Morning Sedition: Dean on Iraq, Murtha and Korb.

[madfloridian]

I missed this interview, so I have read about it at the Shadow Blog where Renee did the transcript. I found this by Susan at BooTrib, which sort of draws it all together.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/11/21/122636/38

"Give 'em hell, Howard! Did you get DNC chair Howard Dean's Shame On Them! message so you can send a letter of support to Jack Murtha?
Early today, Howard Dean spoke out for Jack Murtha and his Iraq war plan on Air America's Morning Sedition, far and away the best show on Air America:

MARK MARON: Well, look, Dr. Dean, I just gotta ask you right out, is there any way that we can get all the Democrats to agree that this war is the wrong thing right now and we've got to bring these troops home?

HOWARD DEAN: I think there is, and I think we're pretty close. I think Jack Murtha's leadership is just incredible. Oddly enough, the plan to get out, that I think we can get Democrats to coalesce around is a plan written by a Republican. By Lawrence Korb, who's a former Undersecretary of Defense.

MARON: We know him--he was on our show.

DEAN: He's a very bright guy, and he's written a very interesting piece which I think is the key to how you get out of Iraq without endangering our troops or maximizing the terrorists' ability to cause mayhem over there. And I know Jack talked to him before he came out with his redeployment strategy. ... (from the transcript being typed in full, as I write, by Renee in Ohio on Howard-Empowered People, via the always-on-the-ball Howie in Seattle (whose mailing list and blog are a must-read).

"And I know Jack talked to him before he came out with his redeployment strategy," Dean says.

And a little more on this. I notice Susan had not heard of this plan either. Some more from her.

"So, I go looking for this important article by the former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Here it is:

Leaving Iraq, the right way
A strategic reduction and redeployment of forces would make us safer and help stabilize the Middle East

BY LAWRENCE KORB AND BRIAN KATULIS

November 17, 2005

The Senate's strong bipartisan support on Tuesday for a resolution calling for concrete steps toward a drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq shows that Republicans and Democrats alike are unhappy with President George W. Bush's direction and leadership of the war.

The Bush administration's numerous mistakes - sending in too few troops and not providing proper guidance or equipment - as well as its frequent changes in the strategy for Iraq's political transition and reconstruction, have left us with no good options. ...

BELOW the fold, more of Howard Dean's conversation with Marc Maron this morning -- and more about Dean's views on Korb's plan to get out of Iraq the right way.

[madfloridian]

1. And about Abramoff and corruption....and the way it might touch Democrats.

"Riley: Now, you were talking earlier, Dr. Dean, about ethics, and we see that there's a lobbying nest involving Jack Abramoff that has touched a couple of Democrats. Is the party itself really ready to change the way Washington does business, even if it hurts the party in the short term?

Dean: They’d better be, because the country is more important than the party. I’ve had enough of ethics problems in Congress and we need really good legislation that will stop this. You know, the Republicans came in in ’94 and suggested they were going to clean up Washington, and of course they’ve made it even more corrupt than it was before. I want to fix this problem. We need some honesty in politics, and I know some people think that can never be achieved, and we’ll never get to it 100%, but what’s going on now is awful! We’ve never been at a time, that I ever know of, where the Republican leader in the Senate was under investigation, the Republican leader in the House is indicted, Karl Rove, who has security clearance, for God’s sake, after leaking wartime information! The President can’t tell the truth—I don’t think he even knows what the truth is any more—"

[MH1]

2. Well, it's not "out now" exactly.

From the Korb / Katulis article (which was linked in the Boo Trib story):
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-toptruk4515718nov17,0,7373450.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

Throughout 2006, continued U.S. military presence in Iraq would focus more sharply on its core missions: completing the training of Iraqi forces; improving border security; providing logistical and air support to Iraqi security forces; serving as advisers to Iraqi units; and tracking down insurgents and terrorist leaders with smaller, more nimble Special Forces units operating jointly with Iraqi forces. The continued presence would also reduce the chances for a full-blown civil war, although Iraqi leaders such as Ayatollah Ali Sistani have much more power to prevent civil war than U.S. troops do.

By the end of 2007, the only U.S. military forces in Iraq would be a small Marine contingent to protect the U.S. embassy, military advisers to the Iraqi government and counterterrorist units working with Iraqi forces.

I mention this because previously, plans proposed which were not "100% leave now" have drawn a lot of flak here at DU. Just curious to see if the reaction is different depending on which Democrat says it.

:popcorn:

[madfloridian]

3. I think it is because Korb is a former Republican.

I have not read any of the plans. I don't read them, because I don't pretend to understand them. Korb's plan is not out now, I understand.

I have not really read it yet, just pointing out that the Democrats are apparently sort of on the same page on this.

Maybe they figure they have to do something, and the only option is working with the Republicans who might respect Korb.

As I say, I read none of the plans. I will have to trust them on this. I don't see how we can just leave immediately...more might die without a plan.

[blm]

5. Korb's plan is very similar to Kerry's but with a longer timetable.

I guess Dean's approach on this is to enlist more Republicans for the debate itself, and it also helps to set him up as a more nonpartisan voice to counter the media perception of him as a radical leftist.

[madfloridian]

6. Right, and we can't get out unless Republicans say so.

That is a part of it. I have not read the plans of any of them. I doubt any will say just pull out all at once...that would be like the fall of Saigon, and more dangerous than ever. Our troops would be in great danger.

