I'm upset democrats are not standing with Murtha

[thefloyd]

Kerry does not agree with Murtha's plan. "Rham" states Murtha has his own plan and does not speak for all democrats. Common sense would tell me if Democrats are going to win the Iraq debate Murtha is the perfect person to lead the charge. Does not make sense!!!

[madfloridian]

I think they will.

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

[Vincardog]

1. Those "Leaders" who want to stay in Iraq should go enlist.

[lebkuchen]

2. And Sen. Clinton?

Where is her stand these days? Still fighting the hard fight against Castro?

[bunny planet]

3. Murtha has been quoted as saying that he asked the more liberal Dems

from standing up with him because he did not want his statement and plan viewed as a partisan effort by the left but rather as a non-partisan expression of what the majority of the American people want to see.

[seabeyond]

39. well i think this is realitive. i wonder if anyone else has noticed

your post. certainly have a factor before we start attacking our fellow dems, dont you think. and seeing how we take pride in being informed??????

thank you for sharing

[BOSSHOG]

4. Rep Murtha is too much of a professional and a gentleman

but I'd like to see him make a public appearance in uniform. Maybe a photo op with bush. The contrast would be overwhelming.

[BrotherBuzz]

12. Can he still wear a uniform?

He retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990. Can a person still wear a uniform after they retire from service?

BOSSHOG, I agree he's a professional and a gentleman, but I think of Murtha, first and formost, as a Congressman that just happens to have an illustrious military past.

[BOSSHOG]

17. But the contrasts are overwhelming

An illustrious military past going head to head with a tainted military record of desertion and drug abuse. Conservatives would like you and me to believe that bush was an exemplary airman for his country while orchestrating a smear campaign against one with an "illustrious military past." The visuals are too good to pass up.

[BrotherBuzz]

21. Well, you put it that way, I'm in total agreement.

For what it's worth, Murtha entered Congress the same year Bush* bolted. Interesting, no?

[JohnstownDEM]

81. Can he still wear a uniform?

Yes...even though he's retired, he can still wear his uniform as long as he wears his retirement pins/stripes I believe.

Congressman Murtha is my congressman and he is a personal friend of our family's. This man is a natural leader and I would follow wherever he leads. He would be doing a disservice to our nation and his district if he retired from Congress. I hope he's in there fighting the good fight until he departs this earth.

[MADem]

94. Only at ceremonies, like Vet's Day, Memorial Day, and so on

It really "isn't done" otherwise. And the truth of the matter is, most can't fit into their old ACDU uni anymore. If you do wear it, you have to wear it correctly....which means getting on the treadmill, or going out and buying a new one for a one-time occasion.

Nothing wrong with being a citizen, who once served. In fact, there's a lot right about being one of those folks.

When I put my stuff away, I put it away for good. On to the next phase of life!

[Rodger Dodger]

50. Rep. Murtha doesn't have to

He told it like it is. The Corporate "Conservative" media miss quote him and the radio & TV pendents pick up their distortions.

Murtha said on the House of Rep. floor that the military should "re-deploy the troupes. Station them in Kuwait or Guam. He feels freedom must be won by those who believe in it and are willing to fight for it. It's a good suggestion for a possible solution to the problem.

It's the press that uses the works "cut and run," leave right a way.
Any true military minded individual knows there is such a thing as a strategical withdrawal..."live and fight another day." Not retreat, not cut and run.

We left Vietnam. Now we are trading partners. Veterans are returning there to visit.

I believe we should begin to call for a change in the conservative media and keep it up as long as the conservative kept their campaign against what the call the liberal media.

They, the media, deserve it; in spades!

[blm]

5. Kerry had submitted his own withdrawal plan that he felt was wiser. Why

would you expect him to drop his own withdrawal plan? He worked hard on it with visits to Iraq and many discussions with commanders on the ground there.

Kerry supported Murtha, the man, the vet, and the IDEA of withdrawal.

They just have different time frames.

Why didn't you get angry that more Dems didn't support Kerry's withdrawal plan when he offered it a MONTH ago? It was the only detailed plan ever submitted at the time.

Why try to change the point as if it was Kerry v Murtha when it clearly was NOT?

Do you even KNOW the plans only vary by about 6 months? But, they both have many points in common, and especially their reasons for wanting withdrawal.

[thefloyd]

7. How

Do you know I was not angry when democrats did not support Kerry's plan?

