I think Kerry's meeting with Iraq group had an impact.

[blm]

From the few reports I've seen last night and this morning, the group seems to be taking the same position as Kerry's original withdrawal plan - gradual but SIGNIFICANT reduction of troops.

I think this needs to get emphasized in a GD or GDP posting, but it should come from someone who's on less ignore lists. ;))))

The point needs to be clear. I think Kerry helped convince them - convincing people wars MUST end is a unique gift to Kerry.

[wisteria]

1. I am excited about this too, since he mentioned he had met with them

on Monday and what has leaked out. I can't wait until it come out. If it has any of Kerry recommendations in it- he better receive credit for it, or I will be on a massive crusade, writing letters all over the place.

I also wanted to mention, that in some media circles, this report is being down played as insignificant. I caught a little of Imus this morning with Howard Fineman and he was saying it won't have an impact. Oh, then he added, the Dem's don't have a plan. You know, I got his number, what a shill for Bush even still.
How can people even listen to these political pukes?

[ProSense]

2. I don't think so!

Bush:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2992953&mesg_id=2993236

My summary of the plan!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2992953&mesg_id=2993244

Kerry's plan does not call for troops to remain engaged!


I think Kerry had an impact, but they simply crafted a plan with vague language!

[blm]

3. Kerry's ORIGINAL plan from last year but with vaguer language.

But clearly similar.

[ProSense]

4. Kerry never had a plan leaving troops

inside Iraq!

[wisteria]

7. I do recall him saying allowing some troops to stay for training a some special forces

I alway interpreted Kerry's plan to be one that would force the Iraqi's to stand up while our troops stood down, but would still provide for additional training and some back-up. Also, calling for the summit.

[wisteria]

5. I will wait for the report to come out.

I was hearing references to dates and making the Iraqi's stand up and fight for themselves.

[sandnsea]

6. I completely disagree

I think they're using withdrawal language, but have no intention of actually pushing Bush to implement a withdrawal strategy. They've said this before. The troops initially thought they were going to go to Baghdad, liberate it, and then go home. Remember 'the way home is through Baghdad'?? Then in 2004, they said they'd withdraw troops after the election. That's part of what made it so hard for Kerry to articulate a different plan. They co-opt Dem ideas and then just LIE and say they're going to implement them. That's why Home for the Holidays was SO important, it was to force Bush to do what he actually said he was going to which was bring troops home after another election. If there's no real benchmarks and a strategy to reach them, or no timeline, then troop withdrawal is just more bullshit. I think it would be a HUGE mistake to connect Kerry to this plan, or get behind it in any way. If HE wants to do it, that's a different thing, but I think it would be a horrible mistake. I don't trust a word any of these guys say, remember who we're dealing with.

[blm]

8. I'm basing it on CNN's reporting of the leak - guess it's being SPUN as more significant

because they are reporting it that way.

They fooled me, I guess - but maybe that is what the leak intended to do.

[wisteria]

10. I caught that all last night and it appeared that way to me also.

This is why I think it is important to wait and see what the commission comes up with.
The CNN reporters seemed disappointed that the reported leaks from the report seemed to support the Democratic position.

[sandnsea]

14. I read a piece somewhere

And I'm sorry I don't remember if it was the Post or Times, that said they were compromising on the withdrawal recommendations in order to not embarrass Bush. I had the impression it was a muddled recommendation between 'cut and run' and 'stay the course'. I think it plays well for Hillary though, and the leadership will probably glom on to it. I think its success will largely depend on how clear the diplomatic strategy is.

And by the way, you could be completely right, maybe it does have a clearer withdrawal strategy than what I'm interpreting. I just don't trust these guys is all.

[wisteria]

9. There are Democrats in that group.

I also think it is important to wait and see what the actual report says. The media could be doing a spin on this trying to make Bush look good, while making the Dem's look bad. I am still hearing that the Dem's don't have a plan.
Besides, if the Baker Report says or recommends nothing new, it will be very discouraging to American's who are tired of this war and want it to end.

[TayTay]

12. I agree. But I don't think Sen Kerry is endorsing this

partly because it hasn't come out yet, but partly because of the reasons you state. These people lie. They say they are going to do something and then don't, they do the opposite.

