The path to Kerry-Feingold, the withdrawal debate began nearly two years ago.

[ProSense]

In a 2004 speech at NYU, Sen. Kerry laid out a plan for iraq and withdrawing troop:

Now, this is not going to be easy. I understand that.

Again, I repeat, every month that's gone by, every offer of help spurned, every alternative not taken for these past months has made this more difficult and those were this president's choices. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq ought to still be prepared to help the United Nations hold an election.

We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S. forces will end up bearing that burden alone.

If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and to train the Iraqis to provide their own security and to develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold elections next year, if all of that happened, we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring our troops home within the next four years.

That can achieved.

link

In June 2005, Kerry wrote:

He also needs to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them. The administration and the Iraqi government must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.

The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress. The guideposts should take into account political and security needs and objectives and be linked to specific tasks and accomplishments. If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.

more

Of course everything done in Iraq, from the government to the constitution to the elections, and now the oil law, has been orchestrated by the Bush admin via a puppet government.

In October 2005, Kerry shaped the plan for a deadline in his Path Forward speech:

This difficult road traveled demands the unvarnished truth about the road ahead.

To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately -- I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security. But to those who rely on the overly simplistic phrase "we will stay as long as it takes," who pretend this is primarily a war against Al Qaeda, and who offer halting, sporadic, diplomatic engagement, I also say -- No, that will only lead us into a quagmire.

The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay "as long as it takes." To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays.

The Administration must 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. No more shell games, no more false reports of progress, but specific and measurable goals.

It is true that our soldiers increasingly fight side by side with Iraqis willing to put their lives on the line for a better future. But 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.

In fact, because we failed to take advantage of the momentum of our military victory, because we failed to deliver services and let Iraqis choose their leaders early on, our military presence in vast and visible numbers has become part of the problem, not the solution.

more

Kerry introduced his deadline in binding legislations in April 2006, which led to Kerry-Feingold.

Congress went backward, unnecessarily, with this recent vote. Supporting Kerry's position in November 2005 would have given them an 18-month window (until Jan. 2007 when the Democratic majority took over) to pressure Bush and the Republicans into supporting a deadline. Remember, Kerry-Feingold called for withdrawal by July 1, 2007. If the Dems had stepped up the pressure, Iraq would have had much more impact as an issue in the 2006 election (maybe even resulting in Joe Lieberman being unseated), but some Democrats were still not sure about focusing on the war. They changed position late in the year as public outrage grew. With nearly 70% of American opposed to this war, the opposition is coming from red-state voters too.

The the goal should be to withdraw the troops and end the war as soon as possible. This debate doesn't need to go on for another 18 months. It's time for action.




More Kerry statement here.

[midnight]

1. Let's bring them home.......

Talking time is over.

[blm]

6. Kerry-Feingold should have passed - everyone in DC knew Iraq was in Civil War

for 5 months before that vote was taken in June 2006. Most of the troops would be home by now.

[ProSense]

2. Kick! n/t

[karynnj]

3. This is definately a thread to bookmark

In 2004, Kerry's position was the official Democratic position and it was one that led to resolving the problem and getting out - rather than Bush's lack of diplomacy and permanent bases. This difference was clear in 2004, though the media said there was no difference. Amazingly, they correctly noted late last year that the ISG was behind ideas like those Kerry spoke of in 2004 and 2005. So, they did hear and understand them.

I wish certain Democrats would have taken pride in the honest policy their candidate articulated. Kerry's Iraq and terrorism positions were right. Imagine how much better Democrats would poll on National security now if they had done this. We would have been stronger on Iraq and moved things faster if Kerry and Feingold would have not had to fight Democrats wanting not to make Iraq an issue.

[ProSense]

4. Kick! n/t

[ProSense]

5. Kick! n/t