John Kerry is unequivocally opposed to Bush's absurd "Troop Surge" gamble in Iraq

[beachmom]

John Kerry appeared both on The Today Show and on NPR to discuss the situation in the Middle East.

Links here for The Today Show:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/20/125158/50

And NPR:

http://blog.johnkerry.com/2006/12/21st_century_security.html#more

Let's be crystal clear what Senator Kerry said:

GREGORY: More troops would not do enough in your estimation to shore up Baghdad and at least give the Maliki government a fighting chance?

KERRY: Not without a fundamental political resolution. I think you could put 100,000 troops and you're going to up the casualties, up the stakes, increase the violence and not get a resolution.

And here's a longer excerpt from the transcript, just so it's straight with everyone:

GREGORY: But how can you have that if you can't have basic security? Everybody talks about politics, but there's trash piled up on the streets, there's an inability on the part of the government to just stop the killing, to provide basic services.

KERRY: Well, let me tell you, I had a chance to get out of the Green Zone and I met with troops in various parts of the country who, incidentally, are extraordinary in doing a remarkable job. And they have a real point of view about that. I mean, they're going out on these patrols, they're doing a great job. But unless the Sunnis/Shia fundamental divide begins to be resolved -- and I think you're seeing steps taken to do that.

There is this new coalition that's being built. There's an effort to try to bring reconciliation together. The Arab League is going to be involved. King Abdullah is involved. Others are involved.

That is the key, not troops. More troops will not resolve the problem of Iraq. And you won't end the violence. What'll happen is you'll create a larger, more prominent target in the absence of the kind of political solution that's needed.

GREGORY: You talked about the politics. Over all, having been in Iraq, do you think the war is winnable? And how would you define success?

KERRY: Fundamental stability and transformation of responsibility to the Iraqis as fast as possible .

I still am committed to the notion that the way you do this the most effectively is to have a date targeted for the withdrawal of forces in order to shift responsibility.

But nothing is going to resolve Iraq without this fundamental political reconciliation. You have a divide between Sunni and Shia. And you have criminal elements. You have ex-Baathist elements. You've just got an enormous historical cultural problem. And the only way to overcome it is with major assistance from outside countries and from us to get that political resolution.

Kerry will not support a surge of troops in Baghdad. Capice?

[wisteria]

1. Absolutely correct. Sen. Kerry does not believe in just sending in more troops. That is a receipt

for failure.It is absurd to think he would think otherwise. He is calling for diplomacy.

[TayTay]

2. This is true. Kerry does not support more troops for Iraq

He would support more troops for enlarging the size of the military to relieve pressure on the people who are currently serving. We have people who are currently on the 3rd or 4th deployment to Iraq, which is entirely unfair and very draining on these soldiers and their families.

Paul Rieckhoff at the Huffington Post talked about the need to increase the size of the military in order to allow America to carry out specified duties in various parts of the world. I think his post very nicely details the need for the troop increase: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rieckhoff/a-larger-military-warm-b_b_36831.html

This has nothing to do with current troop levels in Iraq. Sen. Kerry, along with Sen. Feingold, introduced an Amendment in June that called for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq according to a set timetable. This is what Kerry still supports, with a modification for dates because this wasn't adopted.

SEC. 1084. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) Redeployment of Troops From Iraq.--

(1) SCHEDULE FOR REDEPLOYMENT.--For purposes of strengthening the national security of the United States, the President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, in accordance with a schedule coordinated with the Government of Iraq, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting United States facilities and personnel.

(2) CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS REQUIRED.--The President shall consult with Congress regarding the schedule for redeployment and shall submit such schedule to Congress as part of the report required under subsection (c).

(3) MAINTENANCE OF OVER-THE-HORIZON TROOP PRESENCE.--The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.

(b) Iraq Summit.--The President should work with the leaders of the Government of Iraq to convene a summit as soon as possible that includes those leaders, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that engenders the support of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds by ensuring the equitable distribution of oil revenues, disbanding the militias, strengthening internal security, reviving reconstruction efforts and fulfilling related international economic aid commitments, securing Iraq's borders, and providing for a sustainable federalist structure in Iraq.

(c) Report on Redeployment.--

(1) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State, submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

(2) STRATEGY ELEMENTS.--The strategy required in the report under paragraph (1) shall include the following:

(A) The schedule for redeploying United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, developed pursuant to subsection (a)(1).

(B) A schedule for returning the majority of such redeployed forces home to the United States.

(C) The number, size, and character of United States military units needed in Iraq after July 1, 2007, for purposes of counterterrorism activities, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting United States infrastructure and personnel.

(D) A strategy for addressing the regional implications for diplomacy, politics, and development of redeploying United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

(E) A strategy for ensuring the safety and security of United States forces in Iraq during and after the July 1, 2007, redeployment, and a contingency plan for addressing dramatic changes in security conditions that may require a limited number of United States forces to remain in Iraq after that date.

(F) A strategy for redeploying United States forces to effectively engage and defeat global terrorist networks that threaten the United States.

[beachmom]

3. Exactly, Tay. I have to say I agree with the idea of increasing

the size of our military. Right now we're essentially in a two front war, which makes me extremely nervous. I would like to see us out of Iraq as fast as possible, but even when redeployment begins (oh, and it will begin, the question is when), it will take time to get them all out. In the mean time, we do need fresh reserves who can defend our country.

Nice excerpt of the Kerry/Feingold amendment. Kerry and Feingold stood up in June for this plan. They were right then as they are right now.

[welshTerrier2]

4. here is exactly what Kerry said in the NPR interview

and i quote:

"IF a surge is unaccompanied by the kind of political resolution that I just described (diplomacy), it would be a catastrophic mistake" ...

Kerry has left the door open to adding more troops as long as doing so is "accompanied" by "the kind of political resolution" he described ...

his statement is CONDITIONAL and that's too bad ...

the man said "IF"

[TayTay]

5. We don't have 100,000 troops

Kery was making the point that no number of troops brought into Iraq by the US would help. Not 10,000, not 100,000. He has said repeatedly in the last year that the solution to Iraq is political, not military.

The troop surge won't help. It could get a lot more people killed. He also said that, but why don't you quote that line as well?

[beachmom]

7. No way. You're reading something into it that's not there.

He's taking the premise of more troops and saying it's pointless without diplomacy. He is most certainly NOT endorsing a troop surge.

[welshTerrier2]

9. you are twisting what he said, not me ...

let's take your own statement ...

but first, i did NOT say that he is ENDORSING a troop surge ... what i did say was that his response about it was CONDITIONAL ... i provided an exact quote from his NPR interview ... the man said "IF" ...

secondly, IF more troops are pointless without diplomacy, that certainly doesn't clearly state that more troops are unacceptable under all conditions ... it leaves the door open to sending more troops ... i'm opposed to that ...

