2006

Washington

WE are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The first was against Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction. The second was against terrorists whom, the administration said, it was better to fight over there than here. Now we find our troops in the middle of an escalating civil war.

Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much as we do. Our valiant soldiers can't bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq's leaders are unwilling themselves to make the compromises that democracy requires.

As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must be won politically. No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political differences.

--snip--
For three years now, the administration has told us that terrible things will happen if we get tough with the Iraqis. In fact, terrible things are happening now because we haven't gotten tough enough. With two deadlines, we can change all that. We can put the American leadership on the side of our soldiers and push the Iraqi leadership to do what only it can do: build a democracy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/opinion/05kerry.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[Sensitivity]

1. Is the PARTY ready for Leadership? Or should a 1000 positions bloom?

[Clarkie1]

2. Apparently Kerry thinks the later approach is best. n/t

[TayTay]

3. This is much closer to the Murtha plan

which so many in the House liked. It's a tougher position, it has a single benchmark that is clear and understandable and it puts the onus on the Iraqis to deliver or else.

Either way, it calls for troop pullouts and so did the Dems. He just defined it better.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Obviously, Kerry did not consult Donna Brazile first

She would have advised to "stay the course."

[politicasista]

58. I would hope not. Will never forget how she screwed up Gore's campaign nt

[wisteria]

73. LOL! n/t

[wisteria]

79. Some one has to say it, I am glad it was Senator Kerry.

I like the reference to three wars in Iraq. And, I think it is important the Iraqi's hear that they have to come together and work at it if they want democracy.
Others have been sending strong messages to Iraq including the President and some other Senators. Kerry is the only one to my knowledge to require a specific date.
Good piece, I support his efforts.

[Sensitivity]

5. Kerry won the leadership in a long campaign. Q is whether Party wants

to support a "leader of the opposition" model or to continue in its current
consensus building approach to fighting the enemy.

[Clarkie1]

11. The reason we have no sense of one "leader" is because

there isn't a Democrat in the White House. The 08' primaries will determine who our leader is.

[WildEyedLiberal]

12. Can't you set aside the primaries long enough to support this?

This is about doing what's right, here. Please, for the love of God stop being petty. This is more important than political games.

[IndianaGreen]

19. We can't afford to wait to the primaries!

Kerry is right in setting the end of this year as the deadline to pull the troops out, except for the trainers.

[Clarkie1]

22. What is right is that Democrats stay focused on what unites us.

Kerry's goal is the same as that put forth in the "Real Security," agenda.

This is nothing really new...except for the specifics. And specifics aren't really useful here since we are not the party in power micro-managing the situation.

[WildEyedLiberal]

27. Specifics are VERY useful

I hear people all the time say, "what is the Democrats plan?" "How would the Democrats be doing things differently?"

Whether or not we would have invaded Iraq - which no Dem save maybe Lieberman would have - has been irrelevant for three years. What matters to the American people is that the Democrats present a viable alternative, a policy vision that lays out exactly what we would be doing differently. Kerry's plan shows just how his administration would have been as different from Bush's as night and day, and it's extremely valuable to remind people of the alternative - of what they could have had, and might still have in the future - competent, DEMOCRATIC PARTY leadership.

[Clarkie1]

35. This is Kerry's Plan.

Not the Democratic Plan...we really need to focus on what unites us.

That said, I see nothing wrong with many Democratic voices...this plan presents a specific, hypothetical way to put more leverage on the Iraqis to form an inclusive government. That is a key part of the Democratic Agenda.

However, since we are not the party in power, it is merely hypothetical.

Kerry is right, as many others have been saying we have not been using all our leverage to get the Iraqis to do what they need to do. If naming a specific hypothetical date helps some people to understand the Democratic position better, great.

[WildEyedLiberal]

42. It should be the Democratic plan

There's really no reason not to support this.

[Clarkie1]

51. And Murtha would say his plan should be the Democratic Plan...

And I like Murtha, too.

[TayTay]

53. I don't know, there is language in Kerry's plan that sounds

very familiar. It reminds me of Murtha's plan. He talks about hearing from the field commanders on the ground. Murtha formed his plan from hearing from the people out in the field.

Perhaps they were talking to each other, drumming up support for a mutual goal. That would be interesting.

[karynnj]

60. He did refer, in a different context, to speaking to Murtha on Imus (3/17

I assume that Murtha was one of the people he spoke to. In fact, I hope Kerry spoke to Clark AND that in forming the Democratic plan that Clark spoke to Kerry. Kerry's expertise of 22 years on the the SFRC is significant.

[Clarkie1]

65. I certainly hope they have been talking to each other.

All Dems ought to be talking to each other.

[blm]

105. This plan sounds ALOT like a joining of Kerry and Murtha - taking aspects

of both.

I heard they had been meeting the last few weeks, so I figured that they were working together on a plan to deal with the fact that Iraq is in a civil war and the US has to adjust their expectations.

[karynnj]

34. If you believe what you wrote, then commend Kerry for a specific

action plan consistent with the the vague words in the agenda. Be honest, if this were Clark's editorial you would be declaring it brilliant.

As to new - there are only so many types of things you can do - so yeah, all the components have been used at some point somewhere, but this is a new plan. Though one that Murtha would likely see as compatible with his.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Ahh, but Kerry beat the General to the punch

and we saw the General endorsing that focus-group driven plan:

Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/real_security_t.php

I don't see a deadline for withdrawal in the Beltway Plan, but I do see it in Kerry's plan!

