Challenge to potential '08 candidate supporters: articulate your candidate's Iraq position.

[lillilbigone]

For the sake of clarity, please limit your responses to 100 words or less.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

1. I can limit it to three

Dennis Kucinich: Get.Out.Now

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Beat me to it

I'd add: Department of Peace to explain further foreign policy.

[Infinite Hope]

95. This idea is good on paper, but the fact is it'll be used as a tool of

justification for administrations like Bush's. There's nothing a legitimate Peace Department can do that a legitimate administration can't already do in my opinion. And there's nothing a corrupt Peace Department can do that a corrupt administration can't already do. It's symbolic more than anything.

[lillilbigone]

7. No lack of clarity there....

[Sparkly]

70. What if we got out now, and the violence escalated instead of diminishing?

What if the political situation devolved, other countries got more involved, and the conflict spread regionally? What if we left the most vulnerable people unprotected against warlords, militias, and perhaps even "ethnic cleansing?" Is there a contingency plan for this?

[leftofthedial]

79. what if we left and those evil mooslims started murdering innocent kittens?

It could happen. What would be our contingency plan for that?

and what if we left and then realized we had left the car keys on the dresser in the Green Zone? It could happen. What would be our contingency plan?



the violence in Iraq WILL get worse, whether we stay or leave. We are part of the problem, not part of the solution. NOTHING we are doing now is reducing violence at all. We are training Shia as expensively as our outsourced military contractors can. All we are doing is ensuring that the inevitable bloodbath will be more brutal.

U.S. OUT NOW.

[lillilbigone]

91. The violence will escalate whether we get out or stay.

The difference is that if we stay, we will remain the perpetrators and victims of the violence.

[JohnLocke]

2. John Edwards.

http://oneamericacommittee.com/news/headlines/wp20051113/

[lillilbigone]

6. Are you really unable to articulate Edwards' position on Iraq?

[JohnLocke]

10. Umm....it's in the op-ed.

Read it.

[lillilbigone]

11. I am asking if YOU are able to articulate your candidate's position.

It seems the answer is no.

[JohnLocke]

13. You're being disingenuous here.

Please, read what Edwards actually wrote. If you don't want to read the whole thing, read this excerpt:

A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.
First, we need to remove the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.
We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year,* after the Iraqi elections, when a new government has been created, we should begin redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq. Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces.
That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better-trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country.
Second, this redeployment should work in concert with a more effective training program for Iraqi forces. We should implement a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met. To increase incentives, we should implement a schedule showing that, as we certify Iraqi troops as trained and equipped, a proportional number of U.S. troops will be withdrawn.
Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. The president needs to create a unified international front.
*This article was written on November 13, 2005.
----
If you disagree with some or all of these points, that's great. You're entitled. But don't disingenously imply that Edwards doesn't have a position. He does.

http://oneamericacommittee.com/news/headlines/wp20051113/

[lillilbigone]

16. Calling me a liar won't miraculously transform your link and quote into an answer to the challenge.

No doubt the piece Edwards wrote 13 months ago, that you quoted and linked to, is what he thought way back then... however, the challenge posed was for YOU, as a supporter, to succinctly articulate what YOU understand to be his CURRENT position.

[LittleClarkie]

19. I think he/she wants you to be able to cough it up in your own words

He/she isn't implying that Edwards doesn't have a position.

Consider it practice for the primaries. You're not going to hand folks that op-ed to read, are you?

Say you're canvassing, and someone at the door asks "what is Edwards position on Iraq". Are you handing her a position paper, or are you going to attempt to summarize his position in your own words.

If it is the latter, the OP is asking you to post those words here.

[lillilbigone]

20. Exactly.

Thank you.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. For Clark: Read This Kos Diary

I know this is cheating, but it's all I have time for at the moment, I'm heading out the door:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/7/18592/1665

[lillilbigone]

5. Are you really unable to articulate Clark's position on Iraq?

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Unfair slam

I take my writing seriously. If I am asked to choose my words carefully, I will. Right now I AM heading out the door, believe me or not. Anyone who goes to that Kos diary will find that I have articulated Clark's position on Iraq. You want Clif notes? You'll have to wait.

[lillilbigone]

9. I'm sorry that you are offended by the fact that you have not risen to the challenge.

Perhaps you are able to succinctly articulate Clark's Iraq position, but you certainly have not done so yet.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. I'm not offended by not rising to your challange

It's your game rules, not mine. What counts for me is having a good position, not whether it is a succinct one. You questioned whether I was able to articulate Clark's position above, not whether I could do so succinctly, that is why I responded as I did.

Edited to add. Brevity is advanced by limiting comments to 100 words. Brevity and clarity are not always the same thing.

[lillilbigone]

22. Please try to be more accurate.

You questioned whether I was able to articulate Clark's position above, not whether I could do so succinctly

Patently false. I said:

Challenge to potential '08 candidate supporters: articulate your candidate's Iraq position.

For the sake of clarity, please limit your responses to 100 words or less.

First: You have not articulated anything at all about Clark's Iraq position in this thread.

Second: Quibbling over whether asking for a response of 100 words or less is the same as asking for a succinct response is highly unlikely to win you any converts to Clark.

Third: What is Clark's position on Iraq?

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. You said: "Are you really unable to articulate Clark's position on Iraq?"

After I pointed you to where it was articualted, partially by me. I am referring to that comment of yours, not your OP. In your follow up question you asked if I was unable to articulate Clark's position, not whether I was not able to do it succinctly.

Look, in my initial post I plainly stated that I wasn't meeting your conditions and I even explained why. Frankly, I'm kind of surprised by your own combativeness on this thread. I would have expected you,as the thread host, to be slightly more gracious to someone who was trying to participate in the discussion that you invited people to participate in.

I would not have minded in the slightest if you said something to me such as: "Thank you for providing a link to information, but I am hoping to read short statements from each candiate's supporters. Hopefully you will find time to write one." That would have been a non combative response, not "Are you really unable to articulate Clark's position on Iraq?"

I don't consider it quibbling to point out that brevity and clarity are not always the same thing. I think living in a sound bite world has degraded real discussion of issues in this country. None the less, my response to your "challange" is below.