[blm]

9. Because if you did you would understand why Kerry supported his own plan

OVER Murtha's plan.

Why not be pleased that two Dems are on the same basic page for withdrawal in a reasonable amount of time?

If you do feel differently, then edit your post to reflect your true feelings, but the way you worded it sounded more like anger directed at Kerry for not supporting a plan other than the one he submitted 3 weeks earlier.

[thefloyd]

13. Not necessarily

I think you are reaching

[blm]

15. Then why point to Kerry in your post when he was the only other Dem who

submitted a detailed withdrawal plan and the one who defended Murtha the most vociferously against the attacks made on him?

[thefloyd]

19. Because

if Democrats want to "win the Iraq debate" Murtha has much more credibility in Washington, in the media, with independants and the general viewing public. THAT is why. Obviously by taking a look at the
amount of coverage one can see why is would be in Kerry's best interest and the democrats best interest to follow Murtha.

[blm]

22. That's absurd. Kerry's plan was more detailed and even Tom Hayden said

the advantage of Kerry's plan was that it was DOABLE where it mattered - legislatively and in practical application.

Kerry and Murtha also likely knew what the other had planned for the day Murtha came out as Kerry had scheduled several appearances for that day. Looks to me like Murtha trusted Kerry to give him back up where he could and BOTH changed the issue to one of withdrawal.

And further - No one defended Murtha on the shows as toughly as Kerry did, yet he is the first Dem you name for attack.

Be aware that Murtha and Kerry have worked closely together before.

[thefloyd]

23. Absurd?

In my book no. Who cares about details of the plan. Like it or not Kerry did does not have the credibility on Iraq withdrawal. Murtha does. Just look at the press coverage and one can clearly see who will carry more credibility with the American public. Heck, Bushco even changed their mind over debating the merits of the Iraq war. I am a big Kerry fan but the writing is on the wall.

[blm]

25. Two points for you to factor in -

One is Kerry's actual plan, and the other is how Murtha and Kerry have been longtime allies in the trenches and on Iraq:

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."

# # #


The two of them are longtime allies and have worked closely on Iraq.


Murtha offers a 6mo withdrawal plan on the morning Kerry is finally getting airtime for his 13-18 mo withdrawal plan submitted 3 weeks ago?

Couldn't be that Murtha offered it as bait to PULL Republicans into compromise towards the 13-18mo senate plan?

What can history add to this story?


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0918-21.htm

Kerry Says President Plans Huge Call-Up
by Patrick Healy

ALBUQUERQUE -- Senator John F. Kerry accused the Bush administration yesterday of secretly planning to call up a substantial number of military reservists and National Guard units after Election Day to go to Iraq, opening a new front in the Democrat's ongoing attack that the president is concealing postwar instability in Iraq from American voters.

"He won't tell us what congressional leaders are now saying -- that this administration is planning yet another substantial call-up of reservists and Guard units immediately after the election," Kerry told 300 people at a community center here.

"Hide it from people through the election, then make the move -- that's not the way we do business in the United States of America, my friends. We deserve a president who tells the American people the truth, and when it comes to Iraq, George W. Bush simply won't own up to the truth. He hasn't all along. In fact, he'll do anything he can to cover up the truth."

The allegations came after the Kerry campaign this week asked Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a congressional ally and Pentagon specialist, to provide evidence of the reservist plan in order for Kerry to escalate his questioning of Bush's handling of Iraq, aides to Murtha said yesterday. The aides said a relatively small number of new reservists would be involved, probably 2,000 to 2,500, but the idea that such a plan would be kept quiet until after the election spurred Kerry to focus on Bush's honesty as commander in chief.

[seabeyond]

45. too much facts. boring. kerry attackers dont want the facts n/t

[seabeyond]

43. who cares about detail? i bet the troops being withdrawn care about

detail, seeing how detail has been ommitted and a lot of lost lives for the past couple years

[seabeyond]

41. a poster above says murtha asked liberal dems NOT to support

his plan. i imagine kerry would fall into that catagory. does your opinion change if kerry was asked by murtha not to support? and before attacking our dems, shouldnt we know the whole story? just a thought

[FreedomAngel82]

18. They could always

work together and make up a plan they agree on. :shrug:

[MH1]

16. Well because in your original post

you seemed to be complaining about Kerry not supporting Murtha's plan...since Kerry was the first one you mentioned after your subject, which is "I'm upset..."

