South Coast Times editorial

[paineinthearse]

Kerry met with the editors - read the editorial at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1519153

[blm]

1. Thought it was a phone interview. I call bullshit on their opinion.

They always look to blame Dems when the TRUTH is that they won't call out the BROADCAST MEDIA for leaving major print stories about Bush's lies, crimes and failures UNDISCUSSED and UNEXAMINED.

What's in print STAYS in print while most of America that watches TV and listens to radio go UNINFORMED.

And all they can do is blame the dems who have no access to the GOPcontrolled microphones.

How about devoting some ink to pressure BROADCAST MEDIA TO STOP PROPPING UP BUSH OR EXPOSE ITS TIES TO THE GOP?

[TayTay]

2. It was a phone interview

prior to a formal meeting with the OpEd board.

This editorial is okay, as far as it goes. But Rep Meehan (My congressman, btw) had a withdrawal plan in Jan. The Iraqi elections knocked it out of the papers. He has been front and center.

I think Kerry's position will move. I will stay tuned.

[paineinthearse]

3. Who was here in January and supported the posts publicizing Meehan's

...exit plan? It was posted in the GD, GDP & Massachusetts forums.

[TayTay]

4. The Meehan plan is similar to Sen Kennedy's

but they both went nowhere. There is now another proposal on the floor of the house (Can't remember whose, Woolsley?) It might get a little farther.

This need to withdraw from Iraq is something that is slowly growing in the public's mind. I am wary of it myself. On the one hand, I don't want anymore citizens of Iraq to suffer at the hands of the insurgency. However, it becomes more and more apparent to me that WE (the USA) are causing a lot of these deaths by our very presence. I am beginning to think that we do need to get out. (This is an evolving position for me and I am more in favor of withdrawal than I was in Jan.)

[sandnsea]

5. There are NO withdrawal plans

Meehan, Woolsey, Kennedy, they can slap "withdrawal" on their plans if they want to; it doesn't make them actual withdrawal plans. Kerry is exactly right, there's no real difference in Democratic policies. I don't know why people can't read the damned things and see that the plans are no different than what Kerry or Dean or Clark has been proposing since before the war started. HOW things are done and WHY things are done are what's important, not the words on a page. Idiots that say Democrats just want to "tweak" Bush's plans are more to blame for the public's confusion about the Democrats' Iraq plans than Democrats are.

And since when do Senators not talk to newspapers when they're traveling around their states. I swear, people are way too fucking full of themselves. Visting local editors is a novel idea dreamed up at Conyer's hearing, good lord. That isn't what the guy said at all.

[TayTay]

6. Not sure what you mean here.

All congressional folk have to meet with newspapers in their home states and districts. Kerry has done several of these in the last few weeks. The OpEd boards draw their own conclusions from the meetings, over which only they have control.

I thought the phone interview with Kerry was great. This was the 'bait and switch' on Iraq quote. (Nice quote, btw.) The OpEd board came up with the idea that the domestic agenda is subservient to the Iraq War as an issue of importance. They then suggested that Kerry would serve the interests of the nation and the voters of MA by focusing more on Iraq than the KidsFirst act. (I disagree. I believe my junior Senator can both walk and chew gum at the same time, but I digress.)

The Iraq war is a huge mess and there are no good solutions. There are deep and intractable problems if we withdraw, there are equally awful and intractable problems if we stay. That's why it's a quagmire, you can't get out of it easily. I am not entirely happy with Kerry's stance on Iraq (I never have been.) It's also not his fault. His reasoning in Oct 2002 was sound, but he was not given (nor was the whole Senate given) the whole truth about the intel and the real reason that * wanted to invade. It's not Kerry's fault that this war is so screwed up. But it is not getting better. At some point his own most famous question does come back into play, and it is both legitimate and fair to ask it. Lives are at stake.

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

[sandnsea]

7. Nobody has a withdrawal plan

That's a pretty clear statement. Unless you support pulling all of our troops out within the week, you don't support withdrawal either. Tired of people manipulating other's words and plans, when they're pretty well full of shit on the Iraq subject themselves. Not saying you, just referring to all of the "bring the troops home" people who have no plan to bring the troops home at all. At least not the politicians. But they're more than ready to call any Democratic plan, to truly leave Iraq stable and then get out, the same as Bush's. It may make for good left wing Masshole politics, but from where I sit, kids are dying at the expense of these bizarre political games.

[TayTay]

8. There is a lot of credible reporting that we are the problem

This is not 'pie in the sky' liberalism. This is credible stuff. Part of the reason Iraq is such a problem is that WE are there. WE are the targets of the insurgency. WE give a reaon for the insurgency to be so popular. A lot of Iraqi innocents are dying because WE are there.

You cannot win an insurgency war. The insurgents are supported by the people, the native population. We couldn't win an insurgency war in Vietnam. We could bomb the shit out of Vietnam and destroy a lot of what was there, but we could not win 'the hearts and minds' of the people. That war became a long disaster.

Iraq is a disaster. I sincerely don't believe that we can do anything that will make it better. The Iraqi people have to make it better. And too many of the Iraqi people are hiding the insurgents. We cannot win this war. So the question becomes, how do you withdraw without letting the country devolve into utter chaos. (Can we avoid a Pol Pot situation.) I think we need to do something different, because the deaths just keep adding up. We are not wanted over there. It's not our country. I think we need to start considering other scenarios.

[sandnsea]

9. They've been considered and suggested

But I guess if they don't have the stamp of "withdrawal" on them, some people can't differentiate them from "stay the course". Just my opinion, but as far as I can see, another situation where leftist ideoology gets in the way of pragmatic progress. This time, people are dying because of it.

The situation in Iraq is not as simple as insurgents fighting the US either. Your comment of avoiding a Pol Pot situation proves you know that. The people who would love to inflict a Pol Pot situation use the US presence for recruitment. If the underlying animosity between ethnic groups didn't exist in Iraq, we may have had a large number of troops home and a very different situation over there.

It isn't simply our presence there that has caused problems. It's more the way Bush chose to use our troops and implement the reconstruction and governance. But when Democrats point that out, it gets called "tweaking" Bush's plans. And Rove repeats it. So how does an actual change of plan, like JK and others have advocated, ever make it into the national dialogue? It doesn't. And like I said, this time people are dying because of these political games.