[The Magistrate]

96. You Are A Cool One, Mr. Rinaldo

My hat is off to you, Sir!

[beachmom]

12. John Kerry

1. Timetable for withdrawal of American troops -- IMPERATIVE to get Iraq government to take over. Kerry/Feingold set the date of 7/1/07. ISG set the date of first quarter of '08. The point is a date -- an exit strategy.

2. A regional conference of the Arab league, Iran, Syria, the EU, NATO, the U.N., the U.S., and all Iraqi factions to come to a diplomatic solution to the problems of the civil war in Iraq. We are talking MASSIVE diplomacy. There is no military solution in Iraq, only a political one.

3. The only troops that should remain in Iraq after the deadline will be those protecting American assets and training Iraqis, but they will NOT be embedded with the Iraqis. The military shall also remain in the region (perhaps in Kuwait) to fight al Qaeda and any potential training camps that they create.

[blm]

14. Kerry supported IWR as standard tool to force Saddam's cooperation. When weapons inspections

and diplomacy were proving force was not necessary, he urged Bush to let them continue and not rush to war. Bush violated the IWR, and Kerry did not back his invasion. Well into the war, Kerry supported adding troops to stabilize the region and its elections so UN and NATO could handle the transfer of power. After their third elections, with Iraq descending into civil war, Kerry drafted withdrawal plans dependent on and stressing official summits of all leaders of the region and insurgency groups, which he still stands by today.

[rox63]

15. Here's my summary...

of Kerry's position: Engage Iraq's neighbors in resolving sectarian violence. Give Iraqi government a firm timeline for withdrawl of US troops, keeping pressure on them to resolve differences. Start redeploying troops to border areas now, with goal of all US troops out within a year. Until US withdrawl is complete, emphasize training of Iraqi forces.

[lillilbigone]

18. No lack of clarity there, either.

[beachmom]

23. What are you driving at? Kerry's plan is very clear.

Our troops will be leaving. A TIMETABLE for withdrawal. The diplomacy is about preventing a total regional war.

[blm]

25. I believe that's what she said - there is NO LACK of clarity.

.

[beachmom]

65. Oops. Sorry I misread that. n/t

[ProSense]

17. Kerry

Set a deadline to withdraw U.S. troops and hand security over to the Iraqis, continue to provide training, convene a regional summit, engage the Kurds, Shia and Sunni to reach a political solution, including the equitable distribution of oil revenues, and continue to aid reconstruction efforts.

[NV1962]

24. I don't do 100 word summaries on issues that scream "intelligent and comprehensive policy"

I'm sorry to post here without any intent to even come close to ridiculing Wes Clark's position on Iraq - or anyone else's, for that matter. It's a flat-out insult to the intelligence of any serious candidate to drop to the level of TV ad sound-bite sized snippets, certainly on an issue that requires a helluva lot more thoughtfulness, insight and wisdom than might fit on the side of a cereal pack.

So, instead, I invite any seriously interested reader to take a look at the text of this exchange, where Wes Clark outlines the key issues to be addressed so as to avoid that Iraq collapses into an international disaster that was "Made in the USA" by the farting and belching Coors and corndogs crowds endorsing Bush no less than twice.

If one needs 100 words or less per candidate's "Iraq position" -- and again, there are quite a few serious potential contenders for 2008 who articulated a decent view on the situation on Iraq -- just so as to have a nice rubber stamped scrapbook with prefab glitters and poems from some political version of Michael's, you really shouldn't bother with politics, less so trying to discern differences in approach and philosophy.

Like civil rights, intellectual liberty is much more of a challenge to each one of us, than it is a freebie ride to coast to some complacent collecting of Kodak moments.

There's a damn good reason that homework is supposed to be done by the student, not the teacher.

Good luck collecting the other might-be candidates' thoughts on Iraq.

(Not bad: 263 words for a rebuttal, not counting this line)

[lillilbigone]

26. good luck canvassing for your candidate if you can't state his position.

The Kucinich and Kerry people didn't have a problem with it. Still waiting for everyone else.

[NV1962]

28. I don't like your snide and snotty comebacks here - especially when an appeal to your brain is made.

You're the one imposing a ridiculous "100 words or less" criterium; I reject that limit.

Whatever or whomever it is that you're looking for, you won't find it in "100 words or less".

Neither Kerry's, Kucinich's, Edwards', Barack's, Clinton's, Vilsack's, or any other campaign would be satisfied with such a ridiculous parody of their position.

I don't and won't disgrace Clark just to placate your own laziness.

Do your own work, if you want to extricate yourself from the cut-and-dried side-by-side comparison boxes that CNN et al "educate" the people with.

Or, at the very least, don't insult the readers' intelligence.

[lillilbigone]

33. Ok. Now everyone knows how you feel about me.

Thanks for elevating the discourse. :eyes:

[Le Taz Hot]

67. So don't play.

Carry on.

:popcorn:

[NV1962]

100. That's exactly what W is banking on:

Throw out some brain-dead one-liner nonsense to "deal" with substantial issues.

It's somewhat dismaying that the one-liner attraction works its miracles among the left as well, but that is no excuse to address it.

Not playing is not an option. :)

[Catchawave]

27. John Edwards

Withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 troops immediately while shifting more responsiblity to the Iraqi authorities.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Wes Clark's Iraq position and my thoughts on it......

won't be doing a word count though. :)

Clark believes that we can only negotiate ourselves out of the Pandora's Box opened by Bush and those who supported this idiotic war, and/or voted for it....but that we can not win this militarily. He believes that the approach is to arrive at two goals by setting up a regional diplomatic and political dialogue to negotiate our troops coming out in a systematic order and negotiating a settlement of sorts in reference to the civil war which is already becoming a regional war. He believes however, that we will only be given a seat at the table of negotiation if we bring our tool kit of incentives and leverage with us (carrots and sticks), 1). Pulling our troops out of Iraq,–stick 2). Foregoing U.S. Economic interest and permanent bases-carrots.

