People fighting against ISG

[sandnsea]

I'm glad to see JK stating the ISG doesn't go far enough, but he isn't saying it's complete trash either (because it isn't complete trash). I can see it now, the left trashes the ISG, Feingold, Kucinich et al trash the ISG. Kerry has already aligned himself with parts of it, because parts of it actually are his. Bush gives the ISG lip service, but doesn't do the real work to implement it. The ISG fails, the left and Feingold are hailed as visionaries, Kerry is trashed for attempting to work to get us out of Iraq. And we're back to square one.

UN in, contractors out, is NOT a strategy to resolve the issues IN Iraq and the ME. These are real people with real issues and most of it doesn't even have to do with the US. I am soooo tired of this 30 minute sitcom solution as foreign policy mentality.

On edit:

I'm reminded of the Carter election report, that actually had a lot of good stuff in it, but was trashed by the left and then faded into nothingness. And our elections still aren't fixed. Some day these people are going to have to figure out that you have to be FOR something in order for there to be any change at all.

[whometense]

1. I thought Feingold was kind of a jerk

on Olbermann last night, and I usually like him.

People ought to quit making sweeping statements that lump all senators/reps into the same clump. There are differentiations between their positions.

[sandnsea]

2. That's happened before

It was one thing when he was thinking of running for President, you can almost forgive a little self-promotion and grandstanding under those circumstances. But I didn't see any reason for it last night. It's easy to sit back and shoot arrows when you're not responsible for affecting change. I'm sick of that crap. Spouting slogans isn't the same as implementing a strategy, whether it's slogans from Bush or slogans from the left.

[whometense]

3. I'm glad it wasn't just me.

Sometimes I only half pay attention to the tv.

But he really annoyed me last night, for exactly the reason you state. What does he have to gain by grandstanding? Why not tell the truth? And by the way, it was the Kerry-Feingold amendment, wasn't it? Or did I only imagine it was?

[karynnj]

5. Could he have been speaking of something

other than Kerry-Feingold. I think he and Kerry both had written their plans as amendments that they introduced, but which were not voted on. I know Kerry did in November 2005 and I think Feingold did then to - Kerry with the Oct 2005 plan and Feingold with the flexible target date concept that he put out in August 2005. They did both have amendments in spring 2006.

From my biased point of view, Kerry's concepts and ideas were more comprehensive, more subtle, and far richer - especially in terms of diplomacy and dealing with terrorism. Kerry also included far more on the actual roles that the soldiers should play before they left.

As to the ISG report, the difference I see is that Kerry came across as wanting to help find common ground and to help Bush use the ISG to get us out of the mess. What came across to me in all the Kerry interviews was a willingness to acknowledge when something is moving in the right direction and to try to push it further in the right direction - rather than ignore it or, worse, stand in the way. This is mature, helpful and gracious. If the ISG can get the policy out of the rut it is in - it may be possible to push things foreward.

This may simply show how subborn, in his own ways, Feingold is. This might also show one area where Kerry is better than Feingold. Kerry is doing a great job pointing out which things he has pushed in the past and where he sees problems.

[whometense]

6. I guess it's possible, but it didn't strike me that way.

It really sounded like he was including Kerry.

Here's the transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16092424/

FEINGOLD: Oh, they sure did, Keith. I mean, I feel like I‘ve been watching the preview of a—or premiere of a blockbuster movie in Washington. But the fact is, this commission was composed apparently entirely of people who did not have the judgment to oppose this Iraq war in the first place, and who did not have the judgment to realize it was not a wise move in the fight against terrorism.

So that‘s who‘s doing this report. And then I looked at the list of who testified before them. There‘s virtually no one who opposed the war in the first place, virtually no one who‘s been really calling for a different strategy that goes for a global approach to the war on terrorism.

So this is really a Washington inside job, and it shows not in the description of what‘s happened, that‘s fairly accurate, but it shows in the recommendations. It‘s been called a classic Washington compromise that does not do the job of extricating us from Iraq in a way that we can deal with the issues in Southeast Asia, in Afghanistan, and in Somalia, which are every bit as important as what is happening in Iraq.

So this report does not do the job, and it‘s because it was not composed of a real representative group of Americans, who believe what the American people showed in the election, which is that it is time for us to have a timetable to bring

I find this disingenuous at best.