This is the Kerry/Feingold Amendment (S4442) from June, 2006

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror)
On page 437, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 1084. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) Redeployment of Troops From Iraq.--

(1) SCHEDULE FOR REDEPLOYMENT.--For purposes of strengthening the national security of the United States, the President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, in accordance with a schedule coordinated with the Government of Iraq, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting United States facilities and personnel.

(2) CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS REQUIRED.--The President shall consult with Congress regarding the schedule for redeployment and shall submit such schedule to Congress as part of the report required under subsection (c).

(3) MAINTENANCE OF OVER-THE-HORIZON TROOP PRESENCE.--The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.

(b) Iraq Summit.--The President should work with the leaders of the Government of Iraq to convene a summit as soon as possible that includes those leaders, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that engenders the support of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds by ensuring the equitable distribution of oil revenues, disbanding the militias, strengthening internal security, reviving reconstruction efforts and fulfilling related international economic aid commitments, securing Iraq's borders, and providing for a sustainable federalist structure in Iraq.

(c) Report on Redeployment.--

(1) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State, submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

(2) STRATEGY ELEMENTS.--The strategy required in the report under paragraph (1) shall include the following:

(A) The schedule for redeploying United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, developed pursuant to subsection (a)(1).

(B) A schedule for returning the majority of such redeployed forces home to the United States.

(C) The number, size, and character of United States military units needed in Iraq after July 1, 2007, for purposes of counterterrorism activities, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting United States infrastructure and personnel.

(D) A strategy for addressing the regional implications for diplomacy, politics, and development of redeploying United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

(E) A strategy for ensuring the safety and security of United States forces in Iraq during and after the July 1, 2007, redeployment, and a contingency plan for addressing dramatic changes in security conditions that may require a limited number of United States forces to remain in Iraq after that date.

(F) A strategy for redeploying United States forces to effectively engage and defeat global terrorist networks that threaten the United States.

[TayTay]

16. This was opposed to the Levin Amendment

which also failed in the Senate 39-60.

AMENDMENT NO. 4320

(Purpose: To state the sense of Congress on United States policy on Iraq)
At the end of subtitle A of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1209. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``United States Policy on Iraq Act of 2006''.

(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Global terrorist networks, including those that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, continue to threaten the national security of the United States and are recruiting, planning, and developing capabilities to attack the United States and its allies throughout the world.

(2) Winning the fight against terrorist networks requires an integrated, comprehensive effort that uses all facets of power of the United States and the members of the international community who value democracy, freedom, and the rule of law.

(3) The United States Armed Forces, particularly the Army and Marine Corps, are stretched thin, and many soldiers and Marines have experienced three or more deployments to combat zones.

(4) Sectarian violence has surpassed the insurgency and terrorism as the main security threat in Iraq, increasing the prospects of a broader civil war which could draw in Iraq's neighbors.

(5) United States and coalition forces have trained and equipped more than 116,000 Iraqi soldiers, sailors, and airmen, and more than 148,000 Iraqi police, highway patrol, and other Ministry of Interior forces.

(6) Of the 102 operational Iraqi Army combat battalions, 69 are either in the lead or operating independently, according to the May 2006 report of the Administration to Congress entitled ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'';

(7) Congress expressed its sense in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (119 Stat. 3466) that ``calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq''.

(8) Iraq's security forces are heavily infiltrated by sectarian militia, which has greatly increased sectarian tensions and impeded the development of effective security services loyal to the Iraq Government.

(9) With the approval by the Iraqi Council of Representatives of the ministers of defense, national security, and the interior on June 7, 2006, the entire cabinet of Prime Minister Maliki is now in place.

(10) Pursuant to the Iraq Constitution, the Council of Representatives is to appoint a Panel which will have 4 months to recommend changes to the Iraq Constitution.

(11) Despite pledges of more than $8,000,000,000 in assistance for Iraq by foreign governments other than the United States at the Madrid International Donors' Conference in October 2003, only $3,500,000,000 of such assistance has been forthcoming.

(12) The current open-ended commitment of United States forces in Iraq is unsustainable and a deterrent to the Iraqis making the political compromises and personnel and resource commitments that are needed for the stability and security of Iraq.