Clark has said that pre-announcing Timetables (prior to any negotiations) should not be the method used of extracting ourselves out of Iraq, because at this point Iraq is about much more than the safety of our volunteer troops; it is about Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and yes, Israel and China and the lives of many in the Middle East. Clark understands negotiations, and he believes that if we don't have anything to offer, then we are not in a position to negotiate anything...including peace. If we are to sit at the table when we’ve already shown our hand, who's gonna listen to what we have to say and place any importance on it? It is my hope that all potential candidates want a peaceful resolution to not only end our presence in Iraq, but to try and extinguish the distabling effect it is having on the region, e.g., the civil war heating up over there as we speak--

---
My thoughts on Clark's proposal and the proposal of others:

How can we negotiate for peace without any leverage? And aren't all wars ended via a settlement for some kind of peace?
Clark answers these specific questions with his proposal that remains unanswered by those who propose a soundbyte as a plan or those putting the cart before the horse for political consumption sake.

The prediction as to what will happen in Iraq when we leave (if there is no peace settlement, which there could be if we wanted it) is glossed over by those who just want to get out. They are out there optimistically predicting a "cakewalk" scenario out of Iraq for the U.S., and IMO could be proven just as deadly wrong as those who optimistically advocated that it would be a "cakewalk" going in. Others are simply shrugging their shoulders and reminding us that they didn't support this to begin with, so why should they worry. Others still firmly believe that it can't get any worse (yeah...right) without really providing any real proof for this assertion beyond a confident air. However, the more balanced professional experts are approaching it quite in a different way via rational methodology of looking at facts on the ground with a full understanding of the political/theological terrain and the history of that part of the region. Just as Wes Clark predicted what would happen if we went into Iraq in the first place, the prescience of those "in the know" is not a gamble with long odds, and most of them ain't seen better things to come, in particular if we rush out and don't look back.

Look.....I love our troops, but not at the expense of hundreds of thousands more than required Iraqis dying just to satisfy the voters back home, many who said OK once upon a time, and now are saying..."let's get out of Dodge".

Wes Clark likened the invasion into Iraq as opening Pandora's Box back in the summer of 2002 and since for very good reason. Looking at the Pandora's Box story......closing the lid and running away didn't quite do the trick. Pandora's Box can't be solved with a easy magic answer, but it is as though many really don't even give a damn! Is the point to make sure everyone knows that Bush was wrong? 'Cause me, I knew it from day one. I still don't wish for even greater carnage to ensue just so that we can say it over and over again: Bush was wrong.

Genocide is ugly and hard to watch once it starts (cause we would be in no position to stop it, that's for sure), so why should our volunteer troops' lives be all that matters to those “Out Now” advocates? Are their moral conscience only linked to American Lives and being right that we shouldn’t have gone to begin with? So what are these many advocates’ plan A/B/C in preparations for the various bad to worse scenarios of the predicted “what ifs”? Do they have any or do they just not care? Who becomes responsible when Saudi Arabia and Iran have it out via proxy right there in Iraq? Who loses? I say the Iraqis who are innocent in all of this, the stability of that entire region and the hope for a peaceful settlement between Israel and the Palistinians (whatever we lose, we didn’t earn, so that is not my concern).

As someone who didn't see an imminent threat from Iraq in the first place, Clark certainly has the right to advocate his expert judgement as to what could realistically work under the circumstances, and not advocate for "pie in the sky ain't gonna happen" Plan. At the same time, I am sure that Wes Clark also understands that he ain't winning brownie points with the primary Democratic voters here at home by actually concerning himself about more than just the immediate now of it all and/or giving voters what they want to hear. But based on what I have researched of Clark's career, that's not in him to advocate a particular approach for the pandering aspect of it as opposed to the desired effectiveness of it...and so I know that Wes Clark believes that what he is suggesting would work, and I believe he feels it is the best option for all concerned considering. I tend to agree with his tact.

Whether Bush listens to Clark or others or not, he is still making a decision and, therefore, I still find it appropriate for Wes Clark as well as others to provide just that without any demerits appearing on their record for not having been PC (to one extreme or the other). Once Bush has made up his mind, it will be all moot anyways, unless we stop the funding of this war. Only Kucinich, is advocating this, and it just ain’t gonna happen.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. Clark's bottom line; Attempt to prevent a wider war.

Our invasion destabilized entire region, not just Iraq. No military solutions now, answers must be political. U.S. must renounce permanent Iraq bases, and acknowledge Iraq's Oil revenues belong to Iraq's people. Emphasize diplomacy involving all nations with important regional interests. No additional U.S. troops in Iraq, establish timelines for the witdrawal of current U.S. troops during regional negotiations that include nations U.S. may have issues with, including Iran. Recognize all parties have legitimate national interests that must be acknowledged. The crisis inside Iraq isn't in a vacuum sepereate from other Middle East conflicts. The road to Baghdad runs through Jerusalem.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Hell....you done good!

Sounds right to me.

[lillilbigone]

32. Are you saying that Clark believes troops should stay in Iraq until after negotiations with Iran?

Considering how successful the West has been in negotiating with Iran in the past, I don't see how this is different from an open-ended commitment to leave troops in Iraq. What if the negotiations fail? Should the troops stay indefinitely in that case?

[NV1962]

36. If you read the longer article you wouldn't have trouble devining the nuances of 100 words or less

I thought you were only interested in summaries? How can you expect any serious exchange following your insistence on a kindergarten versions of Iraq policy?

Here, have some Coors! :toast:

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. First explain to me why you have no questions for "Get. Out. Now."

I detect a double standard here. Considering that George W. Bush still is in office and shows no idication of ordering our troops home now, I don't see how that is much different than chanting "Make love, not war". Should our troops mutiny and seize the ships and planes needed to leave Iraq in if Bush doesn't agree to withdraw them all now? I know I am being sarcastic here, and that an intelligent discussion of a "Get. Out. Now" position can be had, but it wasn't held on this thread. You unquestionably accepted something that no one in this nation knows how to actually make happen as a "plan", and then went to work trying to poke holes in my reply for Clark.

You were the one who set this up as a hundred word contest. I was the one who pointed out the limitation of that. Want real answers to the questions you are asking now? Go to the kos diary I linked to above, that's where a thorough discussion took place. I don't get a good feeling about your impartiality on this thread.