[blm]

7. Dean as DNC chair should stick with the Dem version though. Especially

since the plans emphasize so much common ground and Kerry put his up earlier. Though I can understand why he would want to appear bi=partisan to counter the mediaspin against him.



Kerry Introduces Strategy for Success in Iraq Act in United States Senate

Plan Would Bring Home 20,000 Troops After Iraq Elections, Demands Benchmarks for Success

Washington, D.C. -- This afternoon, Senator John Kerry introduced in the Senate his plan to succeed in Iraq and bring the vast majority of our combat troops home in a reasonable timeframe tied to specific, responsible benchmarks to transfer responsibility to Iraqis – beginning with the draw down of 20,000 U.S. troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. These additional troops are in Iraq only for the purpose of providing security for the upcoming elections. If they remain in Iraq after that benchmark is achieved, it only exacerbates the sense of American occupation.

"We are entering a make-or-break six month period in Iraq. We need to be taking action now if we are ever going to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict," Kerry said. “We cannot pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay ‘as long as it takes. There is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives.”

Kerry's legislation, the Strategy for Success in Iraq Act, lays out a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home. Its goal is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing both a political settlement and the draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.

Kerry’s plan calls for:

• The U.S. to begin a phased draw down of American troops as a series of military and political benchmarks is met, starting with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as the first benchmark –the successful completion of the December elections – is met.

• The U.S. to immediately make clear that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely.

• The Administration to immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn -- ideally by the end of next year.

• The Bush administration to prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq’s borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq, especially from Syria.

• The Pentagon to alter the deployment of American troops, keeping Special Operations forces pursuing specific intelligence leads and putting the vast majority of U.S. troops in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face.

• The President to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them.

• The Bush administration to accept long standing offers by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more training.

• The administration to immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia to implement a strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise that includes mutual security guarantees among Iraqis.

• Iraq’s Sunni neighbors to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas to show them the benefits of participating in the political process. • The President to appoint a special envoy to bolster America’s diplomatic efforts.

• The U.S. to commit to a new regional security structure that includes improved security assistance programs and joint exercises.

• The U.S. to jumpstart our lagging reconstruction efforts by providing the necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces, expanding job creation programs for Iraqis, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries.

“We must send this critical signal to the Iraqi people - that we do not desire permanent occupation - and that Iraqis themselves must fight for Iraq. History shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency,” Kerry added.

Senior American commanders and officials have said the large U.S. military presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency. General George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, recently wrote, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency."

# # #

[madfloridian]

8. Center for American Progress which is putting forth this Korb plan...

did consult with Clark I know. I believe they are considered a Democratic think tank.

I really don't care which plan myself. I have always felt we are in more danger no matter how we get out of there.

We have made the whole world furious with us, and we are in far more danger than we were before.

I don't have a horse in this race, and I just am for what works. I do rather resent that in the Kerry forum they are posting about this, saying that Deaniacs are going to blow up about this....like we are all so doggoned stupid and liberal.

I kinda of resent that I can not answer that I am not that way, but I can't.

I don't have a forum to "run to" to talk about the supporters of other candidates, and most have pretty well quit doing it.

I have always always said that Dean drew so many people in because he was sensible about things. He is not liberal, but he is not for using military force irresponsibility. So I resent the remarks in that forum that I can not answer. I want to say that it is another group, not the Deaniacs, which are determined to be out NOW. It is PDA. See, I said it out in the open.

[blm]

10. My experience is that they appreciate the Dean supporters who work for the

greater cause with all Dems, and get angry at the ones who still single out Kerry for attack without acknowledging when he and Dean are on the same page.

But, most of us have pretty healthy outlooks when it comes to joining together and seeing through the spin used against all Dems. Terminal case of reasoning skills, I guess. Heh....you know what I mean. ;)

[madfloridian]

14. The singling out of us is just as wrong as when someone attacks Kerry.

It is done all the time. I have nothing against presenting pro and con arguments about issues, as my recent post about the senate and house committees did. I presented my case, I expected to be attacked, and I was. But I presented a case for my criticism, and I did not call names.

Hiding in plain site, making fun of folks who supported Dean or anyone is not productive.

I fail to see the difference between making fun of Dean and his supporters, and thinking it is not ok to criticize others. That is my point.

Hey, I would rather pull out of Iraq today. But it appears not to be feasible. That said, I have no favorites among the plans presented...I have not read them.

[blm]

17. Broadbrush painting never adds to a debate.

When it comes to Democrats, I never throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Mass]

4. It is a good thing if the Dems can coalesce around one plan, even

if this plan is not all we would want.

Thanks for this good piece of news.

[Nabia2004]

9. I'm listening to it now - link -

Today's show was excellent, funny as hell and informative.

http://www.airamericaplace.com/archive.php

Dean is on during the last 15 minutes.

Former CIA agent, now author, Bob Baer is on at 1:16 of the show.

[madfloridian]

11. Thanks, will listen.

:hi:

[Peter Frank]

12. K & R... nt

[madfloridian]

13. Explain.

?

[madfloridian]

15. Kick.

Kick .

[madfloridian]

16. Here is the complete transcript.

http://shadowbfa.blogspot.com/2005/11/howard-dean-on-morning-sedition.html