Liberal Oasis: Use Kerry's frame on Iraq

[whometense]

Today's Liberal Oasis post makes a great argument against Tom Friedman's assertion in his column from yesterday's NY Times that democrats "deep down don't want the Bush team to succeed." In doing so, he quotes John Kerry's words from the September 30, 2004 debate.

KERRY: And I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't have long-term designs on it.

As I understand it, we're building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they've got a rather permanent concept to them.

When you guard the oil ministry, but you don't guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, "Wow, maybe they're interested in our oil."

Now, the problem is that they didn't think these things through properly. And these are the things you have to think through.

What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders.

You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But you've also got to show that you are prepared to bring the rest of the world in and share the stakes.

I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.

Liberal Oasis notes that Bush would make no such statement. His point is that this is the critical sistinction the democrats should be making on Iraq: The Democrats of the United States of America have no long-term designs on staying in Iraq. The Repugs can make no such claim.

John Kerry was right; Bush is wrong.

[TayTay]

1. I like this

It is sound logic and will do a lot to ease anxiety over the intentions of the US empire. Kerry was right, in this and so much more.

[karynnj]

2. Friedman's claim is too broad anyway

He says the Democrats don't want Bush to succeed. Before any of us can say if we want Bush to succeed, we need to know precisely what his goal is. If is goal is to have a strong long term occupation or if Bush is planning to "spread freedom" in a form where "Freedom" looks more like war and chaos to me, I certainly don't want him to "succeed". If he wants to end the war, leaving Iraq stable, I desperately want him to succeed.

Kerry had a clear cut goal and stated his plan for achieving it and as you quoted Liberal Oasis THE DEMOCRATS have no long term designs on staying in Iraq. This is clearly KERRY's position. If all (or almost all) Democrats back Kerry on this, it might be a good idea for Kerry to try to pass a resolution advocating for no long term bases. The Democrats need to make this difference clearer.

[JohnKleeb]

3. Very cool

and I remember him doing that.

[beachmom]

4. Had a discussion with a Republican friend of mine about this

I said that they're building permanent bases in Iraq, and it appears they want to occupy for a long time. She responded that it would be outrageous if we planned to stay there. Then I cited that debate moment when Kerry said that he would not build permanent bases in Iraq, and Bush made no response to that. (His silence on that issue was deafening) She is military and started talking about our bases in Uzbek and Saudi Arabia and other places, that we don't need bases in Iraq. But I feel like she was being naive. I'll bet anyone a million dollars that we still have troops and bases there in 30 years. Unless, of course, we have another humiliating defeat and pullout like Vietnam. We definitely will be there for *'s entire 2nd term because he has NO plan of getting out.

[blm]

5. I know it's alot to ask but PLEASE repost in GD.

The real word has to get out front at every opportunity.

There are just so many liars complaining there was no difference between Bush and Kerry on Iraq.

[JohnKleeb]

6. I would but you know I am afraid to post in there

It's horseshit, isn't it?

[whometense]

7. It's not asking so much.

I'll do it. Anything for John. :-)

Ok, done. Now you guys need to go over there and bump it up before it slides off into oblivion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1861596

[Mass]

9. I just bumped it up

but DU is in this mode where people need to have THEIR thread on the subject of the day and everything else is ignored.

[karynnj]

8. I agree

This morning Chris Matthews (on Imus) was again whining about the Democrats not having a policy - now, as they are out of power it is to be expected that they don't have one person dictating the policy.

I think the Democrats could really help themselves by tyeing this "no permanent bases" statement and possibly a no PNAC argument into all their calls for a withdrawal timetable. While there is disagreement in the Democratic party over setting a timetable (and I think that may because some feel that it's bad strategy), there may be more agreement on these more global policies. Kerry and Kennedy in their respective MTP shows both said they were basically in agreement and I think these issues are the root of their agreement. Neither are in favor of long term occupation.

The Democrats will gain nothing from the war being recognized as a failure if they are not projecting a clear alternative. During the campaign, Kerry did give an alternative path, but the Republicans and the media (and unfortunately parts of the left) minimized the true differences. The question may be whether there are prominent Democrats who disagree on bases and PNAC. If this is the case, it may be the lack of a Democratic position may be because there is no consensus. (After all Kennedy to Kerry doesn't span the Democratic party.)

One question - Should active Democrats be forcing an answer on these two critical issues from all of our potential leaders now? On the pro side we would know better if the party has a consistent view on this issue and could push to have all Democrats talk about it. On the con side, there may be some people who don't want to be on record as it could become a liability in the future.

[beachmom]

10. 4 Point Plan

Does somebody have Kerry's 4 point plan on Iraq? He talked about it on MTP, and I had never heard it before (he had rolled it out, apparently, in the spring of 2004), which tells you how badly the media covered the campaign, and perhaps the campaign itself didn't emphasize it enough. Anyway, I remember a couple of the points:

1. Have elections
2. Get the international community involved including the U.N. to take ownership of rebuilding Iraq
3. Train Iraqis to create an army

But I don't remember the 4th. Or was that transition over to an Iraqi government?