[NV1962]

39. Tisk tisk Tom - that's 186 words!

;)

[lillilbigone]

40. Because that really is Kucinich's position and the poster stated it quite clearly.

On the other hand, I'm still not clear about what Clark's position is, in spite of what I assume are your best efforts to explain it. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are willing to engage in a respectful discussion. You said that part of his position is to:

establish timelines for the witdrawal of current U.S. troops during regional negotiations that include nations U.S. may have issues with, including Iran.

In followup, I asked if you are saying that Clark believes troops should stay in Iraq until after negotiations with Iran. I don't understand why this is a question you are reluctant to answer. Presumably you understand Clark's position - so I'm asking you: does Clark believe troops should stay in Iraq until after negotiations with Iran? What if the negotiations fail? Do the troops stay in Iraq indefinitely then?

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Saying "negotiate troop withdrawals in the context of regional diplomacy"

is just as concrete a postion as "Get. Out. Now." It presumes a possibility of success, but so does "Get Out Now". This isn't a purely intellectual exercise. Reality isn't that simple. If "plan A" doesn't work you either move to "Plan B" or suffer the consequences of failure.

So Kucinich's plan A is to withdraw from Iraq now. Fine. So here are my questions for you then: What if that plan is unrealistic, as defined by impossible to actually achieve? What do we do then? Say it's not my problem, I had the right answer, too bad nobody listened to me?

And if you don't like that line of reasoning, and think speculation of what might go wrong with a plan is fair game, try this. What would Kucinich do then if after pulling our troops out of Iraq, Iran seeks to dramatically expand it's sphere of influence in Iraq further and Saudi Arabia then funds a Sunni insurgency in response, and Iran then gets Syria to re-supply Hezzbullah to attack Israel to undercut support for the Sunni Arab States who were opposing Iran? What if Israel over reacts and attacks Syria? What if that spurs furious anger and recruiment drives in Iraq to form militias to cross into Jordon on their way to attack Israel? What if what if what if?

The fact that Plan A might fail is not always a good enough reason to not even try to advance Plan A, can we agree on that at least? Knowing Wes Clark, and his West Point training and real world experience, he always develops fall back positions; plans "B" "C" and "D" depending on how the contengencies actually play out. But in the real world it is not always such a good idea to tell everyone in advance what you might settle for if you can't really get what you want.

Clark says we should negotitate with Iran (along with other nations) in good faith, true. Kucinich says the United States should pull our troops out of Iraq now, also true. Clark does not have the power to make sure that the United States and Iran negotiate in good faith, and Kucinich does not have the power to make sure the United States withdraws all of our troops from Iraq now. Obviously Kucinich and Clark see the risks involved with a rapid total pullout from Iraq differently, that's no secret. If that were not the case of course Clark would be calling for an immediate pull out also, since he thought it was a mistake to invade Iraq in the first place and he always warned that it would super charge Al Quada recruitment, and it has.

Clark is recommending what he believes is the best overall "Plan A" under the circumstances and I will grant that Kucinich is doing the same. Clark never said that his "Plan B" is to keep troops in Iraq indefinately if negotiations fail, nor has Kucinich caled on America's military to mutiny, as his "Plan B", if the Commander in Chief does not soon give an order for a total U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

[lillilbigone]

44. A secret plan to end the war? Surely that's not what you are saying?

Knowing Wes Clark, and his West Point training and real world experience, he always develops fall back positions; plans "B" "C" and "D" depending on how the contengencies actually play out. But in the real world it is not always such a good idea to tell everyone in advance what you might settle for if you can't really get what you want.

So Clark has a plan beyond hoping for Iran's help, but he won't tell the voters what it is?

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Last try.

First, you are the one who boiled down Clark's plan to "hoping for Iran's help". Why am I not surprised by your need to oversimplify? I concede that "hoping for Iran's help" can be said with four words, and that the sentance is clear, though wildly misleading in it's over simplicity.

Second. You haven't answered any of my questions to you thoroughly, it gets annoying to come onto your thread for seemingly the sole purpose of getting grilled by you in a one way only exchange.

Third. Are you really so naive as to not have any understanding whatsoever of the concept of and need for contengency planning? If what you are looking for is a President who is so absolutely confident that their first plan can not conceivably fail, under any circumstances, that they refuse to even consider any other possible outcome, than take a look in the White House now, I think you'll find him there.

Fourth. Clark has a plan and he's talked freely and openly about his plan. He's written Op-Eds, he's gone on the radio, he's been interviewed by newspapers. There is nothing secret about Clark's plan for Christ's sake. If you are already all bent out of shape about a plan that can't be wrapped up simply in 100 words, I can't imagine how you would react to anyone trying to present "a plan" that laid out in advance, step by step, how every possible variation for the results of taking each step in the initial plan would play out in the next updated scenario. The hypothetical scenarios we can dream up to talk about here are all two dimensional, we will never nail down all of the real variables in play, and how they might interact with each other. That is why human beings make command decisions in our government rather than the computer on Star Ship Enterprise.

I'll tell you one thing, if Denis Kucinich is ever elected President I promis you he will not make the Presidency into a reality TV broadcast with a live 24 hour internet feed for all of his private deliberations, to be broadcast not only to the American voters, but to public and private citizens in Russia, China, Syria, Iran, India and Pakistan also.

[lillilbigone]

49. re:

You haven't answered any of my questions to you thoroughly, it gets annoying to come onto your thread for seemingly the sole purpose of getting grilled by you in a one way only exchange.

Your questions to me? Do you mean this? :

What would Kucinich do then if after pulling our troops out of Iraq, Iran seeks to dramatically expand it's sphere of influence in Iraq further and Saudi Arabia then funds a Sunni insurgency in response, and Iran then gets Syria to re-supply Hezzbullah to attack Israel to undercut support for the Sunni Arab States who were opposing Iran? What if Israel over reacts and attacks Syria? What if that spurs furious anger and recruiment drives in Iraq to form militias to cross into Jordon on their way to attack Israel? What if what if what if?

Well, first of all, you appear to be casting me in the role of a supporter of Dennis Kucinich's candidacy for President: I am not. Neither do I pretend to understand the finer nuances (if they exist) of his foreign policy positions. However, I'm not running for anything, so I don't mind answering hypothetical questions about what I imagine his responses would be, no matter how wrong I might be: I don't think Kucinich would respond in any way other than diplomatically, to any of the hypotheticals you posed. However, I think these questions would be better directed at an actual supporter of his candidacy.

