It was a great Joe smackdown, but DU missed a HUGE point of ABC interview

[blm]

made by Kerry to This Week concerning Iraq - and it is a point about civil war that we all need to focus on to make a difference in withdrawal SOONER rather than later.




>>>>>
Of his own views on Iraq, Kerry stated forthrightly, "The course of this country in Iraq is making the world more dangerous."
... Kerry told chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos, "Iraq is not the center of the war on terror," while also asserting, "Iraq is in a civil war; of course it's in a civil war."

Kerry said he supports the efforts of Senator John Warner, R-Va., to introduce a second resolution on Iraq if and when the country descends into outright civil war. Kerry believes that moment has come and reiterated, "We have to set a date for the withdrawal," before concluding, "The absence of diplomacy is putting our troops at greater risk and is reducing our ability for success."
>>>>>>

Recall the senate debate on the Kerry-Feingold plan last June - Warner and Kerry had a lengthy, respectful exchange about what they would need to do when civil war is apparent - the IWR did NOT allow for war under any circumstance other than our national security threat and certainly NOT under the circumstance of civil war, so the senate can FORCE another vote - - one which I think BushInc will lose, and Warner is a key part of making it happen. Kerry has been working on Warner for many months now, and appealing to his greater concern for the historic record, in my view.

We need to focus on this point and urge Warner to follow thru on a senate vote for a SECOND resolution.

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. chimp says we are in Iraq for good.

But we knew that all along.

[blm]

2. If we make a POINTED effort to emphasize CIVIL WAR, the senate will HAVE

to vote AGAIN on a resolution that COVERS that circumstance. Warner has already sided in favor of that vote.

It's a matter of committed Dems helping to FRAME the debate in terms of civil war in Iraq.

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. New emerging pro war argument seems to be that we need

to stay there because of the oil reserves. chimp made mention of this the other day. On the basis of the oil thing, it sort of gives them carte blanche to stay there forever.

[blm]

4. Except he doesn't HAVE that authority for that circumstance, and it's past

time the lawmakers make the public more aware of that fact. The media has succeeded in getting people to believe IWR was a blank check for Bush, but it never was. Warner is prepared to acknowledge that with another vote. I don't think it will happen till he's further pressed in a PUBLIC WAY.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. That was the genius of the thing. Get in there using a "valid" excuse

and once you are in there it becomes strategically impossible to ever leave. I would guess that it was somebody's plan all along.

[blm]

6. Except now there is a GOP senator interested in sticking to the process

and the constitution, and THAT is something that BushInc hadn't figured into the plan.

Warner needs greater attention from the left media to push this through, imo. If the left media doesn't do it, we certainly can't expect the corporate media to notice.

[bigtree]

7. That's the point that Bush avoids

What does he do when he admits there's a civil war, when the Maliki government admits it?

Kerry (and I guess Warner) say we get out at that point. That's their end point.

Bush, on the other hand, indicates that he would deepen our involvement, escalate by committing more troops there.

I don't think there's a chance for any resolution like that now, before the election. Bush has set his course and his minions will fall in line. But, Kerry's efforts will give voters some guide to where a line could be drawn in Iraq by a Democratic majority, and provide yet another rationale for bringing the soldiers home.

[blm]

8. There have already been Iraqi officials admitting there is a civil war.

The problem is the US media and their refusal to discuss this as an important development. See - it proves Kerry and Murtha were right, and the US media will not let the public hear it in any widespread way.

[madmunchie]

9. The civil war thing is just another way that the media is being controlled

to not report the truth. AGAIN, we know that there is a civil war going on. The politicians are seemingly not leading us in letting us know what is going on. Some reporters out there are responsible for that.

[blm]

10. ALOT of reporters are responsible for it. When some Iraqi officials stated

that the country was in civil war, not long after Kerry and Murtha were saying that and offering withdrawal plans dealing with that reality, MOST MEDIA REFUSED TO REPORT that development and the Iraqi official's statements.

[mascale]

11. At Least With Lincoln In Office: Anyone Knew There Was A Civil War

And not the Union army was too altogether thrilled with the prospect, even at the time. When finally Lincoln needed more support, even then, the best that could happen in Emancipation Procalamation was that the newly freed work for a wage, when allowed.

Then to ice it came Amendment XIII. By itself, the former dominant group could become the oppressed minority group, and then the formerly oppressed minority group could become the dominant group: And anyone could guess that the outcome would become Modern Day Iraq as we now know it.

Fortunately, we now have North Korea, and a likely receptive Iran in some nature of oil for technology swap. And now we have have an ascendant Hezbollah: All thanks to the "Mission" created by Tel Aviv.

Shia Two, and no Civil War in Iraq. In Republican World, Shia now hold the high ground in the world oil market at last: Able to draw Saudi Arabia and the Kuwatis along for the ride.

Everyone knows that it has been about oil, with the Republicans. What possibly old Senator Joe "The Foresighted" Lieberman, only he could know for sure: Is that really they intended it all for China.

These people don't even know if we're creating a Civil War or instead the Shia Crescent of their dreams!