[beachmom]

11. I just don't agree. The diplomacy will take a long time.

The diplomacy Kerry is calling for would take at least 6 months (the amount of time a troop surge could last), and how do you know that the Arab League might offer peacekeeping troops at that time? See what I mean? The question at hand is a troop surge TODAY with no diplomacy with Iran or Syria. Kerry's unequivocal answer is no.

[welshTerrier2]

16. well, either way

if his unequivocal answer is no, i'm glad ... as you can see by the reactions to what he said, once again he was not clear ... clear to you? maybe ... clear to me? no ...

and so when bush says he's going to send more troops to Iraq and it comes time to vote on giving him the funds to continue the war, can we count on Kerry's "no" vote?

[beachmom]

19. Funding is a tough question. Bush probably won't even ask Congress

he'll just put the troops in first, then throw a defense supplementary at them way after the fact. Even during the Vietnam era, the congress never voted against funding until after our troops were out of the war theater (in 1975). So I'll be honest with you, Welsh, that I don't know what should be done in that case.

Kerry is against the troops surge. And he said even 100,000 troops will not work. It's not a question of interpretation, Welsh. He will not support it. Period.

[karynnj]

22. It may not be so easy

Even leaving, or working so we can leave soon, will require money be spent. Additionally some of the money is needed to restore what was been ruined in Iraq and Afghanistan. It sounds like the best Democrats will be able to do is to fight corrupt charges and include sense of the Senate resolutions. I hope the Democrats having Congress can do some good - but I doubt there are more than a single digit number of Senators who would vote against funding for most of these reasons.

From the NYT:

The budget request includes:

--$41.5 billion to cover the costs of ongoing military operations.

--$26.7 billion for replacing and repairing equipment damaged or destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

--$10 billion for body armor and other equipment to protect U.S. troops from attack.

--$2.5 billion to combat roadside bombs and other improvised explosive devices.

--$2.7 billion for intelligence activities.

Whatever request emerges from the Bush administration will go to a new Congress controlled by Democrats highly critical of the Iraq war and Bush's handling of it.

Even so, there is much sentiment among Democrats to protect troops and much fear about being portrayed as unsympathetic to men and women in uniform. These factors probably would overwhelm any efforts by anti-war Democrats to use the debate over the Iraq money to take on Bush's conduct of the war.




http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Iraq-Spending.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[TayTay]

25. Don't know if he will or not, but I suspect he will.

I suspect we will disagree on this. I don't think the funding supplemental will come in and be taken by Congress in the same way as it has been in the last 4 years. Those prior funding bills were done 'off budget' and the delineation of spending was never really clarified, or accounted for. Sen. Kent Conrad has held many Democratic Policy Committee hearings on this and on what the US is actually spending it's money on.

I also do not know what form this supplemental will take when it goes through Congress. The funding bill itself is due to be sent to Congress on Feb 5th. I do not know if Congress will take this bill as a whole or separate it out into parts. (Prior bills had veterans services provisions in it and funding for veterans health care. I want those provisions. I don't want others. Under the Republicans, there was no stripping out provisions, it was all or nothing.)

In an Adrew Taylor story done for the AP and published today, the figures for the request are as follows:

The budget request includes:

• $41.5 billion to cover the costs of ongoing military operations.

• $26.7 billion for replacing and repairing equipment damaged or destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

• $10 billion for body armor and other equipment to protect U.S. troops from attack.

• $2.5 billion to combat roadside bombs and other improvised explosive devices.

• $2.7 billion for intelligence activities.

SNIP

Democrats such as incoming Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota have grown increasingly critical of the fact that Iraq spending is kept on a set of books separate from the rest of government operations.

The Vietnam War cost an inflation-adjusted $121 billion at its height in 1968, according to the Congressional Research Service. The overall tally for Vietnam is $663 billion, adjusted for inflation, and Iraq costs are rapidly catching up.

More at: http://www.theeagle.com/stories/122106/nation_20061221007.php

I do not know what final form this request will take. (And it doesn't add up to $99 Billion. There are others things in that request that are not broken down.)

OFF Topic: Just a BTW, because we were talking about the Pentagon and budgets, did you see this in the NYTimes yesterday?

Military Role in U.S. Embassies Creates Strains, Report Says

By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: December 20, 2006

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 — The expansion of the Pentagon’s presence in American embassies is creating frictions and overlapping missions that could undermine efforts to combat Islamic radicalism, a report by Congressional Republicans has found.

As the Pentagon takes on new roles collecting intelligence, initiating information operations and conducting other “self-assigned missions,” the report found that some embassies have effectively become command posts, with military personnel in those countries all but supplanting the role of ambassadors in conducting American foreign policy.

The report, completed by the Republican staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, concluded that Pentagon “enthusiasm” has blurred chains of command and has the potential to backfire by weakening American relationships abroad and setting back American counterterrorism efforts.

Even with the military strained by long-term deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon has been steadily expanding its presence outside of declared war zones, dispatching troops to embassies in remote parts of Africa, Asia and the Middle East to conduct counterterrorism missions and to train local militaries.

More at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/washington/20embassy.html
(Registration required.)

[beachmom]

27. Interesting. This is about Rumsfeld's intelligence cottage industry

he created in the Pentagon, because the facts the CIA was feeding him didn't please his appetite for a war in Iraq. Just wonderful seeing all the horrible consequences of his meddling in this.

[TayTay]

15. No more troops to Iraq to support military operations

or to participate in fighting. Withdraw troops according to a time table.

This has been said over and over and over.

Kerry is not in favor of a "go big" or a "troop surge" or whatever else Bush is calling this option today. The Joint Chiefs in Washington is not in favor of this. Most Democrats are not in favor of this and Harry Reid has clarified his remarks on this.

The only ones in favor of this option are Bush and the neocon supporters still in the Congress and in the Bush government.

There has been no call from Kerry to increase the fighting forces in Iraq. He has been going the other way from this, as witnessed by this article from Aug of last year:

Aug 6, 2005

Basic questions about bases
By Ashraf Fahim

(SNIP)

There is now a growing chorus in the US arguing that it should be made clear to Iraqis that all US forces will eventually depart. As the Iraqi insurgency rages unabated, with scores of US soldiers killed in the first days of August alone, the notion that such a promise might alter the current dynamic is taking hold in the mainstream. Two members of Congress have separately sponsored resolutions calling for a declaration that the US will not maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq.

Senator John Kerry, who introduced the idea into the national discourse during last fall's first presidential debate, restated it in a recent op-ed in the New York Times. "The president must ... announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq," Kerry wrote. "Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency."