If you were angry 3 weeks ago when Dems didn't all support Kerry's plan, one would think you might have mentioned that in your original post.

:shrug:

[European Socialist]

6. At least they could say it's worth a look--still fear Repuke slime machine

[Proud2BaLiberalMom]

8. I too was upset, that is until I read this:

Clip:

"Which was precisely what the Democratic leadership wanted Murtha to do. A close ally, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, was anxious to open a second axis of attack on Iraq—and was aware of his growing antagonism toward the war. The two met and agreed that he would make his case in private to the party conference. After that, on his own, he would introduce a resolution calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." Pelosi and the other liberals would keep their distance, while their own Marine charged up the Hill. Framed by long rows of American flags at a press conference, he denounced the Iraq war as a "flawed policy wrapped in an illusion."

Link: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10118733/site/newsweek/

So that it doesn't look partisan! I think that's the strategy. If liberal Dems rally too much it will be portrayed as simply partisan. So, we lay a little lower than we wish to, so the fence sitting Americans don't run from the truth. Let's hope it works!
:kick:

[Village Idiot]

20. The wedge attack has been a Dem staple since '94...

But I can't really see it working in this case.

[papau]

10. Pelosi's Dem conf wide discussion and debate on Murtha's proposal

but I would rather have had the earlier plan for a Dec vote to adopt Murtha's plan as the Dem Plan.

Indeed Kerry should stand aside and back Murtha.

[Proud2BaLiberalMom]

14. I agree...

I would have liked a vote on a 'real' resolution in December too, but things don't always go as planned.

As for Kerry, I think if he stood by his side it might actually hurt the process. Those who did vote for idiot boy and hate JK wouldn't go for it, and those are the one's who may be sitting on the fence. We may not like those people, but in order to further our cause and bring our men and women home from this unjust, insane war, we need them too. Just my thoughts...
:eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

26. Why is no one calling for Dean to put aside the Kolb plan and back Murtha?

Still waiting to find out who or what "Rham" is, btw.

And how could Kerry stand aside if he believes in good conscience that his plan is what needs to be done. Perhaps it's not politics he's looking at, but the best way to have an orderly withdrawl that doesn't turn into a messy Vietnam-style one.

[madfloridian]

28. Dean is backing Murtha. He said Murtha met with Korb.

There are a couple of posts here today about his interview this morning. He stands with Murtha.

[LittleClarkie]

30. So he supports all three? Korb, Kerry AND Murtha? Gee, what a concept.

We could learn from that, you know? Instead of all this "why doesn't Kerry support Murtha's plan" etc, etc, when I know that Murtha and Kerry worked together during the campaign and all.

Did you ever get the feeling that these guys are more together than some of their supporters?

[madfloridian]

48. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x53939#53953

I don't have a clue whose plan is what. I am very angry that these attacks go on toward us there where we can not defend ourselves.

So go ahead and say what you need to say. I don't know which plan is which, but if you read that thread you will see that Kerry supporters took it the same way I did this morning.

I don't care which plan.

[LittleClarkie]

52. All I said was we could learn from Dean and support all three.

The horror.

What, we shouldn't learn from Dean?

[madfloridian]

54. Let's look to our own houses.

I have no place I go to post secret things.

[blm]

66. Why take on the burden, mf? Separate yourself and other good Dems from

those who do show shortsightedness based on their own bias.

There are Dean supporters who won't acknowledge when Dean and Kerry are on the same page even as they attack Kerry for his position. That's just a fact. You aren't in that category so why get upset?

There is much to appreciate when so many DO recognize that Dems like Dean and Kerry are working together and are more on track with their message.

It just seems odd to me that ANY Dem would try to tear down what is being built as a team effort. No man is an island.

[madfloridian]

69. Name the ones who are doing that here.

If you will pay close attention, you will find that mostly the ones who are attacking Kerry are not actually what you say.

Why do I bother? Because I post something very simple, that Dean supports Murtha and that he said Murtha talked with Korb. And suddenly we are back in last year again.

There are hardly any former "Deaniacs" here at DU anymore at all. The ones who are doing that are ones who are affiliated with other progressive groups mostly.

Fair is fair. What is not fair is going into corners to whisper about each other.

[blm]

70. Suit yourself. I try to see both sides because I feel it's imperative to

Dem goals.

[madfloridian]

71. Well, I guess I should thank you guys for the David Jones thread.

The one that is posted there today. The odd thing is that I have put a lot of this out of my mind, but that post in the Kerry forum, which is again pointing out how Deaniacs are not very bright politically.....brought back memories.