(c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that in order to change course from an open-ended commitment and to promote the assumption of security responsibilities by the Iraqis, thus advancing the chances for success in Iraq--

(1) the following actions need to be taken to help achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement so essential for defeating the insurgency and preventing all-out civil war--

(A) there must be a fair sharing of political power and economic resources among all the Iraqi groups so as to invest them in the formation of an Iraqi nation by either amendments to the Iraq Constitution or by legislation or other means, within the timeframe provided for in the Iraq Constitution;

(B) the President should convene an international conference so as to more actively involve the international community and Iraq's neighbors, promote a durable political settlement among Iraqis, reduce regional interference in Iraq's internal affairs, encourage more countries to contribute to Iraq's extensive needs, and ensure that pledged funds are forthcoming;

(C) the Iraq Government should promptly and decisively disarm the militias and remove those members of the Iraqi security forces whose loyalty to the Iraq Government is in doubt; and

(D) the President should--

(i) expedite the transition of United States forces in Iraq to a limited presence and mission of training Iraqi security forces, providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces, protecting United States infrastructure and personnel, and participating in targeted counterterrorism activities;

(ii) after consultation with the Government of Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq this year; and

(iii) submit to Congress a plan by the end of 2006 with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise;

(2) during and after the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, the United States will need to sustain a nonmilitary effort to actively support reconstruction, governance, and a durable political solution in Iraq; and

(3) the President should carefully assess the impact that ongoing United States military operations in Iraq are having on the capability of the United States Government to conduct an effective counterterrorism campaign to defeat the broader global terrorist networks that threaten the United States.

[ProSense]

23. The plan, two speeches, transcript

posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2993617&mesg_id=2993617

[karynnj]

11. This is NOT Kerry's plan

When speaking vaguely there are only so meny "functions" they can recommend. They are clearly moving in Kerry's (and the generic democratic plan's) direction from the current plan. They are clearly rejecting the McCain build up and have an even bigger war.

There are two reasoons not to claim this as Kerry's:

- As people have pointed out it isn't Kerry's - it is closer to his 2004 (!) and 2005 plans - and they were more specific.

- We look like we are claiming credit when it is unwarranted. There are MANY things where - with great backup, we can claim credit for Kerry.

Here, we could point out that contrary to the media and pundit attempt to say Kerry is irrelevant - the committee which is doing what it wants and speaking to whom it wants, chose to question Kerry and McCain. This shows that at least some on the committee recognize that both of these men have real plans and real insight on the war and that speaking to them would be worthwhile. (I assume they might have spoken to General Clark and Senators Reed and Levin - but I seriously doubt they spoke to either Clinton, Barack Obama, Al Gore or John Edwards.)

[blm]

13. I based my post on the early reports from CNN where it sounded like JKs 2005 plan

I do see now that it is being portrayed more dramatically by the reporters than it deserves.

[sandnsea]

15. Well some of it is

I see this report being where JK was clean back in 2003. Remember when he said to create an envoy that included heavy hitters like James Baker? Remember that he said the countries in the region had to be made to see it was in their interest to engage in a solution to avoid civil war spilling out of Iraq? Remember the call for a relgious summit? The withdrawal part of it echoes his troop strategy back in 2003 & 2004, but I think he's gotten even more insistent on troop withdrawal since then.

[TayTay]

18. It does have a some of what was in the June Amendment

The idea that we have the summit, bring in the leaders of the stakeholders in the region and that we pressure the Iraqis by telling them that we are going to withdraw troops. It does call for a redeployment of troops to an over the horizon capacity.

However it is not-binding, but is a suggestion, it does NOT pose a firm timetable for withdrawal and it does NOT support getting the bulk of the troops out and leaving only support personnel in IRaq who's function is to support training, rebuilding and so forth.

This is not the Kerry/Feingold Amendment. It is closer to the Levin/Reed amendment.

[blm]

20. I saw it more as Oct2005 plan - pre civil war reality.

.

[TayTay]

22. This was Sen. Kerry in Jan of 2005

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Edward Kennedy, the senior senator from Massachusetts, a prime sponsor of your presidential candidacy...

SEN. KERRY: I've heard of him.