The proposal has also gained diverse support in policy circles. Larry Diamond, a former senior adviser to the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority, recently wrote that the administration's refusal to declare it doesn't seek permanent military bases "has aroused Iraqi suspicions that we seek long-term domination of their country". And Anthony Cordesman of the conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies, regarded as the dean of Middle East strategic studies by the Washington establishment, said in recent testimony to the Senate that the administration should "make it clear that the US and Britain will not maintain post-insurgency bases in Iraq".

More at: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH06Ak02.html

We cannot stay in Iraq. Kerry said this again in Nov of 2005

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. The real struggle in Iraq - Sunni versus Shiia - will only be settled by a political solution, and no political solution can be achieved when the antagonists can rely on the indefinite large scale presence of occupying American combat troops. The reality is our military presence in vast and visible numbers has become part of the problem, not the solution.

And our generals understand this. General George Casey, our top 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.” And Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, writes, ''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."

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=248664

These positions have not changed. We need less of a presence in Iraq, not more.

[blm]

20. He was DESCRIBING what would happen, that's all. He stated he's against more troops

and you are taking what he said in DESCRIBING what would happen and hanging his entire stance on that, when he has already CLEARLY stated he is against more troops in Iraq.

Take his words in total - take his ACTIONS in total, and Kerry is certainly for WITHDRAWAL and certainly against more troops.

IMO, Kerry would ONLY be for more troops if that is exactly what Syria and Jordan and other regional countries' leaders have asked for as a condition to THEIR involvement in Iraq and as a way of facilitating transfer of power sooner than later.

[Mass]

8. Do you have a full quote? What was before and after?

I heard the full interview and it was clear Kerry was opposing the surge. He has been saying that clearly again and again.

However, I understand that this sentence, taken out of context, can be misunderstood. So, can we have the full transcript.

[welshTerrier2]

12. you know ...

the Kerry advocates frequently complain about distortions and lies and out of context excerpts ... the link to the interview is cited in the OP ... whether it's available in full in writing i have no idea ...

my clear statement is that i listened to the NPR interview and i think have i've fairly drawn the conclusion that Kerry's response to the question on a "surge" was CONDITIONAL ...

if you would like to extract and post the surrounding quotes i'd be happy to discuss it ... Kerry clearly did NOT rule out the possibility of sending more troops ... his statements that he totally opposes troop increases in a vacuum are fine but he still left the door open to increases ...

[Vektor]

14. Was it his choice of words you didn't like,

because you felt they were open to other interpretations, or do you sincerely believe that he actually supports a troop surge, is where I'm unclear.

I took Kerry's words to mean, "If this were to happen it would be catastrophic", in other words, he did not support the idea.

I am not sure how else he could have discussed a hypothetical situation that hasn't happened yet without saying "IF this were to happen..."

[welshTerrier2]

18. no, i don't think he SUPPORTS a troop surge

but that's not what concerns me ... what i'm worried about is that the Dems are trying to "horse trade" with bush about the surge ... "if you give us some of this stuff we want, we'll go along with your stupid old surge" ...

what i'd like to hear from the Dems is that the damned war is over and that they will not support more troops and will not continue to fund offensive operations ...

when Kerry said "IF", he DID NOT RULE OUT the possibility he would support more troops under certain circumstances ... my objection was to the CONDITIONALITY of his remark ...

[Vektor]

21. Ok.

I think that this may simply be a matter of one listener being able to extrapolate a different message from Kerry's choice of words than another. When I heard him say "IF a troop surge were to happen, it would be a catastrophic mistake", I definitely took it to mean he did not support that at all.

If Kerry had sole and total control over whether or not a troop surge occurred - if it were up to him alone to give the order, "IF" might be seen as conditional.

But, since it's not his decision alone to make, and clearly, Bush the Madman will do whatever his twisted, black little heart desires, use of the word "IF" seemed appropriate due to the unpredictability of the Bush administration, and the fact that it very well could happen whether Kerry likes it or not. It seemed more like Kerry was acknowledging the possibility a surge could occur, then saying he did not support it.

I guess we just viewed what he said differently. Maybe it would be more clear in the context of the entire transcript. One phrase might not give the whole picture.

*Edited for tiny typo.

;)

[karynnj]

23. But Bush doesn't need the approval of Congress to

increase troops - so it is not a case where Kerry (or any other Senator) is even in the position to horse trade on this.

[Vektor]

10. Respectfully, Welsh -

I'm not convinced that saying "If X were to occur, Y would be the catastrophic result" is advocating X.

It sounds to me as if Kerry is saying that a troop surge is a bad idea: "It would be a catastrophic mistake." He's using the word "if", because the much ballyhooed troop surge has not happened yet, but IF it did, it would be catastrophic is what he's conveying.

Kerry has been advocating a withdrawal from Iraq, quite vocally, for a long time.

[welshTerrier2]

13. appreciate your "respectfully" but you've misstated what i wrote

you said: "I'm not convinced that saying "If X were to occur, Y would be the catastrophic result" is advocating X."

i did NOT say Kerry is "advocating X" ... what i did say is that he didn't categorically rule it out ...

my position is that i categorically am ruling it out ...

[Vektor]

17. That's what I was trying to clear up.

I asked you a follow up question below to see where you were coming from. I certainly didn't intend to misstate anything you said so much as try to understand it better and share my thoughts on how I interpreted the interview.

[StoryTeller]

31. Unfortunately, Kerry doesn't have the power to categorically

rule out a surge. If Bush decides to send more troops, he will do just that, regardless of whether or not Congress funds it, supports it, or what they do. Kerry has already made it quite clear what he thinks needs to be done, but the awful reality is that he's not the one in charge.

All I heard in the interview is Kerry being realistic and honest about what he thinks will happen. IF there is a surge, it will be catastrophic, unless, perhaps, there is a huge diplomatic/political effort encasing it.

And, you know, that's probably right. I don't think there is any indication that he is implying trading a troop surge for diplomacy. I think that's reading into his remarks without reason to do so.

I can understand why someone might jump to that conclusion, because that's how a lot of less-principled politicians might play the game. But Kerry isn't like that. He's never been like that. This isn't a power game to him. There isn't any reason to be suspicious of his motives. So I would encourage you to look at his record, at the way he has lived his life, and then wait and see what he does. I think you'll find you can trust him. He's not perfect (and who is?) but he is trustworthy.