So actually I thank you all very much. It was an interesting time, another time in the past.

In fact I will post the link here out in the open.

http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=david+jones&image1.x=23&image1.y=6

I believe the pertinent times in the video are at 2:57 and about 3:20.

I fail to see why all this helps any of us. Another thing Dean said in that interview yesterday was that things were going pretty well, but admitted he was still an outsider. Sometimes that is necessary to bring change...being an outsider I mean.

I am one here, an outsider that is. I don't mind at all. I just think battles should be fought out in the open.

[blm]

72. And I say outrage is not for one side alone in any primary battle.

I felt very much aggrieved about all the lies and distortions against Kerry and his record from back then, but I will not waste valuable time and necessary Dem goodwill when so much cooperation is needed to battle BushInc.

[madfloridian]

74. Jones said Dean was so far ahead, they did not really want disclosure...

of the 527 at that time. Ran all the tough stuff they had.

Our concern was "taking down Howard Dean". "so far ahead" that our concern was doing what we could take him down. Our goal was to try to "take Governor Dean down from where he was".

He discusses why they did not want disclosure. The Osama ad was so "over the top" they wanted to wait. Dean had fallen so far "during that time frame"...most of the donors were associated with Gephardt and Kerry.

Would have been too dangerous too disclose by that time, Dean had fallen so far.

Hey, thanks for the reminder, folks.

http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=david+jones&image1.x=23&image1.y=6

2:57 and 3:20

[blm]

75. And the media OVER-Reported Dean's support the last 3 months, mf.

They consistently UNDER-reported Kerry's support that had been growing and solidifying since Nov, 2003.

Funny, you don't mind the bullshit the media pulled to fuck with the Dem primaries until their constant coverage of Dean started working against Dean. Face it, Dean had a couple off months towards the end where he didn't perform well with the Iowa voters in personal appearances and his debate appearances were still uneven.

Dean and Trippi both knew their internal numbers were slipping and that is why they weren't as surprised as their supporters that night.

The media exaggerated the whole Dean scream so they could shift the focus and sell it as a Dean implosion as if he was responsible for it, when they were actually covering for their bad reporting regarding support in Iowa. They saw what they wanted to see to fit their given storylines.

The people of Iowa proved the MEDIA wrong. And I believe the media did what they did complicit with BushInc.

[madfloridian]

77. I am NOT the one who revisited....it is the forum there who started.

I did not start the revisiting. But in fact, now I am thinking about the fact that the C-Span coverage of this event deserves its own thread. Still thinking it over.

[blm]

78. It was posted hundreds of times when it happened.

You started posting on this thread about another forum. You don't reply to ONE point of mine and stay singlemindedly on another forum where a couple people aren't happy that SOME Dean supporters attack Kerry's plan while not acknowledging that Korb's plan is similar but just a bit more conservative than Kerry's plan.

That was the point, but you won't see the forest for the one damn tree you insist on staring at.

[madfloridian]

80. I did not attack Kerry or his plan at all.

I simply stated a fact of what Dean said on Morning Sedition.
But it really does not matter after all, does it?

Why bother. The threads I refer to are being noticed, and it changes things in my mind.

I have never been an attack kind of person, but who the hell knows?

[blm]

86. YOU didn't. That's why I said don't take on the burden of those who did.

Why you choose to identify with those and be angry at those who had every right to point out that some people attacked Kerry unfairly while he was on the same page pretty much as Dean - that's it - there was nothing more.

That is not your burden. Those who did make hypocritical attacks on Kerry's withdrawal plan know who they are.

[madfloridian]

89. Well, it just became my burden, blm

That thread is making my head nearly explode, because it is deliberately being done where none of us can respond.

It just became my battle.

[blm]

95. Join it. But I think you have made a mountain out of a molehill.

And think you need to read it again objectively.

If it was obvious I didn't fit the shoe that was being proffered, I certainly would know enough to not even try it on to make it fit.

[madfloridian]

97. No, I just woke up to how stupid and naive I really am.

To trust anyone and anything that happened last year.

And the part I have really awakened to is that being nice matters not at all.

See, I am a slow learner, but I learn things well..and I learn them hard.

[blm]

101. I think you are choosing the wrong lessons to learn and personalizing

this whole thing way out of proportion.