MR. RUSSERT: ...gave a speech on Thursday. Let me show you what he said and come back and talk about it.

(Videotape, Thursday):

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, (D-MA): Once Sunday's elections are behind us and the democratic transition is under way, President Bush should immediately announce his intention to negotiate a timetable for a drawdown of American combat forces with the Iraqi government. At least 12,000 American troops, probably more, should leave at once to send a strong signal about our intentions and to ease the pervasive sense of occupation.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Specifically, do you agree with Senator Kennedy that 12,000 American troops should leave at once?

SEN. KERRY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe there should be a specific timetable of withdrawal of American troops?

SEN. KERRY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: What would you do?

SEN. KERRY: I understand exactly what Senator Kennedy is saying, and I agree with Senator Kennedy's perceptions of the problem and of how you deal with it. I would--in fact, last summer, if you'll recall, I said specifically that if we did the things that I laid out--the training, the international community, the services and reconstruction, and the elections and protection--we could draw down troops and begin to withdraw them. I think what Senator Kennedy is saying--and here I do agree with him--is that it is vital for the United States to make it clear that we are not there with long-term goals and intentions of our presence in the region. I agree with Senator Kennedy that we have become the target and part of the problem today, if not the problem. Now, obviously, you've got to provide security and stability in order to be able to turn this over to the Iraqis and to be able to withdraw our troops, so I wouldn't do a specific timetable, but I certainly agree with him in principle that the goal must be to withdraw American troops.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the new government, as soon as it's possible, begins to negotiate some modality like that. And I wouldn't be surprised if they even asked us to leave in some way over a period of time. I wouldn't be surprised if the administration privately, behind closed doors, asked them to ask us to leave. I think there are plenty of ways to skin this cat. But the most important thing is that you've got to have stability.

What Iraq is after this is important to the world. It cannot be a haven for terrorism. It cannot be a completely failed state. Now, you'll notice the administration has backed off significantly of its own high goals of full democratization and so forth, and I don't think you're going to hear them pushing that. There are a lot of conservatives, neo-cons and others in Washington debating now sort of what the modality of withdrawal ought to be.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you have any information that the Bush administration is privately requesting the new Iraqi government to ask us to leave?

SEN. KERRY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: You just suppose that may be happening.

SEN. KERRY: I think that over a period of time, this administration is going to face the reality of Iraq which is that a prolonged American presence in Iraq is neither affordable nor wise nor will it ultimately enhance our goals in the region, prolonged, but we're going to have to be there in the short term to do the training we've talked about.

MR. RUSSERT: Short term meaning a few years?

SEN. KERRY: Well, Tim, it's hard to figure out. I mean, if you go at the pace they're going today in the training, it's a long time. I'm appalled at the level of training that's been taking place. I mean, President Mubarak himself said, "I could take five, six times the numbers of people that are here today and we could be training them." Other countries could be training them. We could be training from the same syllabus, bring people back into country. We could be training people more rapidly even in country, and only now I think General Luck and others are coming to the conclusion that what we've been saying for a long period of time is, in fact, finally what they may be trying to move toward.

***************

Sen. Warner, for one, asked Kerry why he changed his mind. It's in that transcript from June 2006 that was put uip yesterday.. (I have it if you want it.)

[blm]

24. When Kerry went to Iraq in Sept 2005, I believe that clarified his view.

We saw it because we followed it as it happened. Too bad newsmedia never bothers to follow these things, even though it is their job to do so.

[TayTay]

27. Very much agreed.

The Oct 2005 Georgetown speech was a chance to present a different view of the war. The good Senator began that speech by talking about a solider who was killed in the fighting in Iraq and was beginning his trip home to his 'final resting place.' That was another clarification on what was important in what was going on. Sen. Kerry reiterated the proposals he had had before on training, getting the stakeholders together and so forth.

It is interesting to review that speech again (I still have it on tivo, btw) and look at the questions. I remember one student, from the Naval Academy at Annapolis, saying that Kerry's analogies between Iraq and Vietnam were both implict and explict. Did Kerry mean that? Kerry said that Iraq was not Vietnam and that failure in Iraq had far more dire consequences for the US and the world than the failure in Vietnam did.