I saw on C-SPAN last night those 4 house members (2 Dem, 2 Repub) introduce their resolution to withdraw troops from Iraq. They bent over backwards to keep it in line with * admin policy, but of course, the * admin rejected it out of hand. But this news conference was very emotional and touching. And then the press asked if this was similar to the Mansfield Amendment of 1971. They said they BASED their resolution on the Mansfield Amendment. Then the press asked if, like in 1971 when Vietnam Veterans supported this amendment, were there enlisted military personnel in support for their resolution. Apparently, a couple have anonymously called in to support it, but since they're still enlisted they can't really openly support it, because they must follow orders of the commander in chief. I felt like the ghost of the young John Kerry of 1971 was floating over this conference, and wondered if he didn't take a moment to see the astonishing parallelism of now to 1971. What makes now different is we have a professional military, no draft, so these soldiers would have to risk court martial to say no to this war. A huge difference. Just when I think the * Admin. arrogance and pig headedness won't surprise me anymore, their casual dismissal of these House members was unbelievably callous.

[karynnj]

11. I think that he broke one of yours into 2 parts

To have the UN, neighboring countries etc help the Iraqis with the diplomacy needed to set up a stable country recognizing the different Iraqi factions

To sponsor infrastructure reconstruction using Iraqis where possible

As to the 1971 parallels, I think he has to feel them. I bet that he hated having his famous line thrown back to him in the debates and elsewhere.

I have wondered when he will join the call to leave Iraq - in Vietnam, it seemed to bother him most that people were asked to die for a war for which there was no plan to succeed and which was being fought in a way that violated international law and basic morality. This time, I think he has thought he could at least influence the government on how to leave Iraq in a more stable position - so at least for the time being he doesn't thing it is meaningless. He did speak out about international law. I think his 1971 experience has made him wary about talking about the abuses and the immorality - I really think it's more because he genuinely cares about the soldiers than it is about his political status.

I think during the campaign he really had an unspoken point 5 - which was obvious, make him President and he would have put his full energies to creating peace. I think in some ways, this might have been the root of why the media gave him so little support. The media that has complained about packaged phony candidates forever rejected him because in the end he was the real thing. (I think that's why people have defined Kerry by saying things like Kerry is ... Kerry,)

[TayTay]

12. 1/30/05 MTP

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe this election will be seen by the world community as legitimate?

SEN. KERRY: A kind of legitimacy--I mean, it's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote. I think this election was important. I was for the election taking place. You may recall that back in--well, there's no reason you would--but back in Fulton, Missouri, during the campaign, I laid out four steps, and I said at the time, "This may be the president's last chance to get it right."

The four steps were, number one, massive rapid training. Number two, you've got to do reconstruction, and you've got to get the services to the Iraqis. Number three, you've got to bring the international community in the effort. Number four, you've got to have the elections.

Well, today we did number four, we had the elections. But the other three are almost--I mean, they're lagging so significantly that the task has been made that much harder. And I will say unequivocally today that what the administration does in these next few days will decide the outcome of Iraq, and this is--not maybe--this is the last chance for the president to get it right.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6886726

What's really scary is Sen. Kerry's remark that the election was one of *'s last chances to get it right. Did you read this morning that the insurgents retook Ramadi and in the process killed 5 American soldiers. Oh, and the insurgents are using Ramadi as a testing ground for new armor-piercing weapons that are even worse than what they had before. Scary as hell.

[Dr Ron]

13. If only Democrats would unit around this

"John Kerry was right; Bush is wrong."

If Democrats were putting out this message, it would both help get their message out and leave Kerry in a stronger position should he run in 2008.

Instead many Democrats are repeating the Rove lines about Kerry, leading the average voter to conclude that nobody was right.

As a consequence, while Republican support is diminishing in recent polls, we are not seeing a corresponding increase in Democratic support.

[karynnj]

14. Agree with you that they would be better off doing this

but I doubt they will because:
1) they may fear it strengthens Kerry's position within the party
and
2) there may not be unanimous acceptance of it (where are Clinton and Biden on this issue.)

If most agree, they could just restate the same thing, without saying Kerry said it, and have all the Democrats that agree use the same words. At least this might help to explain how the 2 parties are very different on Iraq. It also illuminates what Bush has been doing without telling the American people who did not knowingly sign on to Vietnam II.

Then by 2008, if the people are behind this, they can say it was the official Democratic position of 2004 - because it was what Kerry said in the debate.