[welshTerrier2]

32. "He's not perfect (and who is?) but he is trustworthy."

a couple of points, StoryTeller ... first, thanks for all your analysis ... i appreciate your taking the time to reflect so deeply on these issues ... i want to be clear that i am NOT suggesting Kerry is in favor of sending more troops ... the problem i've had with Kerry all along is that he refuses to stand up and lead the anti-war movement ...

many of his supporters applaud the Kerry-Feingold amendment ... they say "see, he's more against this war than the rest of them" ... truthfully, that falls far short of any standard i would use ...

i'm not "anti-Kerry" ... i'm not a "Kerry hater" ... but i am NOT happy with his war positions ... i won't get into all the details but i think Kerry has changed his position numerous times ... out in May, 06 ... then out by Dec, 06 ... then July, 07 ... my position is "out now" ... i'm sick and tired of Democrats (not just Kerry by any means) dancing around the bottom line which is that IRAQ IS DONE ... it's over and out ...

the Iraqis, in overwhelming numbers, want the US to leave IMMEDIATELY ... we have no right to remain there ... and if we do, we will do nothing but prolong the violence and get a whole lot more Americans killed ... it will accomplish nothing ... am i worried about what will happen when we leave? of course i am ... but i think what will happen is going to happen anyway ...

some argue that "we can't stop bush" ... whether that's true or not, my position is that i'm only going to support people, and parties, that try to stop him ... it's not just about outcomes; it's ALSO about educating the American people ... and even politically, i think the current Dem strategy of "cranky appeasement" is dead wrong ... yeah, they whine about what bush is doing but they are still looking for ways to "win" ... i don't believe progress in Iraq is possible while the US remains in occupation ...

and some call for diplomacy BEFORE we leave ... they see withdrawal as some kind of bargaining chip with Iran ... it isn't ... i believe i heard Wes Clark, who does NOT support my position, acknowledge that "we have no leverage with Iran" ... interesting ... that's my view too ... i'm all for negotiations in this important region of the world ... but we need to get out of Iraq ... period ... everyday we're there makes things worse ... negotiations should NOT be tied to withdrawal and that seems to be the direction the Dems are headed in ...

and finally, we need to NOT TRUST BUSH ... this was the criminal mistake Kerry and too many others made with the IWR ... all this back and forth about "it wasn't a vote for war" is NOT the point ... we can quibble all day about that ... the right vote on the IWR was "no f%^&ing way" ... even if the republicans had the votes, Dems should not have gone along with bush who was clearly lying and "fixing the facts around the policy" ... some of us knew not to trust him ...

and finally, finally (is that allowed?), we are in Iraq for oil ... the ISG report is all about preserving big oil's interests in Iraq ... the WTO and the World Bank and Wolfowitz (sp?) are all about squeezing (read blackmailing) the Iraqis into giving away as much as 85% of their future oil revenues ... bush isn't going to leave until the infrastructure is in place ... that's why he's there ... well, that and to "save his legacy" ... that's a laugh, eh?

we cannot succeed in Iraq BECAUSE bush is not trying to achieve anything good for the Iraqi people ... so, unless you're prepared to invest the rest of bush's term there, and then hope a Dem wins and takes office in 2009, it's time to get on the out now bandwagon ... the American people would rally behind Democrats if they had the backbone to push for this ... we both know they don't ... and they won't ...

[ProSense]

33. Interesting!

i'm not "anti-Kerry" ... i'm not a "Kerry hater" ... but i am NOT happy with his war positions ... i won't get into all the details but i think Kerry has changed his position numerous times ... out in May, 06 ... then out by Dec, 06 ... then July, 07 ... my position is "out now" ... i'm sick and tired of Democrats (not just Kerry by any means) dancing around the bottom line which is that IRAQ IS DONE ... it's over and out ...

If the focus had remained on those who are not for "out now," to rally them to Kerry's position, we may very well have seen movement to withdraw in Dec 06 or July 07. Kerry defined that position: set a deadline for withdrawal. If more would join him there, that would send an even stronger signal to Bush. Better yet, the discussion about ending the war would take a dramatic turn in Congress.

[welshTerrier2]

34. also interesting ...

here's what i see as "the essential difference" in our positions:

my view is shaped by what i'll call, for lack of a better term, "movement politics" ... the other view of "leadership" is what i see as the "incremental" approach ... it argues "let's identify a constituency that might be persuadable" ... it choose "incrementalism" to persuade ... it is looking to "move the center" just a little ... in this case, we might identify moderate Democrats and perhaps a solid core of independents ...

those whom i'll call "incrementalists" generally see themselves as pragmatic and rational and they often see the "movement people" as head-in-the-clouds idealists who are willing to turn their backs on real progress just so they "can be right" and "push their rhetoric" ...

how's that fit?

well, i'm more of a movement person regardless of what labels get tossed around and what categorizations are made of them ... JFK didn't call for getting a man 1/8 of the way to the moon to get a buy-in for the moon mission ... for me, vision and leadership should not start by counting noses ... it should be bold ... it should be values based ... it should take a view that educating the public about our beliefs is the best route to change and progress ...

i'm not suggesting we should ignore all political considerations ... there are plenty of players on the field to water down any visionary's teachings ... but when no prominent Democrat even stakes out the turf, my view is there is way too much incrementalism and way too little leadership ... and, and believe me i am deeply disappointed by this, Kerry seemed like a possibility to be a movement leader as he once was ... the truth is, i still hope he steps up to the plate ... but now, it seems he's matured from his outspoken anti-war days ... now he's a mature and practical senior statesman ... i guess some revel in that ... i'm sorry to say i don't ...

[TayTay]

36. I am glad Kerry is not as he was in 70 or 71

He made a lot of mistakes back then and I think is a better advocate now than he was then. (Vietnam went on for 4 more years after the VVAW activities, despite all the anti-war rallies and so forth.) That movement also split Americans over a false divide on what was and wasn't patriotism, a schism that is still active in American politics and was exploited by the Republicans to put extreme conservatives into office. There is a great deal of harm that was done then to the body politic in this country then because the cause was perceived as a small and elitist thing, not actually supported by the people.

I prefer the practical and rational. I don't think the movement people show progress. They take a position, harden into it and then dismiss anything that doesn't measure up to what they want. After a while, most people give up on them and go to people who are actually incrementally moving the ball down the field. This is how women got the right to vote, how the civil rights movement advanced voting rights and so forth. People talked to each other, they made the small steps that advanced the cause and never stopped. They didn't dig in their heels and say all or nothing. I don't see what good that does.

[ProSense]

37. The analogy is the first trip to the moon?

A trip is incremental. That one most definitely: build the vessel, train the astronauts, launch the trip, begin the journey and arrive at destination.

Even before the trip could begin, they had to determine how to get there, build consensus, and build and test the vessel.

In fact, there are more steps involved in a first journey to the moon---no one had done it before and there was no one there to communicate the conditions to expect upon arrival. In terms of Iraq, there are plenty of models, a real life example in Vietnam and real information coming from people on the ground there. People can make intelligent assessments and make a case for withdrawal from Iraq, the only unknown is what will happen after withdrawal!