Don't try to wear a shoe that wasn't meant to fit you. You'll find no comfort walking in them.

[madfloridian]

103. I feel quite good now, thank you so much.

It is a freer feeling. No more lines to walk.

[madfloridian]

76. Yeh, well, join the club.

Stuff happens. Trouble is that I have been supportive of Kerry, and not one of the ones who goes after him here.

The threads going on there now have just about turned me around. Why bother?

I have not been a voice against Kerry, well...ha ha, look where it gets me.

Thanks for the reminder of what David Jones said about bringing Dean down. I needed to be reminded.

[blm]

79. You missed the point. The point is that singlemindedness IS divisive and

serves no purpose in forwarding common goals.

You want to shift focus because of one or two Kerry supporters being mad that Kerry is being attacked when he and Dean are pretty much onthe same page? Don't you get mad when Dean is misrepresented when attacked unfairly?

Think about the divisiveness and how counterproductive it is to base one's feelings and direction on a general statement about some Dean supporters that did not include you and most Dean supporters.

[madfloridian]

83. Think about it? I have.

Many times. I have tried. But it does not matter. Reading those posts there without context, one would think all "Deaniacs" were fools and idiots.. I resent it very much.

[blm]

88. That's a bad read. Try again with some distance. There are more friends

there than you are realizing.

[madfloridian]

85. In fact that thread just drew someone who is convinced we don't care....

about the party. Why is this stuff going on in the forum there? What is it accomplishing?

I am so sick to death of folks speaking of me and others as if we are not very bright, don't really understand the system.

Well, I don't understand the system, and I hope I never do. Look where we are now for playing "the system" so well.

We lost everything.

[blm]

92. Stop taking on the burden of the bad ones. There are only a few who claim

to support Dean while attacking other Dems and their supporters.

I do not identify with those who claim to be Kerry supporters and then come on and attack Dean or Kucinich or any other Dem and their overall supporters.

I can see the difference between a few and many. The many have common goals. The few disrupt those goals for their own biases.

[madfloridian]

93. As I said, it became my burden today.

.

[blm]

99. Sorry, but that's just dumb, imo.

Why anyone would identify with wrongheaded Dean supporters is beyond me.
There are plenty of rightheaded Dean supporters to identify with.


I certainly wouldn't identify with people who claim to be Kerry supporters and lash out unfairly at other Dems he's working WITH not against.

I don't think what you are doing is healthy.

[madfloridian]

102. Well, guess what.

Today I learned a lot. I really don't care that you don't approve...does not matter to me one bit.

You know perfectly well all that I am talking about, and you are turning and twisting the questions to mean something else.

I don't care anymore about worrying what you guys think.

[blm]

104. I strongly disagree with your take. But, suit yourself.

I have never been unreasonable with you and I thought you recognized that beyond anything else.

[MH1]

110. What attack?

I think you are being thin-skinned. I believe the post you link to made an incorrect reference to "Deaniacs", but for crying out loud, if you read further you will find that the person you are arguing with here (LittleClarkie) called the poster on that!!

And in any case they were referring to the "out now" crowd. Korb's plan, which Dean says he backs, is NOT "out now". If Kerry had said what Dean said, there would be 20 threads in GD within 24 hours bashing Kerry for backing Korb and not Murtha. And very few if any would be shut down, regardless of how ridiculous the claim.

Anyway, I'm sorry if you felt like that was an attack thread, it most certainly was not meant to be.

[madfloridian]

111. Did you see this post in your forum? No, not thin-skinned...tired as hell

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=54145&mesg_id=54145

This one is continuing all kinds of things that I could defend or give a response to. But I can not because I can not post there. It would be considered an attack if I posted there, yet my hubby and I donated a lot to Kerry last year and campaigned for him.

I am very tired of this stuff. The video is very clear, it speaks for itself. David Jones said the purpose of his group was served when Dean dropped out. He said the purpose was to bring Dean down. He laughed and thought it was all so funny.

Why is this being brought up now? Why is it in a forum where you guys are really saying some pretty bad things about us which are not true? No, my friend, I have not been an attack person, and most of the ones going after Kerry are not Dean supporters at all. They were sort of during the campaign, but please note that most of them are now PDA. PDA does not look at the DNC as the proper vehicle for the party.

I would like to think we were all Democrats,but that is not about to happen. Not now. I have kept out of any criticisms of Kerry, but look where it got me.