[Tom Rinaldo]

91. So did Kerry. You miss the point.

You said:

"we saw the General endorsing that focus-group driven plan:

"Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces."


Kerry was lined up at the same Press Conference where the Democrats plan was unveiled. As an individual speaking, Kerry is free to lobby for specifics of a resolution that others in the Democratic Party might currently reject. That is fine and as it should be, but it does not negate the value of the Democratic Party as a whole having achieved a base line degree of unity on National Security and Iraq earlier this month in time for the Congressional elections. The fact that the Democratic Party has put forward a coherent basic framework for National Security that almost all in the Party fall under was a significant political accomplishment that already is undercutting the Republican meme that the Democrats can't agree on anything and have no plans, only attacks on President Bush. It reframes the political debate about the constructive or destructive roles each Party is now playing in America relative to National Security. It is wrong to think that in valuing Kerry's plan, one must devalue the Democratic Party National Security Plan. They serve different purposes. One is an individual advocating a specific blueprint for future actions, the other represents the degree of unity that currently exists inside the Democratic Party. Each has a different and critical positive function.

For example, to achieve Kerry's plan the Democrats need to gather more power in Washington to counter the fact that George W. Bush remains in the White House resisting such a plan. That among other things means that Democrats need to retake one or both Houses of Congress. Republicans took a majority in the House of Representatives in the first place when they campaigned with their "Contract with America". It was a piece of paper that they shredded once they took office of course. Remember the Balanced Budge Amendment and Term Limits? No matter, the Contract with America served a number of political purposes for the Republican Party. One key one was to signal to America that Republicans were ready to govern, that they had their act together, that moderates and conservatives in their Party could cooperate in achieving broad goals that they were able to put in writing and all sign off on. That was a political weapon, more than it was an exercise in policy advocacy, and having the "Contract with America" helped Republicans gain real power that they used anyway they wanted to.

Do not pit Kerry's plan against the Democrats National Security Plan. Welcome the latter for what it is and push for Kerry's plan moving forward. It is not a contradiction. It is smart politics.

[Clarkie1]

43. I don't think an agenda by it's very nature can be overly specific.

After all, we are not the party in power.

If setting a specific hypothetical date in a very fluid situation helps some people to understand the Demcoratic position better, great.

Clark said 3 months ago there was a four month window...I think May 15 is about that time.

[Island Blue]

47. I thought "specific" was what people wanted.

(I get so confused sometimes.) John Kerry spells out clearly here what needs to be done by both the US and the Iraqis. It's a sane, workable plan. We may not be the party in power at the moment, but hopefully more than a few Republicans will come to their senses soon and realize what they're currently doing in Iraq ain't workin'.

[Clarkie1]

68. Good point.

All I'm saying is it's unrealistic to expect the ENTIRE Democratic party to endorse ONE specfic plan.

It's O.K. we have many plans out there that agree with the goals put forth in the Demcratic Plan. The more voices the better, as long as we remember what unites us in our overall approach to Iraq is more than the specifics of this or that plan.

When we are the party in power, we will be facing an entirely different situation than today.

[Clarkie1]

29. I support the Real Security agenda, and Kerry I presume does as well.

The goals seem to be the same.

[IndianaGreen]

33. No, Kerry's plan is a lot better than that crap "Real Security"

I'll match Kerry's plan to this crap:

IRAQ

To Honor the Sacrifice of Our Troops, we will:

Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/real_security_t.php

Kerry's plan is solid and achievable, the Real Security is just PR mush that means nothing and stands for even less.

[Clarkie1]

46. Kerry's plan is not achiveable because we are not the party in power.

I really wish he were president.

[IndianaGreen]

49. So what? It challenges the War Party and it is not a weenie plan

like the Beltway Plan that you are so enamored with.

[Clarkie1]

52. About Four months ago Clark said essentially the same thing.

I am not enamored with the beltway plan, because it's not a plan...it's an agenda.

"We’ve got a window of about four months after this election to try to get that constitution re-jiggered so that it cuts off the Iranian’s access and the Shi’as control over the oil in the south and denies Iran the opportunity to create a Shi’a-dominated buffer state in the south of Iraq. About a four month window. After that we’re going to leave because we’ve done our work there and the Shi’as will want us to leave because we’ve handed over to them what they’re most interested in. It won’t be a victory that we’re proud of ultimately unless we take advantage right now of our military capabilities.
Eric Shawn: Alright, General Wesley Clark, we thank you. You’ve just laid out the strategy and the challenge after this Thursday for the next four months. Thank you, sir. Live in Little Rock.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you.

http://securingamerica.com/node/375

[karynnj]

66. Kerry is defining alternative paths

He explained this in his Brown University speech last September:

"''Today more than ever, when the path taken last year and four years earlier takes us into a wilderness of missed opportunities, we need to keep defining the critical choices over and over, offering a direction not taken but still open in the future."

An example of this, other than the Brown speech itself, was his October Georgetown speech.
So, while it's not a plan that will be implemented unless Bush decides to do it -while claiming that his plan is far different from Kerry's.

[sallyseven]

135. Make noise and the pres. will be forced

by his little repugs to cave in.

