I am DEMANDING a Democratic top level meeting to strategize about Iraq: Bill Clinton, Gore, Carter

[Nimrod2005]

Harry Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, Biden....etc. and all of the top level Democrats with considerable foreign policy experience MUST attend! Lock themselves up for days if they have to.

Others like Bill Richardson, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Madeleine Albright must also attend.

It is clear that * has hijacked the message on Iraq, and there will never be an answer as to what to do next, we are staying the course, he will run out the clock, let this be the next President's problem...Most Likely a Democrat. If the next President leaves Iraq, they will hold this against the Dem party for the next 40 years...etc. If we don't, we look as bad he looks now.

I am asking our leaders to get together and formalize an official party position AND a strategy, even if it does not mean we leave immediately...We have smart people in the party, we have tremendous amount of experience available, we need to act NOW!!! If we let this issue and how OUR COUNTRY moves forward be decided by them, WE WILL LOSE AGAIN!!!

Our country will lose, our children will suffer, and we will never ever be able to repair America's image in the world!

[Olney Blue]

1. I DEMAND IT TOO.

[democrat2thecore]

2. One problem (otherwise I agree)

A lot of these great minds are getting their information from the same places as you and I. This administration has politicized the dissemination of information regarding Iraq in carefully written pieces that don't tell the whole story. There has to be a demand for HONEST appraisals of the situation on the ground.

[sandnsea]

4. They know the truth

Did you not read Kerry's blogs yesterday? He specifically said the Administration was going to lie. Don't kid yourself, the Dems know what is going on over there.

[democrat2thecore]

7. No, I missed reading Kerry's blog yesterday -- LOL!

Honestly, it's not on my everyday RSS feeds. A lot of people have a lot of things to say about Iraq. Kerry had his chance.

[sandnsea]

11. Kos, Huffpost,

You don't read those?

He's the one leading the fight in the Senate to end the war. If you care about it, you might want to pay attention to what the man has to say.

[cali]

15. No he's not.

Has he called for defunding? In any case, Kerry doesn't inspire much confidence in me as the standard bearer for ending the war: He had the bad judgement to vote for it.

[karynnj]

20. Kerry has been one of the leaders - he and Feingold

were the first to insist on a binding amendment with deadlines and only 13 Seantors voted for it in summer 2006. In fall, the part specifying a regional diplomatic summit was included as sense of teh Senate resolution in the Fall 2006 defense bill. Early this year a majority of the Senate voted for what in essence is Kerry/Feingold.

I really do not understand why you attack someone who has been consistently fighting. You also ignore that Kerry was against the invasion from the moment it occured, unlike Edwards who you have posted nice things about. (Edwards was also pretty ambiguous on his stand when Kerry was fighting for deadlines. Noq, Edwards is primarily attacking Democtrats in the Senate and House, rather than working to try to use his leadership to help them.)

[cali]

27. HE VOTED FOR A BLANK CHECK

Good that he now recognizes the grievous bodily blow he helped deliver. And I've posted very little about Edwards. I certainly don't see either of them as being able to lead when they exhibited such terrible judgement.

[karynnj]

28. He has said that the vote was wrong

If Bush were not lying through his teeth when he said thatit was not a vote for war, it could actually have had good results. In fall 2002, Saddam was pushed into granting far more invasive, complete inspections than ever before and he destroyed his missiles, as they were borderline out of compliance. Bush promised publicly that he would use diplomacy and work with the international community and go to war only as a last resort.

In the summer of 2002, Kerry was one of the voices pushing Bush to go to the UN and to Congress. When Bush appeared to be doing just that, Kerry gave Bush that vote for the reasons he stated and he has since said he regrets it and that it was the wrong vote. He has also worked as hard as anyone to create a path out. That leadership - over the last 3 years should carry some weight in assessing whether he should be a leader on this. The vote, though wrong, was not a blank check - if it were Bush would not have written a signing statement that said that by signing it, he gave up no constitutionally given power to attack when he thought the country in danger.

In 2002, the status quo was going to change. The sanctions that had caused devastation in Iraq were very likely going to be lifted by other countries. They should never have been kept in place for 12 years. In December 2002, Bush could have announced that the destruction of the missles and the inspections was compliance of a type we had never seen before and if it continued war could be avoided and sanctions could be lifted. If Saddam was willing to destroy his only high tech weapons to avoid war, it is likely that he would have agreed to some form of long term monitoring. (If we were smart, we would have in parallel offer to help in rehabilitating te damage from the bombings and sanctions.) This would have given Bush a success in this area greater than his father's or Clinton's. The ironic thing is that had Bush done what he publicly said he would, 2004 would have been an easy victory.

In 2003, when it was clear that Bush was going to war Kerry did speak out as he said he would. Kerry was ON RECORD as against the war before it started. Looking at all he said and wrote in 2002 and 2003, Kerry was consistently against war. Kerry is also not running for President, he is working to end the war.

It was Kerry and Feingold, more than any other people, who insured there would be a debate in the Senate in 2006 on Iraq and that there would be a real binding Democratic proposal. Kerry was the one who took the most grief from the "party leaders" for this. Yet a variant of that plan was voted for by all but one of Democratic caucus earlier this year. Kerry has clearly been one of the strongest voices saying the Democrats do have a better policy - calmly listing the elements of his plan. Note that even Hillary Clinton is now saying that only deadlines will move the Iraqis to resolve their differences. Contrast that to her sarcastic adament opposition to Kerry/Feingold.