[MH1]

113. Why it's brought up now

Because there are others constantly bringing it up as an attack against Kerry (and Clark, rarely; no one cares about Gep any more) in GD and GD-P, and other sites. I have seen the references and it never fails to piss me off, but I try to ignore them because I think the ones using this stuff for attacks are just trolls.

As for the thread you pointed to - I am sure they are not referring to you or people like you, when they talk about "crazies" - they mean the people I'm talking about in my first paragraph. Some people who come out from time to time and start bashing Kerry (or other candidates - sometimes the same bashers, sometimes different) for whatever small excuse they can make up - and usually something untrue, at that. THAT is who they are talking about. I am sorry that some like to lump these trolls together as "Deaniacs" or "Clarkies" or the flavor of the day - I think most of us know that is incorrect.

I confess I've lost track of this discussion here, I am not sure why the old primary fights came up now, on this particular thread. But I went and watched the video, and I read the Kerry forum thread about it, and I learned a lot about some things I have wondered about. So for me at least, there was some benefit of new knowledge.

I appreciate that you have tried to stay positive and not attack Kerry or other Democrats. I hope you won't make one thread that got out of hand, or a couple people who are stereotyping unfairly, lower your standard of behavior. We need all the maturity and teamwork we can get if we're going to win as a party in the next election.

Peace?

on edit: I'm going offline to do holiday preparation things. I hope you have a good holiday too!
:toast:

[eridani]

114. Not true. PDA lobbied hard for Dean to lead the DNC

Why would this preclude working with progressive forces that happen to be outside the DNC? I've always thought it perfectly possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[MH1]

32. But the Korb plan is widely different than Murtha's.

So which one is Dean backing? I thought it was the Korb plan.

What LittleClarkie is asking, is why is the fact that Dean is backing the Korb plan rather than the Murtha plan, not creating calls for Dean to "step aside and back Murtha", yet is creating those calls for Kerry - who proposed a plan well before Murtha, but it is reasonable to think that Kerry and Murtha are still working together as they have in the past.

The post is just a protest against perceived unfair treatment. I agree with the perception; perhaps you do not; but it really doesn't matter. What matters is that Dems stand together in a strategy that results in a better resolution to Iraq than * will achieve. That strategy may include posing multiple plans. Just as (as I read in another post) the appearance of Pelosi and other Dems not embracing Murtha's plan was staged as part of the overall strategy.

Kerry has done nothing to obstruct Murtha's plan, or any other Dem's plan; but in fact he has come out strenuously in statement after statement denouncing the attacks on Murtha. Since Kerry is supporting the overall effort rather than obstructing, saying he should "stand aside", as a poster above did, is really silly.

[madfloridian]

42. I have no idea what you are talking about.

I am going to post something that I put up earlier today, because I am clueless as to what you think I mean. :shrug: :shrug:

I do know that a thread is going in the Kerry forum just waiting to get some of use to rise to some bait or other.

If you did not hear Dean on the radio this morning, then you need to read this post. It makes it clear I have not read any of the plans for withdrawal. It shows what I said that Dean spoke up loudly for Murtha, it shows he said "Jack" (meaning Murtha) met with Korb.

He seems to be indicating Dems are getting behind this plan. Hell, I did not diss Kerry, I did not do anything but correct Little Clarkie, who asked why Dean isn't supporting Murtha. Dean is supportive of Murtha, and he is supportive of the Korb plan.

Now since I really have not read the plans, I do not give a tinker's damn who wins the spitting contest. Now you can go and talk about us crazy liberal Deaniacs some more. Here is my post from this morning...hell, I will kick it for you. Will you guys stop making this a pissing contest???

Here is what I posted today. Now please clarify what you mean.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5422214

[MH1]

107. Okay, I'll try to clarify.

First of all, I see that LittleClarkie's post (which you responded to, and I responded to you) was in reply to another poster, who did IMO diss Kerry, unfairly in comparison with Dean. My reply to you was trying to clarify what LittleClarkie said. Guess I didn't do a good job, so here's another try:

Both Dean and Kerry have publicly denounced the attacks on Murtha and spoken highly of him.

Korb plan calls for troops to still be in Iraq through 2006, with at least a small garrison in 2007.

Murtha plan (as I understand it) calls for "everyone out in 6 months".

Kerry plan calls for staged withdrawal beginning after Dec election and should be completed by then end of 2006.