[blm]

97. Kerry crafted most of Real Security plan and submitted it PRE CIVIL WAR

The last window of opportunity for success closed in January after Bush refused to draw down the significant number of troops necesssary to prove to Iraqis we would not stay as occupiers after their December election.

[TayTay]

13. But we still have to deal with Iraq and show opposition

to the way the Bush Admin is handling this situation. They are allowing Iraq to set the deadlines and are not applying political pressure to what is a political problem. (General Casey said Iraq is a needs a political solution, not a military solution, last fall.)

This is a good plan and it is clear and easy to present to the American people. It has definable goals and talks about withdrawal as the end result. This is what people want.

[karynnj]

20. The '04 primary chose our leader

Traditionally the nominee even if he loses is the leader. Reid was voted for by Nevada and was choosen as the Minority leader by the Senators. Kerry VERY easily won the primaries - so he can claim that a very significant percent of the Democratic party voted for him.

He has every right to offer a plan - and he feels a moral obligation to do so.

[Clarkie1]

24. Certainly he has a right to offer a plan. n/t

[karynnj]

36. Isn't that what you are complaining about?

[Clarkie1]

48. No complaints.

Sometime in May is the end of Clark's four-month window, so I think we are essentially in agreement on the goal here.

[Sensitivity]

54. Which other Democracy works like that -- no leadership between

election campaigns!!!

Obviously, the party presidential nominee is leader of the party until he is challenged and
defeated in the next round of primaries.

[Clarkie1]

59. Was Mondale the leader of the Party when he was defeated?

This really isn't an important issue to me. If you want to think of Kerry as THE leader of the party great. Right now, I think our party has many great leaders, Kerry included.

[karynnj]

67. yes, he was

[Clarkie1]

86. Hmmmm

That's not how I remember it.

I think Kerry is taking a much more active roll than Mondale, but in whatever party is out of power in the white house, there will always be a diversity of voices leading the party. Seems to me that's basic sociology and political science 101.

[Sensitivity]

88. Is there some western democracy you can reference?

[globalvillage]

4. This is great

He's right. Setting a deadline is the only way to get this thing done and get our troops home. Hold their feet to the fire.
Rock and Roll!!!

[globalvillage]

6. We need to send this to our congress members

And get them to support it!!!

[Sensitivity]

9. We need to pressure the Party to rally behind Kerry at least through 2006

Kerry may be out for 2008, but we cannot have a better leader than Kerry to be counter-posed to
the idiot resident as we try to take back the congress in November.

[ginnyinWI]

77. Yes--this is very much about the mid-terms

This is the big issue--Iraq--and if Kerry steps up and issues a clarion call--nobody can then claim the Democrats have no plan, or are weak, etc.

The people want an answer to the Iraq war mess. They want hope! They want to know somebody is offering a clear alternative.

Even if we aren't the party in power, we need to offer that alternative, and John Kerry is the de facto leader and is the one to do it, for sure.

Now that * is tanking and so many people have voter's remorse--NOW is the time for them to remember that there was another guy--one who had all the smart answers at the debates--the one who offered hope, not fear. And now they have a chance to at least vote out some of the Republicans, who are all tied to *, like it or not.

[Sensitivity]

89. Well said. voter remorse in inrtense right now.

[LittleClarkie]

7. A very specific deadline

May 15.

[IndianaGreen]

15. We will defeat Al Qaeda faster when we stop serving as its best recruitmen

We will defeat Al Qaeda faster when we stop serving as its best recruitment tool.

It is so sad that stating the obvious, as Kerry has, is considered controversial. Anything that shows the emperor having no clothes is labeled controversial or distracting.

[karynnj]

8. This plan reflects the reality of the last month in Iraq.

If it were Bush's plan, it would either jolt the Iraqis into working with their neighbors to actually form a government or we acknowledge what is already obvious to most people - which is that it is a civil war. There is nothing we can do in a civil war. The Arab League last year actually wanted the US out by the end of 2006 and they were pressuring Iraq torespect the rights of the minority Sunni.

[IndianaGreen]

10. This is a great and powerful article by Kerry!

If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end. Doing so will empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces should remain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/opinion/05kerry.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

This is a great and powerful article by Kerry! A lot better than the regurgitated focus-group driven crap Democratic Plan "Real Security" which had this to say about Iraq:

Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/real_security_t.php

[WildEyedLiberal]

14. Kicked and rec'd!

:kick:

[politicasista]

16. Kick and Recommend!

Go Kerry! :kick:

[IndianaGreen]

17. K&R

Fuck Biden!

[bdamomma]

109. Biden forget him

he talks too much, not enough action out of him.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. As I said two years ago, when I voted for Kerry

I voted for Kerry not because not because I agreed with what he was saying about Iraq at that time (I didn't agree with it), but because I perceived him to be a pragmatist who would have first tried two or three plans to salvage the US position in Iraq and, when they did not work, would have arranged for withdrawal.

I believe that President Kerry would have said the same thing this evening that Senator Kerry did.

He would have gotten us out of Iraq later than I would have liked but sooner than Bush is going to get us out. Unfortunately, Bush is still in power and this grotesque foolishness will go on.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Bush has already set a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq

Noon, January 20, 2009!

[Jack Rabbit]

26. President Pelosi might want to do it sooner, IG

PELOSI FOR PRESIDENT IN 2007

[IndianaGreen]

31. Bawahaha

I think that sign should be upside down, don't you think Jack?