In any case, Kerry has defined one of the best plans for withdrawal, invariably any such plan will be incremental, whether in terms of weeks or months. I suspect that even Dennis Kucinich doesn't envision the troops dropping their weapons, boarding a plane and evacuating Iraq posthaste, with no concern for troop safety.

[welshTerrier2]

39. "no concern for troop safety"

i'm not aware of people arguing for ignoring troop safety ... perhaps there are some somewhere ... it certainly is NOT my position ...

regardless of what analogy is chosen, the point is that what is needed is the statement of values that no progress is possible in Iraq anymore with the US in occupation ... that's the missing piece here ...

if you believe progress is possible, even with bush in the WH, what can i say? Kerry seems to believe we can still make progress ... for me, by definition, he's stuck having to extend the argument to say "i believe we can still make progress EVEN WITH BUSH IN THE WH" ...

good luck with that ... this is not my view ...

[ProSense]

40. "no progress is possible in Iraq anymore with the US in occupation"

That's exactly what Kerry has been saying:

KERRY: Well, let me tell you, I had a chance to get out of the Green Zone and I met with troops in various parts of the country who, incidentally, are extraordinary in doing a remarkable job. And they have a real point of view about that. I mean, they're going out on these patrols, they're doing a great job. But unless the Sunnis/Shia fundamental divide begins to be resolved -- and I think you're seeing steps taken to do that.

There is this new coalition that's being built. There's an effort to try to bring reconciliation together. The Arab League is going to be involved. King Abdullah is involved. Others are involved.

That is the key, not troops. More troops will not resolve the problem of Iraq. And you won't end the violence. What'll happen is you'll create a larger, more prominent target in the absence of the kind of political solution that's needed.

It's up to the Iraqis!

[welshTerrier2]

41. it sounds like he's saying ...

that progress IS BEING MADE with the troops in occupation ...

from your post: "But unless the Sunnis/Shia fundamental divide begins to be resolved -- and I think you're seeing steps taken to do that. There is this new coalition that's being built."

if Kerry thinks it's up to the Iraqis, what exactly is the point in remaining until some future withdrawal date ... my pitch: "get out as rapidly as troop safety allows" ... is that Kerry's position? is it your position?

[ProSense]

42. I don't see

a mention of the troops in that statement. I agree with Kerry's position on a timetable. Kerry-Feingold is a solid plan.

[TayTay]

45. That is what he is saying

We need to get out of Iraq.

Sigh! I don't think that there is any way that he can say this or work for this in the Congress that will satisfy you. I do not think that is possible. I think that there is no one in the current US Congress who has taken a position that could please you. I think working to get the US out of Iraq is an incremental thing and involves changing the minds of others. I fundamentally think that you are opposed to this and believe that somehow Kerry (not Lieberman or the Nelsons or the Landrieus or whatever) is responsible for this. No matter what. No one else has to work for change, just Kerry. If he did whatever it is that you want him to do, which is unclear from your postings, then all would be well.

There is no opposition in this view in the Congress that vigorously opposes a troop withdrawal and who have equal votes in the Congress, no people like Sessions in Alabama or Graham in SC or Cornyn in Texas who will not ever vote to leave Iraq. Just Kerry and he simply cannot take any action that will ever please you.

This shuts off debate. When one side has unilaterally declared that only their way is the right way, then what is the point? I do not accept that your way is more moral than mine. I don't agree that only 'out now' will result in making the situation better and I don't think incremental action is somehow wrong. This is too bad. It seems to me that what an actual opposition to the war needs is not a shutting off of debate but a coming together to affect a stronger action. Sigh!

[welshTerrier2]

46. "somehow Kerry (not Lieberman or the Nelsons or the Landrieus or whatever) is responsible for this"

yup, the whole damned thing is totally Kerry's fault ... i love Lieberman's position ... how could anyone not?

[karynnj]

48. You had me totally fooled WT2

I would never have pegged you for a Leiberman suporter. :sarcasm:

[TayTay]

35. More than 50% of Congress does not want to withdraw.

In the new Senate, Lieberman, both Nelsons, Landrieu, Salazar and others will not vote to withdraw now. It is not going to happen.

I disagree with Welsh here. I think that there will be no unilateral moves in the Congress to get the US to withdraw quickly. It will not happen. The Republicans will unite against it wholly and there are a number of Centrists Dems who also will not back this. Despite the results of the last midterm elections, the Congress as a whole is unwilling to get out of Iraq. They have to be pushed to take action. I think Kerry is doing this. It is possible that Welch disagrees with my view on this and that's fine.

This is how legislative bodies work. They deliberate and try to move the argument forward with bills and with the hearing process. This is, by design, a slow and laborious thing that involves talking to others and getting them to switch their minds and votes.

I think Kerry is doing this. It is possible that Welch differs on this view. I think this is what Kerry should be doing and I hope that his Amendment is re-introduced.

I suspect I would also differ with him on the funding. I will not blanket endorse cutting off the funds. Not yet. I do not know how this is going to be presented to Congress or what form Congress will actually ultimately deliberate on. I want to wait and see, then review it and make a decision.

We need to get out of Iraq, sooner, rather than later. It will take years to get this through Congress and that is the plain truth. It will take even more years without people in the Congress who are pushing for a change. That is how a legislative body works. That is how it is designed to work. It is entirely possible that events on the ground in Iraq will force a change far before Congress ever really gets to real action that will affect money, troop levels and US committment to Iraq. We might be forced out of Iraq without the Congress ever taking a single vote on this. Given the very slow nature of how things work in Congress, this well could happen.

[welshTerrier2]

38. "no unilateral moves in the Congress"

i couldn't agree more!! i have no hope that Congress will do a damned thing of any value toward ending the war ...

your political analysis about centrist Dems and how votes in the Congress would turn out is exactly the opposite of the kind of leadership i'm looking for ... you're 100% correct that the clowns we've elected are going to hand bush another two years of this crap ... they'll do nothing but whine and then appease ... appease, appease and more appease ...

the only way to change the vote in Congress is to get the American people more energized and bring the voice of the people and political pressure to bear on their "go along with bush" "representatives" ... the movement politics i support is about rallying the American people; not about counting legislative noses ... and if you don't think the anti-Vietnam war movement had a huge impact on that war, you should spend a little time listening to John Dean ... he says otherwise ...

bottom line: doing what the Congress is doing buys into at least two more years of war and occupation ... i think the American people would strongly support rational arguments that "we're done in Iraq because bush, rumsfeld and cheney made a mess of it" ... i can tell you that my political read, such as it is, is that Americans are NOT enthralled with the Democrats right now (or the republicans) ... we are in a severe leadership vacuum ... personalities will dominate in 2008; not policy ... it does NOT have to be that way but it will be ...

