John Kerry on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Plans for a Regional Summit

[whometense]

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/release.html?id=49

Today, President Nouri al-Maliki called for a regional conference to discuss Iraq’s future and quell the sectarian violence that has torn the country apart. The current Department of Defense Authorization bill passed by Congress includes a Kerry amendment which calls on the President to work with Iraqi leaders to convene this type of summit. Kerry applauds this development in Iraq’s escalating civil war.

Kerry first suggested a regional conference two-and-a-half years ago, and formally proposed a Dayton-like summit in the Senate several times this year. The Senate passed Kerry’s amendment to the DoD Authorization bill calling for this summit on June 22, 2006, and the full Congress approved the measure on September 30, 2006.

As Kerry said on CNN last Sunday, “It will take a lot of groundwork. You'll have to lay the groundwork. You can't just suddenly call a summit. You have to put the pieces together. But the bottom line is, the surrounding countries, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Gulf states, Egypt, et cetera, are Sunni. They have an interest in not having an Iraq that comes apart. They have an interest in not having a regional civil war. They have an interest in not having Sunnis brothers and sisters murdered, killed in a genocide. So, those stakeholders have to be brought to the table.”

Below is Kerry’s statement on al-Maliki’s announcement:

“Prime Minister al-Maliki’s decision to call for a regional conference for Iraq is an extremely important development. It comes at a critical moment, as Robert Gates has just testified that we are not winning in Iraq. This long overdue diplomatic initiative can be an important first step in a change of course. It is essential to bring Iraq’s neighbors together with the international community to forge the sustainable political solution that we all agree is the only hope for ending the violence in Iraq. There’s no military solution in Iraq. The only answer is a diplomatic and political solution. We must now work with the Iraqi Prime Minister to make sure that this conference is as successful as possible, which will require a long overdue commitment to a sustained diplomacy from the highest levels of the Administration.”

[blm]

1. Glad that some in DC are talking like adults and supporting positive actions.

.

[Tellurian]

3. Yes, I read his statement , he is dropping his pursuit

of the Bush IranContra Scandal and all the other 'open the books' dialog he was about to set in motion.

At this point in time, it's not as relevant as the dismal future we're facing if this war isn't brought to
an amicable resolution and the troops brought home.

[blm]

4. Anyone with their wit together knows that oval office dictates what documents

can be seen once they've successfully been categorized national security. Kerry cannot make the full case publicly without those documents that make the case irrefutable.

He can entreat the American people to demand a more open government at a time when they will listen. And hopefully, that will be soon - as he has no reason to heed the upper echelon of the coverup wing of the Democratic party.

But it is easy for anyone to recognize that withdrawaing from Iraq is going to be priority number one for any concerned American who cares earnestly for peace and for the troops, as well.



http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[beachmom]

2. Good that they're going to do the regional conference Kerry

has called for, but I fear that it is too late to save Iraq. I firmly believe that Iraq would NOT be in as bad a place today had Kerry been elected president.

[David Zephyr]

5. Kick!

Thank goodness there is some sanity left.

[wisteria]

6. I still hold out a little hope that maybe Iraq can heal. This is first step.

If only Senator Kerry was President Kerry, things would not of gotten this out of hand, before something like this was done.
Senator Kerry is still the best man for the job.

[Olney Blue]

7. I remember Kerry talking about this in the debates- it was a great idea.

[SaveElmer]

8. Hillary Clinton has also proposed a summit...nt

[sandnsea]

9. In Dec 2003??

That's when he first proposed an ME envoy to deal with all the players in the region (even mentioned James Baker), along with a religious summit bringing together all the religious leaders. If Bill and Hillary had supported a change in direction back in 2003 & 2004, we might have had a different election. But nooooo, she had to play 'tough on defense' war hawk. Well fuck her playing politics with people's lives. Too late now that the entire country sees Iraq is a failure, that isn't leadership.

[SaveElmer]

10. Oh please...

The result we got in 2004 was because John Kerry ran a shitty campaign...