[Jack Rabbit]

37. I think it's just fine the way it is

It gets the point across.

[Fabio]

23. Solid stuff.

Great to have his voice in the camp. And six months ago he did say "the next six months will dictate victory or defeat" and whether he would push for withdrawal. He kept his word.

[IndianaGreen]

28. You are right, Kerry did say that!

There is nothing more we can ask the troops to do, except to come home!

[TayTay]

30. He did indeed.

I wish that the Bush Admin had done what he said in October. But they didn't and the situation and now we have civil war. Americans can't solve or fight a civil war in Iraq. (I think Sen. Kerry knows about this situation first hand.)

We have to make the Iraqis see that we do not intend to be there forever. They have to take control of their own country and situation. I think this call for withdrawal is just right. It puts the ball squarely in the Iraqi court. They have to find a political solution sooner rather than later.

[IndianaGreen]

38. Now, wait a minute there, TayTay!

Condi Rice said today that our permanent bases in Iraq are not permanent, but "enduring." Anything short of the Second Coming is not permanent in the Bush regime's eyes.

[karynnj]

39. You mean Condi et al don't think Bush is the 2nd coming

[TayTay]

41. I watched the last time Condi testilied in SFRC in Feb

And Kerry got her to admit that the Admin and the Generals on the ground differ on that 'no permanent bases in Iraq' thing. Turns out the Generals think it's not happening, but Condi refused to rule it out.

I can post the transcript if you like cuz geeky people like me keep Senate Foreign Relations Committee Transcripts handy for emergencies (like this.) Sigh!

[TayTay]

45. BTW, Condi is scheduled to testify tomorrow in SFRC

unless she cancels due to 'breaking events in IRaq.' I do wonder if Sen. Kerry and Condiliar Rice might have words.

[Island Blue]

50. They're sure to exchange some glaring looks.

That could get interesting.

[ProSense]

32. Excellent point.

Love that title: Two Deadlines and an Exit

[high density]

44. Sounds great to me.

It's way past time to end this lame corporate money giveaway.

By the way, I hate NY Times' new website design. Ick.

[karynnj]

82. It does look bland - but it is easier to read

[kerrygoddess]

55. More points on Kerry's plan

John Kerry’s plan offers a responsible military and diplomatic transition for Iraq.

• U.S. troops critical to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces will remain in the country.
• American Special Operations forces will be redeployed to garrisoned status for security back up, training and emergency response.
• The U.S. will immediately bring the leaders of the Iraqi factions together at a Dayton Accords-like summit that includes our allies, the Arab League and the U.N..

o At this summit, the Iraqis will be made to reach a political agreement that includes security guarantees, disbanding the militias and reconstruction efforts.

Kerry’s plan for Iraq focuses on how to make America more secure at home and around the world.

• We will defeat Al Qaeda faster when we stop serving as their best recruitment tool.
• Iraq will not be the breeding ground for terrorism that Afghanistan was because Iraqis ultimately will not tolerate foreign jihadists on their soil.
• Leaving Iraq will strengthen our hand in addressing the nuclear threat from Iran.
• Leaving Iraq will allow us to repair the damage flag officers fear has been done to our armed forces.

MORE - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2527

[Clarkie1]

56. Clark and Kerry are in agreement on the essentials of this.

12/11/05

"We’ve got a window of about four months after this election to try to get that constitution re-jiggered so that it cuts off the Iranian’s access and the Shi’as control over the oil in the south and denies Iran the opportunity to create a Shi’a-dominated buffer state in the south of Iraq. About a four month window. After that we’re going to leave because we’ve done our work there and the Shi’as will want us to leave because we’ve handed over to them what they’re most interested in. It won’t be a victory that we’re proud of ultimately unless we take advantage right now of our military capabilities.

Eric Shawn: Alright, General Wesley Clark, we thank you. You’ve just laid out the strategy and the challenge after this Thursday for the next four months. Thank you, sir. Live in Little Rock.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you.

http://securingamerica.com/node/375

Clark's window is up in about mid-April, Kerry's on exactly May 15th.

Of course, back then Clark was estimating out farther into the future.

[politicasista]

57. What's the deal?

Let's just be thankful that the General and Kerry are speaking up about this rather than argue over who's plan is the best or who said what first.

[Clarkie1]

61. I agree.

I think it's useful to point out that the Democratic leadership is united on the essentials of this, however.

It's not Kerry or Clark or Feingold or anyone else vs. the rest of the Democratic Party.

Let's stick together.

[IndianaGreen]

63. No, we are not sticking together on Iraq!

If the Beltway establishment had its way, we would have to wait until long after 2009 to get out of Iraq. If we take the House this year, we can put the House on record for a withdrawal, and censure Bush, perhaps even vote Articles of Impeachment!

It is obscene to tell the troops to wait until 2009!

[Clarkie1]

69. I'm not so sure about that.

I think the Democratic Party is committed to not waiting much longer. I think that's in our National Security Plan.

Kerry is absolutely right. In the end, it's up to the Iraqis. We ought to be putting more pressure on them to form a working, inclusive government.

Maybe if some of them read Kerry's Op-Ed it will give them an additional kick in the butt. The more pressure the better.