[StoryTeller]

43. Thank you for your analysis, too.

I respect your viewpoint, and I share your frustration about the entire Iraq situation. It's a horrible, horrible mess, and it's heartbreaking to know that it could have all been completely avoided were it not for Bush and his corrupt agenda and plans.

What I'm understanding from what you're saying is that you would like to see more adamant anti-war sentiments and actions from Kerry and our other Democratic leaders. There's certain things you want to hear and to see, and they're not happening.

I can respect that. And I don't know that I have a good answer for you because I'm not a mind reader and there's still much I need to learn about politics and how public policy is formed.

I do think, though, that it's possible that being "anti-war" looks different on different people. For example, I show my anti-war beliefs by blogging, having individual discussions with my conservative family and friends, and by explicitly teaching my children the reasons why it was wrong for Bush to start this war and how we should strive to live at peace with each other as far as possible. I'm not really the sort to march in a demonstration or do other sort of "activist" type things. I suppose it's possible that anti-war activists might look at me, then, and say, "Well, she's more anti-war than her conservative friends, but it's just not good enough by my standards." But reality is, the activists and I are on the same page about the war. But I have to be ME. I can't be what everyone else thinks I ought to be.

I think the same thing applies, of course, to Kerry. (And possible others, but I haven't researched them much, so am not informed enough to make a judgment about them.) Kerry, at the core of who he is, is not an activist. He is a person of deep conviction, but he's not a "shouter." He's also a person who is reflective and knows that, as a leader, his approach on an issue has to take into consideration the current situation surrounding the issue.

For example, the deadline for getting "out." Yes, the date itself has changed. That is not because he is being inconsistent. It is, rather, a reflection of the method for getting out that he feels is going to be the most beneficial to Iraq and to our troops. I don't think he feels that the ideal way of getting out is to withdraw everyone all at once. I think he's probably aware that it may come to that. But as I understand it, he is for a phased withdrawal when Iraqis meet certain key milestones. The dates for that get pushed back because nobody has yet been willing to implement the plan! It's a time-frame plan: if we start NOW, then it will take X-number of months, which puts the deadline at month Y. So of course the longer the plan has gone ignored by the administration, the further those deadlines get pushed back.

It has nothing to do with him not wanting to admit that Iraq is "done." But he and other leaders have to take into account the implications of pulling out. It's bad enough what Bush has done to Iraq, but a principled leader like Kerry would naturally be concerned about getting out in a way that does the least harm to not only our troops, but also the country we've decimated. I haven't studied about the issue enough to form my own opinion on the implications of immediate withdrawal, but I do respect Kerry's experience and understanding enough to trust that if he doesn't feel comfortable with it, there's probably good reason why. (Reasons that don't pertain to politics or a personal agenda. It's not his style.)

I think a lot of times it's easy for those of us who do not make the decisions to give vent to our emotions and frustrations. I think the Iraqi people do this, too. But a political leader has the responsibility to look beyond their own preferences and their own emotions about a subject to find what solution is going to be the best for the greatest number of people. They also are mindful of the need to work with other people who also have strong opinions and ideas. What is to be gained in leadership circles by the fire of activism when what is needed is the tact and patience of diplomacy? To me, the strong emotions and statements typical of activism are best utilized by the PEOPLE in persuading the people and to persuade their leaders. I don't think activism is best utilized by our public officials because that level of dogmatism and emotions tends to create barriers between leaders, which makes it more difficult to exchange ideas and to work together. So what you would have, perhaps, is a leader whose rhetoric and emotions excites the people, but who is virtually ineffective in dealing with other leaders because they feel he's so entrenched in his own ideas and emotions that he isn't able to truly listen to them. And what good would such a leader be, one who is emotionally appealing, but accomplishes little of value?

I highly doubt that Kerry at all trusts Bush or is thinking of diplomacy as a bargaining tool. I firmly believe that he and others do share our concerns and are deeply troubled and grieved by what has happened in the Middle East. I also believe that they don't have the luxury that we do of giving vent to those emotions. And even if they did, personalities being what they are, that venting of emotions may look a lot different for them than it would for you or for me.

That's okay, in my thinking. I believe we need to let people be who they are. I guess I still would ask you to try not to ascribe the worst possible motives to Kerry or other leaders or be too inflexible on what you think things like "anti-war" should look like from them. The beauty of humanity is that there are as many different ways to express a concept as there are people. And if we force all our politicians to look or act like activists, we would lose out on the great results that come from scholars and diplomats and thinkers. We need all those sort of people to work together, and I think that is what will happen if we allow it. I know Kerry is listening to all these voices, and it would be a great benefit if we did the same.

[Vektor]

52. ST, you are truly amazing.

You have a tremendous sense of diplomacy and the heart and mind of a great philosopher.

I'm proud to call you a new friend. :hug:

[StoryTeller]

54. Aww, thanks, Vek.

Just found your response. You make me blush: :blush: I'm going to print out your response, frame it, and shove it in my mom's face the next time she starts in on me about my smart-mouth! :D

Oops, I guess that's not so diplomatic, huh? :)

:hug:

[StoryTeller]

28. Hey, Welsh, I do see where you're coming from.

When I listened to that interview, the same thought crossed my mind--I was surprised because it sounded almost like he might be leaving the door open for a surge. So I can see where you are coming from on this, though I don't think anyone could make the case for him SUPPORTING or advocating a troop surge. To me, it just sounded as if he was acknowledging that this might, indeed, become reality. Which, unfortunately, it might.

However, I see where my other Kerry-buddies are coming from, too, in that you have to keep the larger context of the conversation in mind. I think it's pretty clear that Kerry was speaking hypothetically, and not from a position of supporting a surge. I did come away with the impression that he might think that if Bush does go ahead with one, the ONLY way for it to not be a total disaster is by doing it within the context of diplomacy. And, since Kerry is usually right about such things, I believe him.

I think that you might be reacting to the natural converse of his statement, which is "If you send in more troops ALONG WITH diplomatic efforts, then it might NOT be a catastrophe." I don't know enough about it to know if this is an accurate inference to make, but it might be. If that is what he meant to imply, then I trust that he knows what he is talking about. The man has earned the right to be trusted--with all the times he's been right. But even if that is a correct inference, there's no reason--based on the larger context of his statements--to say that this means he WANTS or SUPPORTS a troop surge. At that point, he's simply saying that the negative effects of a troop surge can be blunted by diplomacy and political work. That would make sense to me.

I don't think it's something worth turning into an argument by any of us. It's very clear what Kerry's preferred plan and solution for Iraq is. And Kerry is not a person characterized by compromising his convictions in order to advance his own agenda or a party agenda, so there's no need to worry that he might be trying to use a troop surge as a bargaining chip for diplomacy. That's not Kerry.