[beachmom]

8. Okay, I'm going to say something not very nice

Feingold's purist stance will amount to more America deaths. It guarantees more American deaths, because it means there will be NO compromise with Bush. Kerry is reaching out, leaving the door open, so at least Bush will do the summit and get our kids off the streets of Baghdad. Feingold has decided it must be 100% his way, or we may as well stay the course or put more troops in. He is dead wrong here, and proves he's not ready to govern.

As Kerry said about the Iraqi politicians, democracy is about COMPROMISING. That's just how it works. And Feingold isn't even willing to try to get a few things he favored out of it. Which means he's not willing to take ownership of the Iraq War, whereas Kerry is. Even though this is Bush's war, Kerry has said -- as a U.S. senator we take our share of the responsibility. Because Feingold voted no to the IWR, he has washed his hands of the whole affair, sitting there on his high horse. Then when everything blows up, he can say "I was right", even though a different path MAY have been possible.

Just makes me sick.

[karynnj]

9. "Virtually no one"

I'm not sure exactly what that means - as Kerry - not Feingold has been the one speaking the most about this.

[wisteria]

14. Yep, that is the way I took it. n/t

[JI7]

20. didn't he vote to confirm Condi Rice for Sec of State ?

he has never really impressed me.

btw, Afghanistan is a mess also. should Senators apologize for supporting that ?

[wisteria]

4. I caught the references too.

Especially, the comment that no one who didn't vote for the IWR was asked to speak to the group. Feingold did go on to say some things in the report were good ideas.

As for Kerry, I think his statement is good. Some portions of the report are sound, he has stated that and also expressed concern about no timetables, the fact that it doesn't go far enough in enforcing what it reccomends and the training issues.

[ProSense]

7. The ISG is

in some respects what Kerry prosposed years ago and what most Democrats have advocated in terms of withdrawal. Still, the report isn't trash because it drew a clear line between two options: stay or set a deadline. It doesn't go as far as Kerry's plan, but it's a step in the right direction. There are other flaws in the report, but those can be addressed.

[sandnsea]

12. Have you been in GD?

The report is being trashED. It's also being trashed by the right, picking out the embedded troop and redeployment part, as if anybody ever said that could be done without anything else going on.

I think it's a step in the right direction too, I am just really worried about the way it's being spun.

[beachmom]

13. See downthread, Sandnsea -- Bush has already rejected it.

Lefties are wasting their time trashing the ISG. It was the best we could have expected, and now it's already dead.

[wisteria]

15. well if the far right and the far left are trashing it than it must really

be a compromise. It never set out to please everyone, and it could be argued that those who are so opposed do not want to find or work on solutions as much as complain because it doesn't address their personal POV in what needs to done. Frankly, I would rather open up talk and discussion and stop arguing who is right or wrong.

[ProSense]

16. Maybe they're

trashing it because it brought Kerry's call for a timetable to everyone's attention.

[ProSense]

10. Obviously, compromise isn't going to be easy

Chairmen: Iraq report can't be used piecemeal

Bush rejects Iraq report's key recommendations

Taken as a whole the report is flawed!

[beachmom]

11. You know, I thought Bush would probably ultimately reject their report

But I didn't think it would be THE VERY NEXT DAY. Choice quotes from your article:

Still can't admit what's going on:

Bush initially described soaring violence in Iraq, which the report warned may spiral into a regional war even with a US strategic overhaul, as merely "unsettling" -- but revised his diagnosis when a reporter challenged him.

"It's bad in Iraq. That help?" he fired back. "You want frankness? I thought we would succeed quicker than we did. And I am disappointed by the pace of success."


Pace of success?? WTF planet is HE living on?

Not going to talk to Iran:

Bush said Damascus and Tehran might be welcome if they renounce support for extremists and pledge support for Baghdad's fledgling government.

"If Syria and Iran (are) not committed to that concept, then they shouldn't bother to show up," said the US president, who reiterated his longstanding condition that Iran freeze sensitive nuclear work before any direct talks.

"We've made our choice. Iran now has an opportunity to make its choice," he said. "Should they agree to verifiably suspend their (uranium) enrichment, the United States will be at the table with our partners."



That's just plain stupid -- that asking for Iran to give up something that is a complete deal breaker for them -- they want it on the table for negotiations. It's a nonstarter and won't work.