[IndianaGreen]

72. Really? Where does it say that?

IRAQ

To Honor the Sacrifice of Our Troops, we will:

Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/real_security_t.php

Rousing call to arms, isn't it? It sounds like the 1917 Menshevik plan for peace. The Mensheviks said that Russia could not drop out of the war because of all the blood that had been shed. You know what happened to those fools, don't you?

[Clarkie1]

75. I understand your frustration with Party statements.

Naturally, statements from individuals will be more specific than those arrived at by consensus. And the individual voices are important...after all, that's how we achieve a consensus.

I'm glad Kerry is speaking up; I'm glad all Dems are speaking up.

You did leave off this part of the plan, though (and I think it's an important area of agreement):

"Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises
necessary to unite their country and defeat the
insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly
encourage our allies and other nations to play a
constructive role"

Kerry has presented his particular view of specific ways and dates to achive these ends, and I commend him for that. I agree the time for any small measure of success in Iraq is indeed drawing short. If the Iraqis cannnot form a government in the very near future, our presence there serves no purpose.

[kerrygoddess]

76. Kerry is saying 2006!

Have you read it?

If a unity government is formed, Kerry says, “we must agree upon a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by the end of this year — 2006.

This will empower the new Iraqi leadership, get Iraqis to run their country, and undermine support for the insurgency among the 80% of Iraqis who want us to leave.

John Kerry’s plan offers a responsible military and diplomatic transition for Iraq.

• U.S. troops critical to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces will remain in the country.
• American Special Operations forces will be redeployed to garrisoned status for security back up, training and emergency response.
• The U.S. will immediately bring the leaders of the Iraqi factions together at a Dayton Accords-like summit that includes our allies, the Arab League and the U.N..

o At this summit, the Iraqis will be made to reach a political agreement that includes security guarantees, disbanding the militias and reconstruction efforts.

Kerry’s plan for Iraq focuses on how to make America more secure at home and around the world.

• We will defeat Al Qaeda faster when we stop serving as their best recruitment tool.
• Iraq will not be the breeding ground for terrorism that Afghanistan was because Iraqis ultimately will not tolerate foreign jihadists on their soil.
• Leaving Iraq will strengthen our hand in addressing the nuclear threat from Iran.
• Leaving Iraq will allow us to repair the damage flag officers fear has been done to our armed forces.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2527

[IndianaGreen]

78. Have you read my posts on this thread?

:-)

[Tom Rinaldo]

92. As I commented above, it is all about retaking the House

The Democratic National Security Plan was a consensus document, not a Beltway Establishment Plan. Consensus is not just a fancy word, it has a very technical definition, and it results from long rounds of negotiations between people with very different viewpoints, like Murdoch, Kerry, Clinton, Feingold, Clark, Pelosi, and Bayh. A base line of unity has a political function, which in this case tactically relates to retaking control of the House, but it does not prevent individuals from pushing for specific proposals that go far beyond that base line.

[karynnj]

70. In reality they are not in the same place - which is ok

from the comments when he presented the agenda. (He was against Murtha calling for withdrawal) You were correct up thread when you seemed to be saying that you can't have specifics and unity - there is a real genuine range of views.

[Clarkie1]

71. I'm not trying to suggest any other Dem would agree with every bit of

minutiae in Kerry's commendable plan.

As you point out, that's not what is most important.

What concerns me is Democrats fighting over different "plans" when we ought to be united on our core convictions such as we need to be putting more pressure on the Shia to be inclusive of the Shia and Kurds. We need to be using our presence there as leverage, and there are limits to our patience.

And clearly, the current administration not only went to war unnecessarily, they are failing miserably at holding on to a chance of even achieving even a C- solution.

[karynnj]

80. I think the minitiae is important in Kerry's plan -

what I think is less important is the idea that everyone will agree. To get consensus, you often have to get so vague that the result has no substance. The danger then is that it becomes hard to distinquish between it and what Bush says he is doing, but it will at least be clearly different from what he is really doing. I do not mean to diminish the effort and skill needed to get a consensus plan.

Kerry's plan is in keeping with his promise to speak out when he felt there was no chance of helping. This is a personal promise, he meant it when he said it, and he has honored it.

[Clarkie1]

84. Speaking out saying what he would do is a good thing.

I think it is a well thought out plan.

Of course, we know the specifics of the plan will never be excuted...but putting dates on things makes it easier to understand his position, and draws attention to the more general Democratic consensus postition that time for even a poor excuse for "success" in Iraq is running out in a matter of weeks or months, not years.

[Tom Rinaldo]

94. Kerry's differences with Clark are more apparent than real I think

Start here:

"If a unity government is formed, Kerry says, “we must agree upon a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by the end of this year — 2006."

First off the language is imprecise. Is Kerry saying we have to agree on what the schedule will be for withdrawing combat forces by the end of this year, or is he saying we have to schedule the completion of withdrawing combat forces by the end of this year? I think he is saying the former, but I am not 100% sure. Also Kerry did not say "all combat forces". I am not sure where to fit the following paragraph into a timeline or definition of what are and are not "combat forces", and are they all being withdrawn to the United States, or are some being withdrawn to Kuwait, or are some being withdrawn to garrison bases in remote parts of Iraq?:

"To increase the pressure on Iraq’s leaders, we must redeploy American forces to garrisoned status. Troops should be used for security backup, training and emergency response; we should leave routine patrols to Iraqi forces. Special operations against Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists in Iraq should be initiated only on hard intelligence leads."