By April of this year, the idea of attacking Iraq and explicitly linking it to Vietnam was complete. That speech in Faneuil Hall was an advancement in the Senator's thinking on how badly Iraq had been bungled and how the US was in a civil war and had to get out. (Interestingly enough, Kerry denied at one point that Iraq was Vietnam in that speech, then went on to list the ways in which it was similar.)

Last night, and probably today, Sen. Kerry again said that this was a civil war, we are the targets in the middle of the Sunni and Shia war and that we cannot militarily win this; it requires a political solution among Iraqis. It's more than six months later and the situation has only grown worse, not better. As Kerry said at the Manchester speech in Oct, 'This war in Iraq is a disgrace.' And so it is. We can't fix it, we can only aggrevate it. As in Vietnam.

[ProSense]

17. They wouldn't have spent all that time

marginalizing Kerry's position and trying to smear him simply to adopt his plan as their own!

[TayTay]

19. And that means that it leaves the elephant in the room

And the questions becomes ever more urgent:

If we can't do anything about Iraq's civil war, why are we there?

If we don't control any part of Al-Anbar province, why are we asking young Americans to die there?

If the Iraqi government is unable to resolve the factional differences and is falling apart, why are we committing soldiers? Why are we asking American troops to possibly die for an entity that might dissolve any day now?

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

[karynnj]

25. Those first ones seem to be the ones Kerry asked yesterday

that last one has likely been in his mind since the war started - and the answer he once had that we could make things somewhat better is gone.

[ProSense]

26. The answers to those questions

amount to nothing but excuses!

[ProSense]

28. The line is drawn!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2993658&mesg_id=2993658

[wisteria]

29. Excuses! What leverage do we have now? What are we leveraging for?

This doesn't surprise me with Clinton, it is all about politics for him and his wife.
This an excuse to continue on the same path, by applying a bandage to a gaping wound. How long will it take to get some of the Iraq's to see that the violence isn't working when it appears as though it is.How long until the Iraq's stand up for themselves? They have already had three years to train them and yet, things are worse.

I want to see how the public and the media respond to this stay the course answer by Clinton.

Shit, this could turn out to be a never ending war with politicians more worried about positioning and protecting Bush.

[karynnj]

30. Don't cha wish we could pay people

to view 5 minutes of Clinton and 5 minutes of Kerry speaking about Iraq - like the marketing people used to do in some malls for products?

I think the difference as Tay has posted many times is what Kerry said in Boston and in the Senate about how he would not be a Senator who would stand quiet when the policy is wrong.

[TayTay]

31. Clinton is talking as an ex-President

and is preserving the power of the Presidency, including the power to be Commander-in-Chief and set policy for how the war is going. Clinton is talking about the technical aspects of this and is intinctively acting to preserve that power base, perhaps for Hillary. This is a process argument, devoid of urgency and emotion.

Kerry is talking as someone who saw war and risked his career and future to come back and oppose it because it was wrong. His language, especially since March and that forum at Harvard with Max Cleland has been remarkably personal. This war must be opposed as immoral (which is a call to conscience) and because it is killing 'our kids' for a cause that cannot be won by their sacrifice. There is no process there. It's a hugely emotional argument that is backed by the cerebral arguments. (It is an emotional argument, first and foremost, that then lists all the reasons why.)

Kerry was lied to about Vietnam. These lies did not come through the media or through the VFW or through sitting around at bars listening to hawks spout off. Kerry was lied to, to his face, by the architects of the Vietnam War who came to Yale and personally told him that this was a noble cause and that he should go to support it. His roommate was a McBundy, he saw and talked to the movers and shakers in the Kennedy/Johnson Admin.

They lied to his face. Officials of the US Government came and recruited him and lied to his face. The anger and resentment over that is really a basis for his whole life.

[ProSense]

32. It's pretty clear Americans need to withdraw from Iraq:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2993855&mesg_id=2993855

Talk about spinning wheels!

[wisteria]

21. Good point on possible contributors. n/t

[ProSense]

33. I guess Kerry really is going to push this debate:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2995272&mesg_id=2995272

[wisteria]

34. I bet you are right.

From the way it reads, and from my understanding of the Kerry/Feingold Amendment, it appears this strategy is theirs except for the 07 being changed to early 08.