Won't withdraw troops by even a vague timetable:

A day after getting the heavyweight Iraq commission's stinging report, Bush kept tight conditions on any talks with Iran and Syria and refused to endorse the panel's target date of early 2008 for withdrawing most US combat troops.

"I've always said we'd like our troops out as fast as possible," he said, while insisting on the need to be "flexible and realistic" and tying any change in troop level to advice from US military commanders, as he has in the past.





So, guys, looks like it's failed right out of the gateway. We're going to "stay the course". Tony Blair will go to Israel, and Bush will call that "diplomacy".

[wisteria]

17. Well the ball was in his court and he had a chance to change the

course, but he is to hung up on the words winning and victory to realize he is achieving nothing but failure.
I suppose this means the Dem's are going to have to get tough. LOL,this war is not ending anytime soon. I predict it will be an issue in 2008 with McCain still calling for more troops to help stabilize the country. I am disgusted, but not surprised at Bush. Maybe something has to be done to remove him from office or really back him into a corner. As long as he is "leading" we will be in Iraq and their will be further death and destruction.

[TayTay]

18. So, the lines are drawn

This was an opportunity for Bush to get together with the new Congress and try to do something for the good of the country. He has said no because his ego won't allow him to see that Iraq is a disaster.

So, it's going to be the hard way. A Constitutional Crisis.

Stay tuned, it's about to get real interesting in January for everyone.

[Inuca]

19. This is scary!

I am referring to Bush's reaction. He is being ambushed from almost all possible directions, which would a pleasure to watch if I were not afraid of how he may react and what he may do if he goes through a complete meltdown. Am I being too melodramatic here? I am also thinking of Bush Sr.'s reaction the other day, his uncontrollable tears. He is either sick, always a possibility at that age, or under a lot of emotional stress (also combined with what age unfortunately does to most people), and he certainly knows things that we do not. I saw that scene a couple of times on TV, and found it very unsettling on many levels. As for Kerry, I think that the approach he took, at least until now, he may have to change it and adjust to new developments, namely an open hand, an attempt to truly cooperate with the other side is very consistent with what I understand the ISG report says. I think that this may be a serious plus down the road, maybe not with the rabid left, but then their numbers are much smaller than the noise they make. I was very busy lately, and was not able to follow much of what's going on, but my feeling is that he is doing the right thing, and he is doing it forcefully.

[ProSense]

21. It's time for action!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3008209&mesg_id=3008209

[ProSense]

22. Interesting!

Biography
Ivo Daalder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, is currently a visiting professor at the Robert Schuman Centre of the European University in Florence, Italy. He also serves as a senior adviser on national security policy to the Center for American Progress. A specialist in American foreign policy, European security, and national security affairs, Daalder served on President Clinton's national security council staff in 1995-96. He is the co-author (with James Lindsay) of the award-winning America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy. Other recent publications include Crescent of Crises: U.S. and European Strategies for the Greater Middle East; Protecting the American Homeland (2002); Getting to Dayton: The Making of America's Bosnia Policy (2000), and Winning Ugly: NATO's War to Save Kosovo (2000).

Full Name
Ivo Daalder

[beachmom]

24. Isn't that Leon Panetta's think tank? And therefore connected

with the Clintons?

[beachmom]

23. Unfortunately, I tend to agree with the assessment in that article

The Iraqi bloggers have always been ahead of the curve and they have given up on Iraq, and their only goal is to get the hell out of there.

What will Senator Kerry do?

There's only one thing I would change about the article, and that's this concept that we "lost in Iraq". Since we are an occupier and don't have intentions of colonizing Iraq (well, we don't), we really never could have won or lost. Instead, we had an intention to create a peaceful, stable, moderate democracy there. That has FAILED. We have FAILED in Iraq to create that state, or even just a stable state. In fact, there is no Iraqi state anymore. It has crumbled into neighborhood vs. neighborhood.

Again, what can Senator Kerry do? He has been trying for so long to advise this president in how to fix that place, but I feel that now it is completely unfixable. Had he been elected president in 2004, there was a fighting chance, but not now. The goal should go to containing the civil war, and getting our troops out of there. Training won't help, because it'll be only used for the civil war. And diplomacy for Israel/Palestine seems more hopeful than Iraq (shows you just how bad Iraq is).