Third. Are you really so naive as to not have any understanding whatsoever of the concept of and need for contengency planning?

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I am not denying the concept or need for contingency planing. On the contrary I am asking what the contingency plan is - and I consider the question critically important because what you describe as a 'contingency' -- failure of regional negotiations to achieve Clark's goals* -- I consider the most likely outcome.

Fourth. Clark has a plan and he's talked freely and openly about his plan. He's written Op-Eds, he's gone on the radio, he's been interviewed by newspapers. There is nothing secret about Clark's plan for Christ's sake. If you are already all bent out of shape about a plan that can't be wrapped up simply in 100 words, I can't imagine how you would react to anyone trying to present "a plan" that laid out in advance, step by step, how every possible variation for the results of taking each step in the initial plan would play out in the next updated scenario. The hypothetical scenarios we can dream up to talk about here are all two dimensional, we will never nail down all of the real variables in play, and how they might interact with each other. That is why human beings make command decisions in our government rather than the computer on Star Ship Enterprise.

I can only say that your characterization of questions like: "Are you saying that Clark believes troops should stay in Iraq until after negotiations with Iran? What if the negotiations fail? Should the troops stay indefinitely in that case?", or restated, "how long do our troops stay in Iraq while we wait for diplomacy to achieve our goals?" or "What conditions need to be met before beginning to withdraw troops?" as in the category of "how every possible variation for the results of taking each step in the initial plan would play out" seems to me to be off-base. I'm asking simple, basic policy questions --- admittedly, informed by my view, which I think most Americans share, that we need to get our troops out of Iraq, and that having them in Iraq is hurting, rather than helping the situation.


*(btw, what are the goals? What are the specific conditions that Clark hopes will arise from these negotiations, in order to allow the beginning of troop withdrawal?)

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. Re: Re:

Clark and Iraq
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/7/18592/1665

I'm getting off this merry go round where I got on. If you want a detailed discussion, that's where it is.

[lillilbigone]

76. Clark's own words on Iraq: "Withdrawal? A bad idea."

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20061121/oplede15.art.htm

Clark communicates well: he explains his own policies quite clearly in this recent Op-Ed.

His own words: "Withdrawal? A bad idea."

No spin needed.

[FrenchieCat]

80. No spin is needed , but context is everything!

It would have been better if you would have asked for only 4 words from the get-go....but as it were, you asked for 100.

Clark goes on a couple of lines down from where you cite....."Instead of cutting and running or staying the course, it is time for us to begin to redeploy.

General Clark has a unique perspective among prospective candidates. He acted as the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and played a major role in negotiating the Dayton Peace Accords that helped prevent the Kosovo War, the bloodiest European conflict since World War II, from spiraling into full-scale genocide.
General Clark specifically warned against the idea of a timeline for troop withdrawal, because it would mean a loss of American leverage in fostering a potential political solution. He added that without a political process, “the discussion about troop levels is sort of missing the point.”
http://www.observer.com/20061218/20061218_Jason_Horowitz_pageone_newsstory1.asp

"You cannot solve Iraq in isolation. You cannot solve it as a military problem. The White House has always preferred this solution as a military problem, because it meant that if you question their judgment, they could say you were questioning the troops. I think it's clear we're not questioning the troops. We got great soldiers, great leaders over there. This is a problem of national strategy, and the White House strategy's been wrong. Got to look at the Middle East as a region. Got interconnected problems - Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Israel-Palestinians, Iran's nuclear aspirations and the problem of Al Qaeda - Six interrelated problems in that region. They're not solvable in isolation." - Wes Clark 11/30/06
http://securingamerica.com/node/1998


As this is a free country, you can certainly boil Wes Clark's position to the 4 words that you have chosen as his soundbyte if you want to and especially if it allows you to sleep better at night. :shrug:

[lillilbigone]

82. Which is exactly why people should read Clark's plan for indefinite occupation for themselves.

Here it is: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20061121/oplede15.art.htm

[FrenchieCat]

84. Again, you can call it what you'd like if it makes you feel smugger......

unfortunately for you, the soundbyters don't populate this forum as much as you'd have hoped.

Indefinite occupation is not part of Clark's policy approach although you would wish it to be....in order to make some politician look the better for it. Cheapening the discourse cause you can has never been a solution solver, last I checked.

[NV1962]

47. You're staking a possible failure of negotiation on Iran - a perilous assumption

Iran wants Iraq to collapse into al Q'aidaland about as much as they want Israel to get involved in that mess.

The fundamental problem in Iraq is that there are several groups, each with their (up to a point) understandable aspirations and agendas: the minority Sunni, who under Saddam were in a relatively comfortable position and are reluctant to give that up now; the majority Shiia, who under Saddam were kept firmly in their place -- and let's not forget: shortly after the so-called Persian Gulf War, they felt they were left completely to their own devices when their revolt in the South was brutally crushed by Saddam -- and then of course there are the Kurds in the North, who just as much aspire to their own turf (and their own oil resources to exploit, as a source of national income). And to this mix you have to add the remnants of the Baathist corpus, with a much misunderstood desire to create a secular "local version" of socialism and Arabic nationalism, which Saddam seized and controlled with his coup way back when, but now feel there's a new "opportunity" for establishing a non-theocratic alternative; then, there's the opposite "team" that pursues the exact opposite, namely a fundamentalist-theocratic state, aided and abetted by the al Q'aida agitprop. And to top it off, there's also a host of "nationalists" who simply object to any Western presence. But aside from the three ethnic groups, and perhaps the few Baathist leftovers, all those latter groups are "imported" by the US' invasion and occupation.

"Get out now" is about as useful (or rather, disastrous) a proposition as the invasion and subsequent ill-conceived (and worse prepared) occupation itself was and is, as it would create an enormous vacuum that not even Iran could fill - if at all it aspires to "run" Iraq by proxy, thereby inheriting the current US troubles there.

Unfortunately, there's no alternative to a continued deployment while (and this is an important connector: while) working to forge a durable coalition among today's foes.