[MH1]

15. Short-sighted, or selfish.

they may fear it strengthens Kerry's position within the party

I think Dr. Ron's suggestion is an absolute sure winner for Democrats. What ticks me off is that everyone (well, almost everyone) was ready to put differences aside and support Kerry in 2004 because the alternative is just so awful. Well, the Republican alternative isn't going to be any less awful in 2008, and we can't count on it being any easier to beat. If "Kerry was right; Bush was wrong" is a sure winner for 2008 (which I think it is), then why not start going for the win now? I think it's selfish of the other Dem leaders to hold back out of some fear of elevating Kerry and maybe not getting the chance they want for themselves.

If the whole party got behind him like that, Kerry would be coming from a position of strength - against the Republican opponent - that no other Dem could match. Which is why they won't do it, I guess.

[karynnj]

16. I think mostly selfish - I agree with you and wish it were so

I think that the fact that it isn't like that is very interesting. I may just be fooled by Kerry, but I really think he might be the only politician I would think would do something that could disadvantage himself if he felt there was a compelling reason to think it would help the country. What's interesting is how the party has treated the last 2 nominees.

Gore got the nomination largely because he was the vp and ran after 8 years of good economic times, but a very nerve wracking emotional time thanks to the RW and Clinton's behavior. After his defeat, Gore, although understandably depressed, disappeared for at least a year and a half then came back substantially heavier and with a beard. STILL, at the beginning of 2002, most pundits and many Democrats felt that he should have the nomination again.

Kerry came very close to winning a race that should have been tougher than Gore's race. After his defeat, Kerry, was out of sight for about 2 weeks, returned to the Senate and talked to at least some of the press, took a month for a very well deserved vacation and has been working like crazy since then. He pioneered using his email list for issues, which many have since copied, and he has reached out to his supporters. More than anyone else he has developed positions on issues that represent true Democratic values. Although he's been leading, the party and the media are most definitely not helping. (Although at some point, they may notice he does the right things even when noone is watching.)

I think the real difference in how they've been treated may reflect the fact that Kerry was never the choice of the professional Democratic, contrary to the claims of the Deniacs or the Clark fans. (He certainly wasn't a favorite of the Clintons - who clearly preferred Clark.) It seems he won Iowa just on his own merits. (Does anyone know why Harkin, who seemed a Kerry friend, endorsed Dean?)

During the general election, the politicians stayed closely behind Kerry, but many operatives, Brazille, Carville and Begala seemed annoyed that Kerry wasn't doing what they wanted. So it doesn't surprise me that the media and the professional Democrats are not giving Kerry the same respect. (Also the Clinton people know who they want.)

One reason I can think of for not getting behind the position is that it is not Hillary's position and many Democrats are betting on her. I wish she would make her position clearer because I think that if there were a position, however vague, that she, Kerry, Edwards, etc could agree to which is substantially different then Bush's, it could serve as an interim Democratic position. (Also, if Hillary is closer to Bush than to Kerry, the party needs to know this, as I think most Democrats are closer to Kerry on this (with many to the get out now side.))

[politicasista]

18. It's a sounds like a selfish thing.

I know there are lots of dems that have personal political ambitions, but does anyone think without much party support, will that affect his decision to run again in the future? The media is definitely pushing Hil hard. You and Doc make some good points.

[karynnj]

20. It didn't last time and he's better positoned this time

I hope Vilsack doesn't run because I realy think Kerry must have really impressed a lot of people there last time. He had the endoursement of Vilsack's wife, but not Harken's and he had very little favorable press.

This time he starts out with more money and name recognition. (Only hope is that it is more positive than negative) He really has no scandals or major negatives (I don't think anyone cares that an obviously intelligent, informed, creative man, was immature and had far too many commendable extracurricullar activities when he was in his late teens) That he almost won is both a negative and a positive.

[beachmom]

19. Not much of a vacation

After his defeat, Kerry, was out of sight for about 2 weeks, returned to the Senate and talked to at least some of the press, took a month for a very well deserved vacation and has been working like crazy since then.

Actually, I'm not sure if he took even a full month vacation. Remember he left Idaho early to go to Iraq, the Middle East, and Europe. Interestingly, I think there was a therapeutic element to going to Baghdad, Mosul, and Fallujah so soon after his defeat -- a good way to stop feeling sorry for yourself and see it's a lot worse for other folks. And to keep thinking of how we can get out of there. That trip he took raised his status for me big time. He didn't have to go.

[karynnj]

21. Also in the ME and Europe

he checked on how many Irarqis countries would train. Bush was lying in that there was lots of help offered the US didn't take - which makes you question Bush's sincerity. He also seemed to learn a lot.

[MH1]

22. That's what I was thinking, too. n/t

[sandnsea]

17. Yep, we do it every time

Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and now Kerry. Happens every time "leading the average voter to conclude that nobody was right", or at least that the Democratic Party doesn't believe in anything because if you don't believe in your Presidential candidate, what do you believe in.