There are differences and similarities between all three plans. But the Murtha and Korb plans are different enough that to say "Dean backs the Korb plan" and "Dean backs the Murtha plan" is contradictory. Your post that you link to has Dean saying that he thinks the Korb plan is the way to go (out in 2007, if you follow the BooTrib links to the actual plan); although he backs Murtha as a leader. That is hardly different than Kerry proposing his own plan (out by end 2006) and still backing Murtha as a leader. Yet there are several posters who are jumping all over Kerry for supposedly not backing Murtha, which is just bull. If the problem is which plan is someone backing, then Dean is even further from Murtha's plan than Kerry. So why isn't Dean the one getting jumped on?

The "pissing contest", IMHO is started and continued by those like the op, and others on this thread, that make claims like "Kerry should get out of the way and back Murtha" and "I am upset that Dems are not backing Murtha." Now, I think both claims are false, because it seems to me the Dems are working together on this and pretty well backing each other up. There may be a strategic reason for having different plans on the table; or it may be just honest disagreement over the best approach. But either way, none of our leading Dems are attacking each other, so why are their followers attacking each other on boards like this?

I hope it didn't seem like I was "attacking" Dean either - I am merely pointing out that the plans differ (all the stuff I said above). My problem is with people who have this thing that they need to find any excuse to attack Kerry (or anybody else) even when their arguments could be equally or better applied to their own favorite Democrat.

Okay let me say that last a little stronger - I'm friggin' sick of it. But you weren't the person who started this little fest, so I'm sorry if you took my post that way.

[MH1]

108. Re: "rise to the bait"

If you're talking about this thread, that I started,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=53939&mesg_id=53939

then you misunderstood the intent of the post, and I think of the posters there.

There has been intense discussion in the Kerry forum about the various proposals for getting out of Iraq, ever since Kerry introduced his on 10/26. I saw your thread about Dean and the Korb plan, and I posted it in the Kerry forum for the folks there who don't like to read GD and GD-P. I was looking for an intellectual comparison and assessment of the various plans, and to some extent I got it.

I mean c'mon, the DNC chair comes out publicly backing a plan, which is also written up at Newsweek by Jonathan Alter, but which isn't the Kerry plan and is in fact offered by a republican, and we shouldn't take interest? It wasn't "bait" in any sense.

Of course if I misunderstood your post yet again, I sincerely apologize. It just seems like my thread must've been the one you meant.

[LittleClarkie]

61. That's pretty much it. No attack on Dean intended. Just wondering at the

difference in reactions to the two men.

I could stop defending Dean I suppose, if folks think I'm unworthy to do so, but for the most part I have tried to defend both Dean and Clark when I thought it appropriate.

But I'm not adverse to criticism of Dean, Clark or Kerry when that's appropriate as well.

Nevertheless, you pretty much pegged my problem. But if Dean is being a unifier, and looking at each different plan as all being a step in the right direction, then I do indeed think that is an attitude to be admired and emulated.

[MH1]

109. Exactly. Just as I posted to MadFloridian,

My problem (our problem, I think) is with the followers who feel they have to attack other people when there really isn't any justification, and the leaders themselves are pretty well working together.

I agree that I think in this case Dean is probably being a unifier. Interestingly, picking the plan offered by a republican means he doesn't have to "play favorites" by preferring one Dem's plan over another.

[Mass]

37. He cant stand with Murtha and Korb at the same time.

The plans are very different.

I know that Dean is supportive of Murtha's effort, as he should be. But how can he stand at the same time for a plan that wants to stay at least 2 years in Iraq and for a plan that supports inconditionnal withdrawal in 6 months. I dont understand that.

[madfloridian]

44. Hell bell's, I said I have not read the plan.

Congratulations Kerrycrats, you finally got a rise out of one of us...per your thread going in the Kerry forum.

I posted what he said on Morning Sedition....take it up with Dean or Kerry or whomever.

[Mass]

47. What is your problem? I am asking a question.

If you dont know the answer, fine. Just say so.

[madfloridian]

49. Here is my problem.

You guys were saying the same thing this morning. You all read my post this morning, and you have dying for a reaction.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x53939#53953

Read it.

[Mass]

51. If I was that touchy, I would never post on GD again, you know.

At least, I took the time to read the plan that you said that Dean supported and to try to read it before I asked questions.

It is probably more than what some people here are doing at anything that Kerry says. God forbid they read before they critcize.