And in saying only the troops needed to finish training Iraq troops should remain, currently most of the training American forces are doing with Iraq forces is being done by doing joint exercises with Iraq forces, to give them actual field training during combat missions, and by pairing American security forces with Iraq's on joint security patrols. Would that continue?

None the less I agree that this plan is more specific than what Clark has said, and a very dramatic, meaningful, and welcome departure from Bush's current plans. But Kerry does that in part by jumping right past the sticking part that Clark has been focused on; creating a government of national unity in Iraq. Kerry is explicit that if one isn't formed by May 15th than the United States should withdraw from Iraq. Clark has implicitly been saying that for months now as was pointed out above on this thread, though he never fixed a specific day his comments led to the same time frame. That was the window of opportunity Clark has always referred to, which he noted was rapidly closing but had not yet closed. If a true Iraq Unity government is formed, it will take a great deal of steam out of the insurgency allowing Iraq's forces to take on security for themselves, exactly in the way Kerry describes, but also as Clark has described.

Clark said this on FOX on March 29th:

"Host: Now, about on the topic of Iraq, this new plan says that the Democrats will ensure that 2006 is the year that Iraq can transition to full sovereignty with Iraqis assuming responsibility for their own security. That sounds easier said than done. How do they propose to do that and hasn't…isn't that what the president has been trying to do?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the truth is that the policy that we've had in place - the president's strategy - is simply running out of gas in Iraq. Right now, 3 months after the elections were held, there's still no Iraqi government. You have feuding political leaders and it's not the fault of the men and women in uniform. This is a political strategy that the president requires, to work behind the scenes, to use maximum US leverage, to engage in dialog with Iraq's neighbors and to get help from other Arab countries to be able to pull together an Iraqi government that de-legitimizes the insurgents, that modifies the constitution so there's no need to fight. That's the principal work that has to be done. It has to be done now, in 2006. This can't be deferred to 2007 because if it is the insurgency will grow and deepen and Iraq won't hold together.

Host: Well, that sounds good, but how will the Democrats - your party - deal with the things like the car bombs and the daily violence from the insurgents?



GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: This is a problem that has to be dealt with first at the political level, inside Iraq. Adequate incentives must be provided and leverage attained against the various parties in the Iraqi government and their supporters, to be able to pull together an Iraqi government that really does legitimate the Iraqi people and de-legitimate the insurgency. That hasn't been done. That leverage has been two years late in being applied, the recognition of what the problem was has been late. All the leverage still hasn't been applied. When the president sends mixed messages like 'we'll be there through the next president's…into the next president's administration' and at the same time tells the Iraqis to pull up their socks and get going, that's a mixed message. The truth is that we can't be effective keeping our people there unless the Iraqi leaders do their part and that's a message they have to understand. And Democrats are giving them that message."
http://securingamerica.com/node/821


Look closely at the last couple of sentences Clark says in each paragraph. It implies what Kerry says explicitly, and I am not saying there is not a significant difference between implying something and saying it explicitly. I do get the difference, and it is a meaningful difference. Clark though up until now has avoided calls for specific deadlines because he thought they interfered with the goal that both he and Kerry advocate for, the creation of a National Unity government in Iraq, and he has explained why he thought setting specific hard deadlines lessened our leverage with factions inside Iraq to get them to make the concessions needed. Even now it could conceivably undercut American leverage in our talks with Iran on Iraq, which are now officially pending. The end game now is down to weeks though, not months, in achieving a Unity government for Iraq. Clark has lately been openly backing sending Iraq's divided leaders a strong signal that the United States can't help them inside Iraq, if Iraq's major faction leaders won't pull together for their own common interests.

Kerry leap frogged Clark here, but they have both been jumping in the same direction all along. Clark was not acting as his own spokesperson when he gave the Democrats National Radio address. Clark's focus recently has been behind the scenes, helping find the common ground so that the Party as a whole can appear coherent to the public and media prior to the Fall elections. Kerry was able to speak for himself here, and he did so very well indeed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

98. To be a little clearer on something I said above

Confusing wording. In my first real paragraph I meant to say that I think Kerry wants the withdrawal of combat troops to be completed by the end of 2006, though I am not 100% sure of that interpretation.

[TayTay]

103. I thought your post was pretty clear and well-written.

Democrats don't just face opposition from the Bush Admin, they also have to step in front of a news media that is hostile to them and detests anything that takes longer than 10 seconds of airtime. Gen. Clark, as usual, has been thoughtful, well-reasoned and informative on this subject. He did a lot of good work on the National Security doc, which is a very good start for the Dems this year in moving toward a united platform for change for this country.

However, the news media saw that National Security news conference and reported that Nancy Pelosi held her sign upside down and wasn't that funny and indicative of how unfocused Dems are. Sigh!

Kerry's plan is also one that is short and specific. The news media should be able to report it without their attention spans wandering after the requisite 10 second.

For a government, or the troops leave starting May 15th.
Government in Iraq gets formed, good, most troops leave Iraq by the end of THIS year.

[ProSense]

62. This is an excellent statement. n/t

[_dynamicdems]

64. This is a gauntlet and I hope the Repugs pick it up

He's calling them out. I love it!

First the filibuster, now this. He's pissed!