Could not defeat the most unpopular President to win reelection in American History!!!

[LittleClarkie]

11. Seems to me Bush's numbers were still decent as of 2004

and didn't start really going into the toilet until after.

Do you have the poll numbers to support what you say, re: most unpopular prez in histoy to win re-election?

And how many presidents have NOT won re-election when they were at war?

I take solace in the fact that we scared the fuck out of my local Repubs just before the election. They thought Kerry had the big mo.

[SaveElmer]

12. Links...

Look here...

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_historical_approval.htm ...since 1960


and here

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/12/21/unpopular/index.html


on edit: Took out a link as it was the wrong one...cut and paste problems!

[sandnsea]

14. Which has what to do with what??

The difference between 2004 and now is that the media stopped lying about the war - plain and simple.

[SaveElmer]

15. Shows what a hash John Kerry made of the campaign...

Sorry, he sucked...his response to Republican attacks were pathetic...and he let himself get defined by the Republicans and the media as a flip flopper...

By the time he got his legs under him (finally) it was too late...

[sandnsea]

16. Still doesn't make Hillary a leader n/t

[blm]

20. Couldn't be that Kerry outmatched Bush but RNC outmatched a lethargic DNC

and the RW message machine controlled 90% more broadcast time than the left media did?

Kerry OUTPERFORMED all expectations for any Dem in 2004, as the DNC gave up on both 2002 and 2004 on Sept.11, 2001.

[LittleClarkie]

17. Okay, fair enough. though I think part of the reason is that the Evangelicals propped him up

which is why I'm glad the youth vote came out and overpowered them this time.

But what about the second half of my comment, re: the war. I can't think of any wartime presidents who lost, can you?

And then there's the argument that he didn't actually lose (or that the Republicans felt threatened enough to suppress votes) If Kerry was such a tragic campaigner, I don't think they would have bothered, do you?

[SaveElmer]

18. Well certainly...

Democrats lost power in the midst of the Korean and VietNam Wars...

[LittleClarkie]

19. Ah yes. But I think it could be argued that this war was a bit different

and the point at which the election came was different. I believe Johnson's came after Tet, which shocked America when the Vietnamese showed they were nowhere near finished.

And as for Korea, there wasn't the same patriotism surrounding it, I think. In both wars, we were there for more ideological reasons. This war started off with the kind of patriotism I don't think we've seen since WWII.

It seems to me that our country took an inordinately long time to wake up and realize how dismal this war is. A few had figured it out in 2004, some Republicans even. But Bush was still able to capitalize on the 9/11 effect. I'd say it wasn't until after the Iraqi elections, which were supposed to bring a measure of stability but didn't, and the deteriorating conditions in Iraq, that people started to wake up on that front. If things had been so horrendously bad in 2004 as they were in 2006, Kerry would have won in the same way so many of our Dems won.

Of course, there's also the effect of watching what the Republicans did with the power they were given. Corruption. Rampant extremism (I'm thinking of Schiavo here). Katrina. Gas prices. God, I thought it would never happen, myself. I couldn't understand how my own countrymen could be so damn dumb.

Kerry could have been better. But the timing also sucked out loud. I can't see pinning the entire thing on Kerry's campaigning. He certainly started to look like a winner toward the end. I just wish it would have started before September.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

21. So Bill was publically supporting both Bushes for 4yrs to boost their popularity?

That must be the reason, since you claim Bush was so unpopular - he was popular enough to get VERY PUBLIC support from the last Dem president who publically sided with Bush2 on his most serius decisions like Tora Bora, Iraq invasion, Abu Ghraib, Rumsfeld's firing - all lines of attack by Kerry.

Interesting that when Clinton ran he was able to beat Bush1 because of the CONSTANT efforts by John Kerry for the 5 years before where he uncovered and exposed much of his crimes of office

Gee - Clinton could have returned the favor somehow, but chose instead to bolster the Bush family.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2867222