Senate Democrats’ Iraq Plan Looks Similar to John Kerry’s

[kerrygoddess]

Senate Democrats’ Iraq Plan Looks Similar to John Kerry’s
March 15th, 2007 @ 11:04 am

ABC News’ Jake Tapper reports that the Democrats new Iraq plan is similar to John Kerry’s proposal on Iraq from October 2005. Indeed, some “allies” of John Kerry have pointed out “that the current Senate Democratic proposal for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq — introduced by Senate Democratic leaders and currently being debated on the Senate floor — strongly resembles plans Kerry introduced in both October 2005 and June 2006.”

They are on the money… it is. The plan currently being debated in the Senate is one that Kerry has been lobbying for, for a very long time. In many ways he’s vindicated once again for being “right.” But the Senator isn’t “interested in going backwards.”

There’s no need to discuss the lack of support for his plan in the past, the vindication is that his peers have gotten what he’s been saying all along. No I told you so’s necessary from Kerry. Tantamount always has been his efforts to continue pushing his plan until his colleagues in the Senate were ready to come to the table. That in itself was part and parcel why Kerry deciding against running for president in ‘08, much to the chagrin of some of his supporters, self included.

Jake Tapper reports that “Kerry’s allies note — with regret in their voices and bile in their mouths — that for his efforts at the time Kerry was mocked and belittled by his fellow Democratic senators, at least one of whom joined Kerry at a press conference today to push the new proposal.” I’m not one of those un-named allies Tapper speaks of, but, I’ve tasted the bile for a very long time.

The current proposal, introduced by Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., would begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq within four months of enactment, with a goal of all combat troops out of Iraq by approximately this time next year.

“We are today behaving as a security blanket ,” Kerry said, standing alongside Reid and Democratic Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and Carl Levin of Michigan.

“If you want to support the troops, the way to support the troops is to get the policy right.”

Tapper reports that he asked Kerry after the press conference if “Reid’s plan wasn’t the same as his from last June,” Kerry smiled and said, “They’re very similar.”

So what took his colleagues so long to come to the conclusion he reached about a “phased redeployment” back in October 2005?

“These things take time,” Kerry said. “Things have to percolate. That’s the nature of legislation.”

MORE & LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=5475

[MBS]

1. oh, I should have known KG would find this first : )

posted this as repeat up in thread on Iraq vote . apologies for duplication

[kerrygoddess]

2. I've been MIA in here...

my star expired and I had been so busy I kept forgetting to renew it.

[JI7]

3. so they refused to support a plan to get out of Iraq because it was

Kerry's idea and they didn't want him to run for President? stupid pricks.

[karynnj]

5. I don't think anyone has said this

most of the accounts don't give Kerry credit. It actually got all but 3 of the Democratic caucus - (Leibernman, Nelson (NE), and Pryor were the only nos).

This puts the Democrats, for all practical purpose behind a version of Kerry's plan. That's an amazing shift since last summer. Only Smith (R, Or) joined them.

Last week, there were a few interviews with the video or audio links - one with Baude (sp?) and the other with Baude and Marjorie Eagen (sp?). Kerry spoke of the fact that they won't have the votes - that as it's binding they would need 67 to override the veto that they would get. The point is they are building concensus behind an exit strategy. (He did say that it hurt and he was angry that the soldiers were in the situation they were in.)

[MBS]

4. If you're feeling lazy

I posted the bulk of the article elsewhere in this thread (in Kerry: 48 senators agree. . )
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x127877#127888
It's also on the "front page" of setadeadline.com (which is where I first saw it)

[karynnj]

6. Given that 47 Dems voted for it and 2 against, MSNBC interviewed one of the 2

Ben Nelson, who said deadlines are bad - that the 2006 one was a hard deadline (which it wasn't) and that is bad because what happens when you don't make it and this one was bad because it was soft - but soft deadlines become hard. (This is like an Escher print in words.)