I also don't think there's any reason to continue to parse and analyze his statements. Within context, they make sense. More troops=catastrophe, unless perhaps done within a larger diplomatic effort. Doesn't mean he thinks more troops is a GOOD idea. He's just stating that if more troops are sent, diplomatic efforts could help reduce the bloodbath that would result. Seems like a reasonable statement to me.

[Clarkie1]

57. Yes, his left the door open, but it would have to be part of a more fundamental change in policy. nt

[karynnj]

62. It's more subtle than that

he didn't answer that he was ok with it "only if".

Instead he said IF you did this without a strong diplomatic effort - it would be catastopic. This does not imply that it would be a good idea with diplomacy. Following basic laws of logic - it says nothing about what he thinks with strong diplomacy.

If (a), then b.
does not mean
if(not a), then not b.

where in this case a = without strong diplomacy
and b = catastrophy

[Vektor]

6. Agreed - he gave no indication whatsoever he supported a troop surge.

He has expressed unequivocal opposition to such maneuvers. He has been incredibly vocal about setting a time-line for withdrawal, not advocating a larger troop presence.

[ProSense]

24. Unequivocally!

In terms of...

The Senate:

John Kerry on New Democratic Congress

“On Tuesday night, the American people voted overwhelmingly to take this country in a new direction. Today with Jim Webb’s election secured, it’s official that we have a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House.

“With both the House and Senate led by Democrats, we have a chance to get America back on the right track. In the Senate, I will first and foremost focus on the disaster in Iraq, setting a deadline so we can end the war and bring our brave heroes home.

“We will work to put the focus on the real priorities of Americans: raising the minimum wage, protecting the environment, and providing affordable health care for every American – starting with our children.

“I will continue to work with Sen. Kennedy, Congressman Markey, and our entire delegation to make higher education more affordable. I will work to make sure Massachusetts stays on the cutting edge of both technology and education. And by helping keep our state a great place to live, I will work to ensure that people don’t have to leave Massachusetts.

“The American people have spoken loud and clear, and we are eager to work in the new congress to help Massachusetts and our country move forward.”

The ISG:

KERRY: I think that the Baker report is going to move in a very different direction, and I think it's going to change the debate in this country.

We all want to get the job done, let's understand that. There's a difference of opinion about how you get the job done.

Our own intelligence agencies are telling us that our presence of American troops in Iraq is creating more terrorism, creating more terrorists, delaying the willingness of the Iraqis to stand up for themselves.

So I think we're going to have a very big debate in America. We ought to have a debate about how you best achieve our goals, the Iraqis' goals, the goals of the Middle East, the needs of all nations for security in that region.

And I believe you have to be tougher, set a date, be clear about the transition of authority, demand more from the Iraqis, leverage a change in their behavior and get our troops out of harm's way.

Cutting funding:

KERRY: There are all kinds of things that the Senate can do. They can change the dynamics here very significantly, not the least of which, obviously, are serious accountability hearings.

Secondly, we have the ability in the Congress to pass one resolution or another or to put into law certain kinds of policies. I mean, you remember back in the days of the Contras in Central America, the Congress passed what was called the Boland Amendment and actually forbade certain activities from taking place.

So Congress has a certain power here. I think before we get into that, it would be so much better if we could sit down with the president, with Condoleezza Rice, and really talk through how we come together, both parties, take the politics out at the water's edge, and get a policy that works for America.

[beachmom]

26. Thanks Prosense for the refresher course.

Not sure how many different ways to say that Kerry will not support a troop surge . . .

[wisteria]

29. Kick!

[ginnyinWI]

30. Finally, the Grown-ups will be in charge!

It was so reassuring to hear Sen. Kerry speaking on NPR: someone who both knows what's going on AND knows what to do about it! (Two glaring deficiencies of the current executive branch) I am so looking forward to the new year and the new Congress to see the good they'll be able to do, now that they've been handed the reins--in spite of the WH still being held by incompetents. :bounce:

[wisteria]

44. Absolutely. n/t

[Blaukraut]

47. absolutely correct, thanks beachmom n/t

[Jeffersons Ghost]

49. K&R IT SURE WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE MILITARY MIND IN POWER...

Like Kerry, with his real leadership skills in combat... what did our new Sec of Defense do before accepting his new job of overseeing the quagmire in Iraq? Oh yeah, I remember a professional spy with plenty of Iran Contra weapons-deal mud soiling his past exploits.

[MH1]

50. It would be nice to have one RATIONAL mind in power. n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

51. Kick

Because too many dishonest posters with agendas are trying to muddy the truth, yet again.

[dailykoff]

53. Looks like the swifties have found a new talking point. (n/t)

[LittleClarkie]

55. Gee, it's amazing what putting something in context will do

Eh?

[Clarkie1]

58. Putting it in context provides no evidence he is "unequivocally" opposed an increase of some sort.

Quite the opposite.

[Clarkie1]

56. No Capice. Kerry said, "not without a fundamental political resolution."

And I agree with him on that. To say he's "unequivically opposed" is based on nothing but the inabilty of some here, apparently, to read what was typed in the opening post!

[AtomicKitten]

59. No I'm afraid it is based on

the insipid drive to parse and frame everything and anything that might be construed as negative on behalf of one politician regardless of how absurd turning oneself into a pretzel to do so looks like, punctuated by a rabid nastiness towards those that do not submit to the craziness.

This groupthink is truly demented.

And DU lets it slide.

[Clarkie1]

60. You're right. It's a refusal to accept reality when reality does not coincide with ideology.

In this case, the popularly held ideology of what Kerry represents. Not be unequivocally against any increase in troops at this point doesn't fit into that preconceived ideology of what Kerry represents politically. He clearly gave a nuanced response, but some here simply cannot accept that he said anything but he was "unequivocally opposed," which of course he did not say. And then, this thread gets 18 recommendations as if the number of recommendations a thread gets makes the premise of the thread true.

Nonsense.

[AtomicKitten]

61. he was unequivocally equivocal -- as usual

[MH1]

66. Only if you weren't listening. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

68. Only if you think in an epic battle between Kerry and Superman

that Kerry would win. It's tough to see reality when you have stars in your eyes. Good luck in your campaign to paint Kerry as a demigod. It's at least entertaining.

[karynnj]

70. Do you think we can let AtomicKitten know the truth. Superman is NOT real

he was a comic book character, then on TV and movies. Senator John Kerry is very real.

I will admit:
- To my knowledge, Senator Kerry has no superpowers

- He prefers diplomacy to fighting - apparently having learned to "use his words" as a child

- Senator Kerry is not a God or a demi God, just a very good person. Teresa looks beautiful enough in person to be a goddess - but I assume she too is just a very good person.

I know these admissions will come as shock to you, but I sincerely believe you are ready t know these truths.