I remember when Senator Kerry called for a plan to withdraw from Iraq last year and nobody paid any attention. According to that plan, we would probably have been out of Iraq by now. Few of the benchmarks he called for have been pursued and the ones that have been attempted have been utter failures. The country IS in the midst of a civil war (no matter what Condi says)and we ARE building bases there that do have a RATHER PERMANENT look to them.

[Blaukraut]

74. The repugs don't have a choice

They have to respond to this, and anything short of agreeing on a set timetable for withdrawal, (calculated in weeks, not months or years) will cost them votes in November. This is sweet!

[karynnj]

81. kick

[Noisy Democrat]

83. The Repubs won't have a choice if we don't give them one

We haveto push this plan in LTE's and send it to our congresspeople and demand the Dems unite behind it.

[Sensitivity]

87. 100% agreed

[liberalpragmatist]

85. Excellent

Unfortunately too many people, both in the punditocracy and in the media and also in the blogosphere, are going to completely ignore the substance of the critique and simply use it to rip on Kerry. The blogosphere will do that and the pundits will ignore the message and keep asking "why'd he flip-flop" and "is he running for President again?"

How unfortunate that this man is not the president right now. Or, for that matter, Al Gore.

[Greeby]

90. Well, it's about time this guy showed up

Wheres he been all those years?

[karynnj]

93. He's been there

-exposing Contra-drug running
-exposing BCCI
-being the most eloquent Senator against the first Gulf war which started all of this
-and even speaking out before going into this war and then offering plan that would get us out leving a stabalized Iraq

[confludemocrat]

116. I think I'm gonna barf

is that all ya got? Point well made at the head of this string.

[karynnj]

130. No, a list of Kerry actions would be quite long

that merit inclusion would be quite long - these are a few of the most relevant to your querry.

Even with this list, name one potential leader who has more actions that could qualify as profiles in courage than this does. Each of them and his Vietnam protests could easily have ended his career. So, give me your list of current American leaders that compare.

[confludemocrat]

117. He died long ago. This is a shadow of that person. n/t

[Mass]

95. Good editorial - I am happy that he is formalizing in the MSM what

I heard him say a couple of times already this month on different radio interviews. Great to hear.

[ProSense]

96. John Kerry Sets a Deadline to Withdraw

John Kerry Sets a Deadline to Withdraw

Submitted by MikeHersh on Wed, 2006-04-05 07:00. Congress | Iraq War
Democracy Cell Project April 4, 2006

In Wednesday's New York Times, Sen. John Kerry issues a call for ending the war in Iraq: if the Iraqis cannot form a government by May 15th, Kerry wants to withdraw U.S. troops immediately. And if they beat this May 15th deadline, Kerry wants the new government to accept the withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops by the end of 2006.

Kerry's proposal overlaps Rep. John Murtha's previous withdrawal proposal, but Kerry goes one better than Murtha by setting specific dates and conditions. Read more and comment at the Democracy Cell Project blog

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/9957

[Mass]

99. It is NOT about whether Kerry or Clark did it first. This is perfectly

irrelevant.

This issue is too serious to become a pre-primary quarrel. We have to welcome everybody who wants to move out of Iraq. It is a step in the right direction.

Whoever does not understand that has a serious problem.

[Tom Rinaldo]

100. Correct. Out of Iraq with a sensible plan is the bottom line. n/t

[BootinUp]

101. point taken but who are you talking to?

I think Clark would view this as moving in the right direction as long as Democrats stick together. We are stronger working together. Kerry stood with Democrats last week on the new strategy for security. Obviously he reaizes we need to stick together too. The May 15 date is not out of line with the party position last week, which is that our party says that the pressure must be increased on the Iraqis to form a government.

[Le Taz Hot]

102. Call me cynical

and yes I am but why am I flashing on "Peace is at hand?" My stomach just turned.

[npincus]

104. I just read this... a GREAT plan: Dems this is IT.

Unify and repeat this plan like a mantra.

[flpoljunkie]

106. Anyone heard of any response from the Dem leadership to Kerry's plan?

[npincus]

107. staying tuned and will post!

but I think it may take some time to get it together behind-the-scenes.

[Sensitivity]

108. Time to start banging heads: We need to campaign with a real Iraq plan

[flpoljunkie]

113. Are they choosing to ignore it knowing the media will not push JK op-ed?

Or do you know some Dem arm--perhaps Dean through the DNC--are putting together a statement? Care to elucidate?

[flpoljunkie]

125. Any word yet on Democratic response?

[bush_out_the_door]

110. I think this is a great plan

Where was this decisive Kerry in 2004?!

[blm]

118. Iraq hadn't had even 1 election then - they have now had 2 and the windows

of opportunity for any political success for the US closed after the last December election went by with NO significant withdrawal or show of good faith by Bush.

[JPZenger]

111. Targeting Guys Baking Bread

There was a disturbing report on NPR yesterday evening. Guys working in bakeries who are just baking bread in Baghdad are being targeted for murder. It is part of an attempt to disrupt everyone's lives.

Over 1,000 Iraqis were murdered last month in sectarian attacks.

[janetle]

112. We need to make a big deal out of this!

I am getting so sick of the MSM and the repubs saying the Dems have no plan. It is repeated over and over everywhere and snickered about by Chris Matthews. John Kerry spoke about this six months ago and now he is following up and this needs to be rubbed into everyone's faces.

We know what we are doing; we have smart ideas; and this is an intelligent plan. In addition, we have to clean up their deadly mess.