Iran wants a stable Iraq as much as the US wants. Naturally, Iran wants also assurances that the specter of their past horrendously bloody war with their neighbors belongs in the permanent past tense; as far as I can tell from the calculated ambiguous statements from al Sadr and his entourage, as well as from others close to the Iranian government, they see a "Syrian-Lebanese" control by proxy solution only as a last resort, as they full well realize that the Sunni population isn't going to abide by a Shiia dictated state.

So, the negotiations will, by necessity, involve Iraqi Shiia, Sunnis, Kurds, Iran, and yes: Turkey (so as to make a more or less autonomous Kurdistan in Iraq possible to begin with), not to mention the others indirectly involved in the region, with very high commercial stakes. It's damn conveniently easy to forget, for example, Russia who had billions outstanding, along with others, like France and to a lesser extent Germany. That's a bunch of mines to avoid in the minefield of negotiations; certainly, Iran is not the only (nor "the key") to success there. What makes the stakes higher, is that none of these mentioned groups can be excluded from or spurned by a negotiated solution, if a lasting stable Iraq is to be. Focusing on Iran is, therefore, very counterproductive - as is the opposite of that, as practiced by the Bush regime, namely excluding them.

Preemptively pinning a (sadly) very possible failure of negotiations over and for Iraq on Iran, certainly when done in the context of seeking justification for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, is not just a self-fulfilling promise (in the sense of an utter failure and ultimate very bloody collapse of Iraq with incalculable consequences for the entire Middle East and even the West) but an exercise in ostrich politics.

"Get out now" is, as far as I'm concerned, as culpable of bloody indifference as the Bush administration's policy in prosecuting the invasion and occupation itself. Sadly, the warnings against the invasion and occupation -- ranging from Colin Powell, although behind closed doors, and much more openly from Wes Clark -- have not avoided an enormously costly legacy of the Bush regime, that stretches well over several future administrations and the people of the US footing the bill; to walk away from that, in a fairly rapid pull-out without a credibly firm large accord among the key players there, is not only indifferent, but criminally culpable of fomenting a civil war which won't last before it escalates into a regional conflagration that affects the entire world. For example, once the Saudis feel that the Sunni are cornered in, they have already announced that they'll jump in. With them, and almost automatically the Iranians tied in, that would put an almost certain catastrophic strangle hold on oil production, to which China will respond, hard-pressed for resources as that vast booming giant already is. It's not difficult to predict the enormous scale of problems that spin off Iraq when it spirals out of control into an utterly "Lebanized" field of horrors, or worse: like Chechnya is.

I am convinced that "get out now" is what unconcerned, uninformed NIMBY minds would prefer. Just as the Sudan disaster is conveniently "buried" by the ongoing Iraq obsessions, yet the Sudan issue is also tied into the wasp nest of reigning in and balancing theocratic and democratic aspirations across deeply seated ethnic hatred.

The mere idea that somehow, magically the waves of horrendous violence and terrorism will stop once the US (and British and Australian) troops pull out, is not just plain surreal: it's an invitation to a massacre that will haunt us all for many generations.

Reality is a damn stubborn and not easily summarized thing to fit into 100 words.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Who do you think you are? This response is wayyyyy too

sophisticated and long for a bumper sticker! You'll confuse someone with information. Wouldn't want that! :sarcasm:

[NV1962]

51. Well, I haven't actually addressed the position of Clark (or others) but...

...since I mentioned "get out now": I don't really believe that Dennis Kucinich is totally committed to an immediate withdrawal without at least a semblance of a lasting grand accord in place to deal with the aftermath.

I don't question his ambition to withdraw as soon as possible - far from that, I think that's what he really wants. But I have seen and heard and read enough by Rep. Kucinich to know that he's anything but a dolt, and certainly not an unconcerned NIMBY guy. Instead, I think he just wants to set a "political benchmark"; by staking a claim on "get out now" he lights the fire under the usual DC suspects' arses to move on toward a sustainable solution ASAP.

I believe that if you'd sit down Wes Clark and Dennis Kucinich together to discuss Iraq and the way out of there, you might actually find a lot of agreement on the roadmap for Iraq, as well as the framework of conditions to be fulfilled so that it actually works.

So, and as far as I'm concerned, the snazzy "Get. Out. Now." verbiage attributed to Kucinich is really shorthand for what you might hear from Kucinish, e.g. "let's do the right things - but let's do it ASAP" while Clark might be described as saying "let's change course ASAP - but by doing the right things".

A matter of accent, not necessarily substance.

[Sparkly]

54. How'd you come up with that?!?

Seems to me you're working at this, and quite creatively. :eyes:

[jefferson_dem]

56. "Get. Out. Now." is a pithy bumper stickerism but nowhere near a sound policy position.

The stakes are far too high, the situation far too complex, to be so narrow-minded and dogmatic.

[FrenchieCat]

43. If this is your educated conclusion, and it will help you

Manage the different players into a neat little row of boxes, go for it...and Good luck to you.....

However, I will point out that we did negotiate with Iran....how you think we got our hostages out of there? In reference to Iran-Contra, what was that about? Do you remember?

Negotiation is the art of the possible. All parties gets some of what they want. For you to consider this as an impossibility and therefore morph wanting to negotiate with wanting our troops to remain is pretty sinister.

Bottomline is when one who poses for a liberal doesn't want to even entertain the thought of diplomacy because that doesn't help their case, that's a shitty way to frame an argument and reveals your agenda more than you may be aware.

[IA_Seth]

72. So what exactly do you want?

Do you want 100 words or less, or do you want to actually know what their full position is?

You don't question "get out now" but you can question an actual realistic policy? You are out of your mind if you think it is as easy as get out now.

[FrenchieCat]

81. lillibigone has determined that he only needed 4 words on Clark's position....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3016314&mesg_id=3017641

However in my response I made it clear that this was moving the original goal post.

[Cameron27]

34. Very nice Tom.

113 words; I wonder if it will meet the approval of the host of this thread.:eyes:

[Clarkie1]

97. Well done!

And how generous of you to provide this for those who prefer soundbites in in-depth discussion!

[jefferson_dem]

38. Obama

Here's his position, as i understand it, off the cuff...

The solution in Iraq is primarily a political one. Use the tools we have – military, financial, diplomatic – to pressure the Iraqi leadership to come to a political agreement between the warring factions. Initiate serious talks with neighboring nations who have a vested interest in the outcome.