Senator Kerry did disburse a group of 6 protesters in Morristown, NJ just by walking purposefully in their direction. They went running to the back of the parking lot.

[AtomicKitten]

71. sadly both Kerry and Superman are cartoon characters in your world

[JI7]

73. umm

not even sure what to say to that. it's funny you complain about bashing when it comes to Hillary considering your posts in threads concerning Kerry. i mean this response just doesn't make any sense at all. looks like a poor attempt at snark and getting the last word in since you have nothing of substance to say.

[AtomicKitten]

75. the substance is missed purposely

by those that can't deal with the truth and that is all the posturing and pontificating by the 2008 wannabes isn't going to change the conditions in Iraq. The issuance of contrary statements about calling for a troop increase and then saying no increase is just more of the same which is nothing and certainly nothing of substance.

The Kerry people set themselves up to be the recipient of these rude awakenings with this unbelievably insipid nonsense in trying to frame this crap by parsing words, and then have the audacity to complain that their one-track focus is a victim.

The oooooohs and ahhhhhhhhs issued here over yet another equivocating non-statement is what lacks substance and, quite frankly, is a slap in the face to those dying as we speak. Pointing it out is substantive and truthful regardless of the fact that the truth about this particular politician falls on deaf ears (see illustration below). And all the rudeness these folks can dish up doesn't change that fact.

I've said what I have to say regarding yet another homage festival about nothing. Get back to us when somebody actually is doing something substantive about ending this shameful, pointless war.

[JI7]

78. this is a discussion board

a Democratic discussion board.

[karynnj]

80. No, not really

Many of us have been fortunate enough to see John Kerry speak or to have the opportunity to meet him. He is not cartoonish in the least - just a brilliant, sincere public servant. I support him because I agree with him on issues more than anyone else.

This is Kerry:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2970555

This is the best statemnet I have seen on the need to change course. Nothing either of the Clintons have written comes close. This comes pretty close to saying "How do you ask a man to die in Iraq" and I do recall an Atomic Kitten promise. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3024613&mesg_id=3024646 ) Kerry does, of course, have far better candidates as his campaign manager - you won't be on the short list.

[karynnj]

63. Not true

He has in other statements said no more troops. What he says here emphasizes that doing what Bush intends to do - add more troops without diplomacy would be catastopic.

he didn't answer that he was for it under any circumstances. Instead he said IF you did this without a strong diplomatic effort - it would be catastopic. This does not imply that it would be a good idea with diplomacy. Following basic laws of logic - it says nothing about what he thinks with strong diplomacy.

If (a), then b.
does not mean
if(not a), then not b.

where in this case a = without strong diplomacy
and b = catastrophy

[MH1]

65. You don't capice because you aren't paying attention to context.

The context is that there is NO attempt at a real political solution now. To accomplish the political solution will take quite some time, so to talk about increasing troop levels now, you are talking about a catastrophe.

[AtomicKitten]

69. you don't capice that it is only political posturing

by the 2008 wannabees trying to out-propose each other and doesn't mean squat in the bigger scheme of things and in reality is just more poor judgment demonstrated by the yes-on-IWR crowd when advocating more troops is tantamount to escalation of the war.

If the Democrats were smart they would cut off funding for the war which they have the power to do but, again, neither Kerry nor the other dipshits that voted "yes" on the IWR have the integrity nor good judgment to do that, the right thing, to stop this war.

No siree, Bob. Instead we are treated to more political posturing, puffing up, that brings the oooohs and ahhhhhhs from the peanut gallery but the rest of us are just cringing. Cutting and pasting from Kerry's website is swell and all that, but your expectation that others view him as the second coming is just absurd.

[JI7]

72. come on now

you can't be serious in what you are saying. Kerry and Edwards did vote against funding before while many who voted against the IWR voted for the funding. if you are serious about wanting to end funding it would take many more than just those who voted for the IWR to do it.

i'm not sure how this is political posturing as Kerry had proposed increasing the number of soldiers in the military for some time. not just Kerry but others have also. it's a serious issue . and it's something that would take a lot of time. something impossible under the current administration as it would involve increasing benefits for soldiers which this administration refuses to do.

[AtomicKitten]

77. The Democrats have been given a mandate

and I want them to pull up their socks and do the right thing and end this war. They have the power to cut off funding; it worked for Vietnam. It is their only leverage and they must do it and immediately. Negotiating with Junior is folly. If he didn't honor the stipulations of the IWR, why in the hell would anyone for a nanosecond imagine he would NOT use increased troop levels to facilitate the surge he has talked about, the surge his neocon overlords want? Enough is enough.

[JI7]

79. it's impossible for their to be an increase in overall military under this administration

as it would involve many things such as increasing benefits. which this administration refuses to do. only way is if there was a draft.

[beachmom]

74. No, the error was made by reading into an "if, then" statement that

Kerry must be for that hypothetical. Kerry is opposed to a troop surge. He said it repeatedly, and he'll continue to say it. Seems to me that people are trying to lessen the unpopularity of Gen. Clark's position by grabbing something that isn't there from Sen. Kerry's statement, and saying "look, even Kerry isn't opposed to a troop surge". That's just not true. Sen. Kerry is for a diplomatic process to end the civil war in Iraq and a timetable for withdrawal of American troops. That is completely different from what Bush is going to do. Which is to throw the troops in there as a last ditch effort to salvage an unwinnable situation. Kerry is opposed to that approach.

[karynnj]

81. Kerry's op-ed in the WP should end that

It is absolutely clear on that.
"This isn't a time for stubbornness, nor is it a time for halfway solutions -- or warmed-over "new" solutions that our own experience tells us will only make the problem worse. The Iraq Study Group tells us that "the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." It joins the chorus of experts in and outside of Baghdad reminding us that there is no military solution to a political crisis. And yet, over the warnings of former secretary of state Colin Powell, Gen. John Abizaid and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington is considering a "troop buildup" option, sending more troops into harm's way to referee a civil war.

We have already tried a trimmed-down version of the McCain plan of indefinitely increasing troop levels. We sent 15,000 more troops to Baghdad last summer, and today the escalating civil war is even worse. You could put 100,000 more troops in tomorrow and you're only going to add to the number of casualties until Iraqis sit down together at a bargaining table and compromise. The barrel of a gun can't answer the question of how you force Iraqi nationalism to trump sectarian loyalty.

The only hope for stability lies in pushing Iraqis to forge a sustainable political agreement on federalism, distributing oil revenues and neutralizing sectarian militias. And that will happen only if we set a deadline to redeploy our troops."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR20061222

[wisteria]

64. he was right yesterday and he is right today. Kick! n/t

[politicasista]

67. Kick

:kick:

[ProSense]

76. OK! n/t