Does anybody know if Kerry had a reaction to Reid agreeing to a "surge"?

[Mass]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2933873

I know Kerry has said several times that McCain was wrong and am concerned to see the Democrats go this way (Reyes went there last week, Reid today). I was relieved to see that Kennedy said he disagreeed.

[babylonsister]

1. I'm so angry w/Reid! When will it end? So we 'allow' 20,000 more

soldiers to go to Iraq 'temporarily'; who's going to pull them out in a finite time? How can anyone be assured of that?

[karynnj]

2. In the McCain is dead wrong comment

he referenced the fact that sending in 15,000 additional troops did not lower violence but increased it. He also said the increased presence made things worse. (McCain and Leiberman in the hearing were told by Abizaid that it was a bad idea and the Iraqis would not like it. So, he doesn't like it either.)

I don't think he responded to Reid - but wasn't Reid's comment made while Kerry was in the ME.

[ProSense]

3. Sestak:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3018518&mesg_id=3019651

[karynnj]

4. Sestak was great - I see why MH was so impressed!

He sounded and looked positively Kerryish.

[MH1]

5. Sestak did well today.

I'm glad ThinkProgress got that transcript up.

I won't be surprised at all if Kerry and Sestak are on very similar pages on this.

Here is the thing: with competent leadership, and done at the right time (i.e. 2 years ago, or more), Keane's plan might have had some possibility of success (let's just say that for now, anyway - read on).

But I just don't see how, with all the evidence of disastrously incompetent leadership, anyone can expect that putting more peoples' lives in the hands of this incompetent leadership, will turn things around to a positive direction.

It's kind of like giving your teenage kid a Ferrari after they wreck the Toyota, on the theory that with the Ferrari they'll be better able to navigate traffic.

[ProSense]

6. They are as far

as a set deadline:

A defense policy director on the Clinton administration's National Security Council, Sestak considers the Iraq invasion a mistake because "Iraq was never a present danger." He now supports setting a definite timetable to "redeploy physically out of Iraq." He also has a harsh view of the Bush-era NSC, saying that when it comes to "the moral courage to stand for your ideas during this administration, it wasn't always welcome. It wasn't always there."

[beachmom]

7. This has blind sided me. I am speechless. What does Hillary say? n/t

[wisteria]

8. I am disappointed,but not surprised by Reid's position.

I think it reflects the views of those in our party who do not want to take a stand on the Iraq War and have decided it is best to watch and wait. They are willing to let the Republicans deal with it and not make it a major issue leading up to the 08 election. They have no desire to force Bush's hand on this, and are more willing to go along to present the outward appearance of bipartisanship. Besides, After Reyes ignorance on the Sunni and Shea it is obvious many in our party don't know enough to even have an informed opinion.

[Firespirit]

12. I am beyond disgusted

A certain faction of the party is perfectly content to let Iraq continue to degenerate and try to make it the Republicans' problem for 2008 -- but, like they usually do, they miscalculated. It's a bad political move as well as obviously morally wrong. Americans elected these people to DO something, not continue to use the Legislative branch for partisan political purposes. If they'd wanted more of THAT, they would've kept the Republicans in power, as it's all that they've done for the past six years.

Almost 3,000 Americans in Iraq, plus 2,000 on the Gulf Coast, and what does our party "leadership" do? Apparently plans to use Iraq as a political wedge issue, and does NOTHING about the Coast, except for Edwards, who (IMO rather cynically) uses the Lower 9th Ward to launch a presidential campaign. I'm reminded of the "bullhorn moment" in New York and the 2004 GOP convention. Aren't we supposed to be better than to use disaster scenes for our own purposes? I'm really disappointed in Edwards for that. I know I am more sensitive than many to Katrina issues, and I know that Edwards has done good for the victims, but that type of photo-op is still offensive to me.

Yeah, this crap is definitely what America voted for.

[ProSense]

9. Durbin disagrees with Reid!

http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=5826333

[Mass]

10. Once again, it seems Reid has tried "nuance" and as usual, does not do that

very well.

He probably tried not to look as a systematic opponent of Bush and to say he was ready to be reasonnable, but...

This seems to be the full quote:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/17/america/NA_GEN_US_Iraq.php

"If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that," said the Democratic senator, citing a time frame such as two months to three months. But a period longer than that, such as 18 months to 24 months, would be unacceptable, he said.

"The American people will not allow this war to go on as it has. It simply is a war that will not be won militarily. It can only be won politically," Reid said. "We have to change course in Iraq."

But what he said does not make a lot of sense. Does Reid really think that sending 20,000 troops for a couple of months will make a difference. Powell explained the situation very well this morning: by keeping some troops on the field and by advancing the deployment of some troops to Iraq, people can create a temporary surge, but there are not enough troops to continue the surge and the problems will restart as soon as the additional troops are withdrawn.

However, Reid is trying to play smart, and it comes out as disingenuous at best. Happy to see Durbin made things clear.

[whometense]

11. Good post on this at Liberal Oasis

http://www.liberaloasis.com/2006/12/sunday_talkshow_breakdown_13.php

...So how significant are these variations between Democrats?

Substantively, not very.

Reid's support for a 2-3 month surge is support for a nonexistent proposal.

Bush will not propose anything so tightly constrained. Reid will have plenty of room to oppose whatever Bush announces next month.

And the rest of Reid's messaging -- a goal of getting out militarily and seeking a political solution -- is fine.

However, Reid's comments were an unnecessary wrinkle in having a coordinated Democratic message.

It's hiccups like that which give an impression of more disarray than actually exists.

And it's a hiccup that can be rectified with a modicum of coordination in advance of Sunday show appearances.

At least, a little coordination ahead of time can get the sound bites in line.

But what is also needed, and will take more work, is coordination on the big picture.

How do Democrats frame their overarching foreign policy direction, and move the entire national conservation away from hair-splitting tactical disputes in Iraq, to fundamental choices about our international engagement?

Only Rep.-elect Sestak attempted to do that yesterday, and he did it well. But he should not be alone.

It should be a party-wide objective to start collectively painting their own global picture -- and not cede the deeper intellectual debate to psychotic lightweights like Newt Gingrich.