Here, you did not say that you wouldn't support Kerry as President or that you don't like him, you said that because of a vote 5 years ago, he shouldn't lead on this effort now. As, he is chair of the SFRC subcommittee that oversees Iraq, that would mean he isn't doing his job. The fact though is that he has been the leader on this issue for 2 years - even as party leaders worked against him.

Do we have so many strong voices that you can reject a leader who has been right far more often than wrong?

[Nimrod2005]

8. Agree 100%

[Nimrod2005]

6. We know enough to know that they keep moving the goal post

That they will cherry pick the "positive" results when the measure their so called success next week...Enough is enough! What are we going to do about it?

[democrat2thecore]

19. Now - There's the critical point. It's always "We'll know soon..." --nt

[sandnsea]

3. I'm In

Kerry tried, yesterday, to get the word out on the propaganda they were going to use, I see it fell on deaf ears by the "Dems are caving" posts here today.

But yes, it is time the party get ONE message and a unified strategy to end the war, get Bin Laden, and end terrorism. THAT is being tough on defense, a strategy that will work.

[Nimrod2005]

9. That my point, they appear to be caving because he is controlling the message

driving this story "effectively."

[sandnsea]

14. I don't know what is to be done

If you can't get the "netroots" to understand, then what? When the media thinks the DLC is the Democratic Party, and only reports what they say, then what again? blaaaa, drives me batty.

Just keep screaming the truth I guess.

[karynnj]

21. Huh?

I would be delighted if Kerry were controlling the Democratic message - and it is very clear from his responses on the DKos diary that he personally is not caving.

[Nimrod2005]

24. I always thought he was way ahead of everyone on issues...nt

[peacetalksforall]

5. FIRST IRAN. Then Iraq. I can only agree if we talk IRAN.

The situation is dire.

Where are the people who are saying we are not going to bomb Iran?

It's time to update their rational for denying the bombing in light of all the new clues and statements and threats.

We're talking September or October. Iraq can wait.

I kick out the Dem leaders who don't talk Iran.

And I will list them in parallel.

Not even Ted Kennedy is saying NO to bombing IRAN.

I don't want to hear one more word about Craig or campaigns until Iran is safe.

[Imagevision]

10. Spin, nothing but spin Bill, Oprah is going to have her hands full dealing with this BS.

If she goes on the road for Obama.

[msongs]

12. well you could start by asking your man OBAMA to say something useful nt

[Why Syzygy]

13. Bring Them Home Now.

There is no other answer.

they will hold this against the Dem party for the next 40 years

Who is "they" and what is "this"?

[FreakinDJ]

16. DEMS need to wake up

Repukes are setting the tone to blame the next president for all our forign policy woes and domestic economic problems for the next 20 - 30 years.

Bush has destroyed America's credibility amongst the world. He has also run this country into unprecidented amounts of debt.

[GeorgeGist]

17. Telling that you feel the need to DEMAND ...

leadership from the Democratic Party.

[Why Syzygy]

18. OT: why

doesn't your heading have an index card for "profile"? Even people who have disabled profiles have one. Just curious.

[opihimoimoi]

22. They should gather in a councilesque way to hammer out group strategies...Common Sense for the Commo

n good......

[OneBlueSky]

23. I think you'll find that, unfortunately, most of those you list are fine with BushCo's approach . .

in Iraq . . . I think only Gore, and maybe Carter, would voice vehement opposition to a long-term U.S. occupation . . . and to the oil law that effectively gives Iraqi oil to U.S. multinationals . . .

[karynnj]

30. John Kerry has already done both

He brought up permanent bases in the first debate - long before anyone was aware that Bush was setting them up. He has repeatedly spoken against being occupiers. In 2005, the first point of his Oct 2005 Path Forward plan was that the US say publicly that they don't want permanent bases and make it clear that we do not want to be occupiers. That plan would have had the US basically out by December 2006.

Kerry also took huge risks then explaining that the US should not be doing the Search and destroy missions or policing. He used his background, to explain to people like Chris Matthews that it is a terrible situation for both the soldiers and the Iraqis - to have soldiers who didn't know the culture or language knocking on Iraqi doors. This was a demand to change the mission - giving those functions back to the Iraqis, enabling us to have less a presence and to move towards leaving. In essence it was rejecting the role of occupier - and he had the guts to use the word occupation - when in 2005, NO ONE in mainstream politics dared to.

Kerry has said that the oil is theirs and it is their decision. (The most recent time I heard this was a small clip from an Iraq form Kerry gave in Massachusetts, where Kerryvision.net had some U tube clips from a MA blog)

[renie408]

25. Well that ought to do it. n/t

[Skidmore]

26. And the only thing that will come from such a meeting is

that it will immediately be handed to Hillary's campaign to use before it becomes a party position. Get real. Don't get me wrong. I think something like this should have happened long ago. But let's be a day late and a dollar short. We've had many good voices out front for a long time who continue to be drowned out by the machine as it is.

[mmonk]

29. If they form an official party position,

they can't equivocate and you might not like the results.