Promote the phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq on a timetable beginning in four to six months followed by a gradual, substantial and reduction in U.S. forces, moving troops first to other parts of the Middle East region, including Afghanistan. Emphasize training and the shift of control to Iraq security forces. Redeployment plans may be necessarily adjusted based on political and military situation on the ground.

Long-term plan is no permanent US military bases in Iraq but would also place a premium on engagement in the region, beginning with avoiding complete collapse of the Iraq nation-state and the spread of tensions to other nations.

[lillilbigone]

41. Good job.

Although I don't agree with Obama that US troops should stay in Iraq any longer than is necessary for an orderly withdrawal, you've certainly risen to the challenge of explaining his position.

[FrenchieCat]

45. So it appears that Obama is for a timetable up front instead of

as a negotiating tool....but beyond that, appears to have the same goal and methods as Wes Clark

I wonder what he means when he says that redeployment plans may be "adjusted" based on events on the ground? Is he talking about the time table element of the redeployment plan (since the rest is pretty vague as to who goes where?)

Do you know and is there an example of what he means on that?

[blm]

69. Obama now supports Kerry-Feingold, it seems. Welcome aboard Sen. Obama.

I hope Reid resubmits that plan ASAP.

[Cameron27]

50. So you're a supporter of John Kerry eh?

You've stated that Kucinich isn't your guy, and you find Edwards, Obama and Clark lacking in some way or another, yet here and on some Kerry threads, you have nothing but praise for JK.

In 10 words or less, tell us who the candidate of your choice really is.

[lillilbigone]

55. In ten words or less

Gore, Kerry or anyone else who can convince me.


If I were allowed to expand on that I would say someone could convince me if they were a serious candidate, qualified, with the requisite temperment, and gee of course I want someone with a proven record of commitment to the things I believe in, the things that make me a Democrat. Rhetoric can be stirring, personalities or resumes can be inspiring or impressive, but when it comes to the Presidency -- and leading the Democratic party -- I want someone who's been in the political trenches, someone who has shown through their record who they are and what they believe in. And like anyone, I have certain issues I believe in deeply, one of which is that we just aren't helping anyone -- certainly not ourselves -- by keeping our troops in Iraq any longer than is necessary to effectuate an orderly withdrawal.

[blm]

68. heheh....I doubt it...this poster is tough on everyone from what I've seen.

Maureen Dowd comes to mind.

[lillilbigone]

52. There must be some supporters of Gore or Clinton willing to weigh in

I wonder about some other candidates, though... Joe Biden... are there any Biden supporters on DU? I'll be pretty surprised if some rabid Bidenite surfaces to make the case that he has the best plan for Iraq. But that would be pretty fun, I think. Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh... Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd... Mike Gravel? some of these folks don't seem to be generating much 'netroots' excitement...

[Cameron27]

53. So lillibigone

who's your candidate of choice? We're playing by your rules, how about some disclosure.

[lillilbigone]

57. Maybe I'm an idealist

I answered in another reply, I like our former nominees, but it's so early, who knows, maybe it'll be someone who's not even on the radar yet.

[Cameron27]

58. And maybe pigs rollerskate backwards on a cloudy day...

I'm guessing I was right with Kerry, but what the hell, it's your thread, your rules, and apparently you're getting a kick out of playing stealth bomber.

[lillilbigone]

59. I don't get it

yeah, you were right, I already said you were right, I said I was for Kerry or Gore or who knows... so what do you want a medal for being right? It's not really such a big deal, you know.

[Cameron27]

60. Shhhhhhhh

It actually is a big deal, "you know." You're outspoken and single minded in trying to disparage Clark and several other candidates, but never John Kerry, (and now, presumably, Al Gore) It would even the playing field a bit if we knew who you actually DID support; at least we'd have an indication of your mindset.

Yeah, I'll take that medal with an order of fries and a large coke.

[lillilbigone]

61. Now you are even more right.

There are indeed more candidates that I don't want than ones I do... and as I've previously stated, having the judgement at this late date to finally admit it's time to withdraw our troops from Iraq seems like a prerequisite to me. Reasonable people may disagree.

[Cameron27]

64. John Kerry and time-tables.

Well who's ever debated that plan? Never mind, I'm finished with this thread.

[karynnj]

66. Who's debated Kerry's plan?

John Kerry and John Warner debated it on the floor of the Senate last summer. Kerry himself has summarized it in a minute or two many many times whenever he could - making it relatively easy for other Kerry supporters to accurately state his plan concisely. (This rather does prove that he CAN articulate his plan well.)

[Cameron27]

77. No, I was unclear,

I know that Kerry's plan has been debated; I should have used a sarcasm smiley and although I think the Clark has a better plan, I really wasn't trying to ditz JK.

I'd like to re-do all my posts in this thread because they just sound silly, but that's what happens when I let a rather rude (in my opinion) poster get to me.
:blush:

[Cameron27]

62. self-delete

[Clark2008]

71. Challenge to you: stop turning serious foreign policy into a sound bite

The media is already guilty of this. We don't need that here at DU.

[Pithy Cherub]

73. It's a tool for simplistic thinking and anti-intellectualism.

It also says the value of attempting to practice reductionism is serving an agenda rather than promoting the free exchange of thoughtful ideas or strategy. Now is the time for debating the full spectrum of ideas rather than stating slogans and sound bites to drum up soft political support. It was an attempt at reducing national security to a box before all the ideas are gathered. You have to ignore stuff like that because it speaks to embracing the simply explained rather than strategically exploring a multitude of options with an eye towards weighting feasability. Not everyone is able...

[Catchawave]

85. Yes......but you have to remember

"average voters" aren't as smart...or care...like we do. I also believe the war won't be resolved in under 100 words, but ya gotta hit people with WANTING to know more, if they care, not fall asleep.

My husband is a Bush and War supporter and can tell me why he thinks we should stay the course in under 100 words. Not that he'll EVER change my mind, but he articulates his position so clearly, I respect it, I don't hate him for it...or fall asleep :D

[FrenchieCat]

86. I still think that these proposals put out by Dems should be to provide Bush with

some reasonable realistic and constructive suggestions....rather than putting out proposals to get elected in 2008.... Because the truth is, whatever we are to do in Iraq will be what Bush's decides for the next two years. Whatever one of these politicians' proposal is, it shouldn't be to gain votes as much as to find a solution to a very serious and possible mortal problem.