[flpoljunkie]

114. Is this being mentioned at all by the cable news networks today? After

all, it is their pattern to ignore anything that John Kerry says--altho the shameless corporate whotes are always keen to put out the Rethug talking points.

[confludemocrat]

115. JK admits Iraq in civil war, so why are we still there? More claptrap

out of both sides of his patrician, conventional wisdom spewing mouth. He needs to hold a press conference and take questions because maybe that will help him clarify his fuzzy stuff.

[ProSense]

119. That's such BS. What part of this article do YOU not understand? n/t

[confludemocrat]

120. summer's approaching: time for flip flops & expensive ones at that n/t

[ProSense]

121. Cynicism, BS and Bush are worth about $9 trillion and endless carnage n/t

[blm]

123. Can you post the Gary Hart comments?

.

[madame defarge]

131. Hart's comments on Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/leadership-on-iraq_b_18503.html

Leadership on Iraq
John Kerry has drawn a line in the sands of Iraq and has forcefully and specifically laid down a marker for the administration, the Democratic party, and the nation.

No other public official to date has had the courage to face the truth, that Iraqi democracy is now, finally, up to the Iraqi people, not the United States.
--snip--
For those of us who never accepted the Bush administration's justification of the war, and did not accept the default argument that we were in the evil-dictator-removal business, Senator Kerry has offered a voice of opposition and a carefully constructed plan for returning the responsibility for Iraqi governance to the Iraqi people and their political leaders.

This is a very welcome development for American foreign policy and prestige in the new world of the 21st century.

[confludemocrat]

133. "Wheres the beef"on JKs plan?-Hart just lauds it like a cheerleader

w/no additional cogent forceful "beef" of argument behind it and the discussion that follows is not supportive of Kerry except a few say "great plan!". Its DOA.
Here's a good comment from there:

"Oh bullshit. John Kerry is a God dambned coward that has ignored every hot bed issue that has come down the pike, starting with the election FRAUD that occurred in Ohio. He completely IGNORED Rep. John Conyers' efforts to get to the bottom of the fraud, and scurried out of country when Conyers held hearings. The mewling ass refused to support a filibuster of Alito, until it was TOO LATE, and he has completely ignored Feingold's call for censure.

Screw Kerry. The LAST THING this nation needs is another asslicking political opportunist making gravy out of the deaths of our soldiers. The asshole will say ANYTHING, as long as it is politically opportune. Just like this bastard Bush and his satanical handlers."

[blm]

122. There is nothing fuzzy about it - and never has been - corporate media

dictates that are promoted by posts like yours do not hold up under scrutiny.

[karynnj]

129. I understand JK very easily - you are extremely fuzzy to me

I honestly don't know what you don't understand. Kerry's plan is written very logicly and is quite easy to understand. He was on both Franken and on Randi Rhodes discussing this - they understood as well. Do you always have these problems understanding plans. I agree he has a habit of spewing wisdom, but I think it's actually a very good habit to have. As to conventional - I really don't see many others suggesting this - even in less articulate clear articles.

[ProSense]

124. Article on Yahoo

US should set two deadlines leading to Iraq pullout: John Kerry

2 hours, 46 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States should set a May 15 deadline for Iraqis to form a unity government and then plan to withdraw its troops by year's end, Democratic Senator and former presidential candidate John Kerry said in commentary published in The New York Times.

"If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave," Kerry said.

Joining a growing chorus criticizing the US-led occupation of Iraq, Kerry said it was "immoral ... to engage in the same delusion" as in Vietnam, where half of the US casualties occurred "after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work."

Kerry described the current situation as "the third war in Iraq in as many years.

more...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060405/pl_afp/usiraqkerry_060405125515

[bdamomma]

126. Senator Kerry article

and Senator Feingold's response.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040506J.shtml

[onehandle]

128. Feingold and Kerry stand together on this. Good. nt

[IndianaGreen]

132. Here is the joint statement by Hillary and Bayh on Kerry's op-ed

chirp, chirp, chirp

[madame defarge]

127. Kerry on AAR's Al Franken today...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2552951

[ProSense]

134. Kerry calls for decisions in Iraq

Posted on Wed, Apr. 05, 2006

Kerry calls for decisions in Iraq

By JAMES KUHNHENN
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry called Wednesday for the Bush administration to tell Iraqi leaders to form a unity government by May 15 or face immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops.

Even if Iraq forms a government, Kerry calls for all U.S. combat troops out by year's end, with the remainder housed in garrisons where they would help train Iraqi soldiers, offer backup security and respond to emergencies.

Democratic leaders in Washington have long worried that taking a stand against the war or calling for early withdrawal would label them weak on national security. But Kerry, in an interview with Knight Ridder, said that the stand he's calling for is "tough" and necessary. The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee laid out his plan first in an opinion piece published Wednesday in The New York Times. He is scheduled to speak further about his proposal in a speech Thursday from the Senate floor.

“No young American should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians are screwing around unwilling to compromise,” Kerry said in the interview. “So you have to get tough. You have to give them a date. They have only responded to dates.”

“The only way now to get this thing on track, in my judgment, is to be tough and say, ‘Look our young soldiers are not going to lose their lives and our taxpayers aren’t going to pour billions of dollars so you guys can sit around every day and fight with each other.”

more...

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14271690.htm

[ProSense]

136. Bring the troops home.

Impeach Bush!