[karynnj]

102. Which plans are you assuming are political?

I think that a plan that offers a comprehensive plan that makes the best of a very bad situation and offers Bush "realistic and contructive solutions" is also good politics. Even Senator Warner complimented Senator Kerry on some parts of his well thoughtout plan - but said "timing was everything" in their debate in the Senate. I think you completely misread Senator Kerry if you can not see that he is motivated to fix the policy. Likewise, I do not question the motives of Senators Feingold or Levin in crafting their proposals.

I do not think General Clark's motives are any purer or less pure than that of people who opted to become public servants by running for the Senate.

[Pithy Cherub]

87. LOL! But smart marketing means

understand the full program before going into slogan mode. That was good - Have a good one Catch! :)

[lillilbigone]

74. Gore

My understanding is that he wants us out, but I don't really know the details.... surely there is someone on DU who is a Gore partisan who can enlighten us?

[FrenchieCat]

83. Why should they bother?

you seem immune to debate and discussion.....

[Tom Rinaldo]

88. Everyone (almost) wants us out

This is the last I heard from Gore on Iraq, from June of this year:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Gore_Maybe_troops_should_pullout_from_0604.html

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the broader issue? It's no secret you were against the war early and strongly. What would you do now? Right now?

MR. GORE: Well, I would pursue the twin objectives of trying to withdraw our forces as quickly as we possibly can, while at the same time minimizing the risk that will make the mess over there even worse and raise even higher the danger of civil war and/or anarchy.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: John Kerry says there should be a complete pull-out by the end of this year. Do you agree with that?

MR. GORE: Well, not necessarily. Maybe it could come sooner than that.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Sooner?

MR. GORE: Well, maybe. Maybe sometime after that. I think that we need to pursue these twin objectives.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Without a deadline, though?

MR. GORE: Probably without a deadline. I think the setting of the deadline is intended to -- sometimes it's described as a way to set in motion forces that will make -- improve our options and improve the situation on the ground. It's possible that setting a deadline could set in place, in motion, forces that would make it even worse. I think that we should analyze that very carefully. My guess is that a deadline is probably not the right approach. But again, you have to weigh that question in the context of how the political decisions are made between the Congress and the Executive Branch. Sometimes the Congress itself has blunt instruments and limited options to play a role in matters like this. But --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Like cutting off funding?

MR. GORE: Well, I don't think anybody will be talking about that ever. But in terms of meeting these twin objectives, getting our troops home as quickly as possible without making the moral mistake of worsening an already bad situation, that's delicate, it's difficult.

[lillilbigone]

90. Even Bush CLAIMS he wants us out.

But just like Clark, he thinks we need to 'succeed' first.

[FrenchieCat]

93. Just like Clark my ass!

Save that crack on a thread where folks don't know any better. You may not want to lower your credibility by saying something that most know isn't so. Since you're playing checkers, all I can say is....that's the wrong move.

[Tom Rinaldo]

94. Hey I tried to cooperate again

You wanted information about Gore, I shared with you what I knew. I said nothing about Clark or Kucinch or Kerry or anyone else. I thought if you were going to have any reaction it might be to Gore's comments, not to make another slam at Clark. I give up with you. Really, this time I mean it...

[lillilbigone]

99. No

I didn't "Want information about Gore"

I want someone who is advocating for Gore's candidacy to articulate he position on Iraq.

You are not someone who is advocating for Gore's candidacy. And finding quotes from potential candidates is not the topic of this thread.

As far as your feelings about me, I couldn't care less. I'm here to engage in discussion, not a popularity contest.

[lillilbigone]

75. Clinton

I know Hillary is not as popular at DU as some other potential candidates, but there must be a Hillary partisan here who can weigh in with her Iraq policy.....

[enough already]

78. Hillary

Can limit it to 7 words:

Which.Way.Is.The.Wind.Blowing.Today?

[rdarmand]

101. I haven't heard that she has articulated one ...

... but that's not important.

I believe Hillary will adopt a middle-of-the-road position when she declares, keeping her options open. It's a long way to Election Day. In the end, she'll do what she thinks she has to do to get elected and stay elected. Once in office, she may be somewhat mindful of her legacy as the first female POTUS; but in her heart of hearts she's an ideologue on fire for the liberal agenda.

I think terrorism and foreign policy will dominate the administration of whoever is elected, whether they want it to or not; such are the times in which we live. As such, I think the general direction in which she needs to head will be relatively clear. I don't think she has the crisp, clean, iron will of Margaret Thatcher; but I think her sense of self-righteousness runs very, very deep, and that may be an adequate substitute.

I know she is capable of being resolute in action, that she is a hard and dedicated worker, and that she can put whatever cause she supports ahead of her own personal ambition -- consider how much and how long she sacrificed personally to promote Bill. I'm sure she does check the polls before she articulates her positions publically; she's a politician. Her convictions are probably too far left of center for her to lead this country. She's can't be a leader and get elected; but, once she is elected, she may become a leader. I am sure she has the right stuff. I'm a little frightened when I think in just what direction she may head, once the fire is ignited. But I would feel safer with her at the helm than anyone else yet put forward.

Sorry so long-winded. :) The short answer to your question is, whatever she thinks will get her elected.

[LWolf]

89. Ok, although

GrpCaptMandrake certainly did a concise job on the first response.

Opposed it from the beginning. Voted agains IWR. Has led the opposition in Congress since then, and has never equivocated. Proposes cutting funding and bringing troops home. Now.

[Catchawave]

92. Which is great....in Bizzarro World.

Don't get me wrong, I love Kucinich's position, I love the idea of bringing the troops home NOW (spent two tours in DC and NYC protesting the g.d.war)but was my response chopped liver?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3016314&mesg_id=3016497

Yes, we are HERE, and it is NOW.

[LWolf]

98. Your response is not chopped liver.

Neither is mine part of "bizzarro world." :eyes:

Just a difference of opinion in the real world. That happens.