And yes, so many Dean supporters have been attacking us because Dean is so anti-war that it is difficult to believe that anybody who believes that and who has read the Korb's plan would feel satisfied. If they are, fine, but please stop telling us about how bad Kerry's plan is.

At least, I say that the Kerry's plan is not something I agree.

[madfloridian]

53. I said Dean supported Murtha. I said Murtha met with Korb.

Dean has never been anti-war, and I am tired of your pretending that most of us think that.

Do not try the sensitive, touchy stuff on me, I outgrew it a year or so ago.

I don't care which plan they use, as it won't make any difference. We will still always be there. Just like we are in every country we ever fought in or attacked.

Why don't we just stop this.

[madfloridian]

57. Yeh, and I get dismayed as well.

From all the things people say to me that have nothing to do with me, but everything to do with people who want out of Iraq right now.

That is the PDA group, and I think the Greens, maybe Nader's group.

I think a quick pull-out is dangerous, that it needs to be phased.

I am not an Out Now person, you must have meant someone else.

Yes, I do react when a whole thread is pushing what I am not.

[Mass]

59. Did anybody target you in this thread?

Not that I am aware. If somebody was, I apologize because you were certainly not in my mind.

And actually, I think we need to pull-out quickly, so I am in this crowd of "Out Now".

[madfloridian]

60. Yes.

.

[madfloridian]

58. If you would name the Dean supporters doing that...would appreciate.

I have seen a few doing it who are not DFA and really not DNC now...they are doing it a lot, and I don't like it.

[blm]

82. I agree. This is nothing new. Some people just use Dean's name as a crutch

in their effort to shift blame onto other Dem lawmakers, and even when they are working WITH Dean on the same page.

[MADem]

96. You really don't know??? See this link.

http://www.house.gov/emanuel/grants/

[LittleClarkie]

11. Who's "Rham"?

But Kerry does stand by Murtha against the attacks aimed at him.

Who does Dean stand by? He stood by Kerry and his plan. Does he now stand by Murtha?

[MH1]

33. Rahm Emanuel.

http://www.house.gov/emanuel/

Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

[emulatorloo]

24. DEMOCRATS ARE STANDING W MURTHA - you are ill-informed or trying to

stir up trouble.

Dems worked with Murtha, they strategized w him, and now they are supporting him.

I will give you a link to a newsweek story if I can find it.


ON EDIT HERE: (see also post 8)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10118733/site/newsweek /

,snip

Now, Murtha mused, it was his turn to confront a president with harsh truths.

Which was precisely what the Democratic leadership wanted Murtha to do. A close ally, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, was anxious to open a second axis of attack on Iraq—and was aware of his growing antagonism toward the war. The two met and agreed that he would make his case in private to the party conference. After that, on his own, he would introduce a resolution calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date."

snip

[BJW]

84. THANK YOU! I am starting to feel pretty damn annoyed

at the DU equivalent of dittoheads who don't seem to be able to think things through past what the M$M headline says.

Jeez...You would think they'd never heard of strategy or political theater or having people on point for specific issues to shift the dialogue--things like that.

There's now Kerry, Murtha and Biden (saw him on C-Span)with separate specific plans out there for troop drawdown and withdrawal, in addition to the immediate pull-out option supported by Kucinich and a few others.

Dems ARE the ones with the plans and ideas. Dems (with a few exceptions) support leaving Iraq sooner rather than later. The Repugs have no plans to leave, period.

What Dems are doing is presenting a wide variety of options first--which is extremely important to do because it forcess the Repugs to take a stand on each one and either shit or get off the pot.

[MADem]

98. You have made an EXCELLENT POINT

The truth is that the Dems are behind GETTING THE HELL OUT OF THERE. The differences are in the timing, not the end result.

Only by presenting OPTIONS can there be discussion. The GOP way has, up to now, been 'stay the course, do not cut and run' so our kids keep dying. Their option is more blood for oil.

I say screw all the heat, the taking offense, the 'my politician's plan is better than YOUR politician's plan (and your politician is somehow evil or a sellout for not agreeing with MY politician!)' and the lockstep, ideological purity; let the debate take place, sooner, rather than later, and let's find a way to get our service personnel home.

The only ones working this issue with any sincerity are the Democrats. The GOP simply trashes anyone who doesn't agree with the Monkey, and surely, they take delight at any Democrats who want to tear up anyone who doesn't agree precisely with the methodology for an exit.

It's important that we keep the end result in mind, IMO.

[Gloria]

27. I just upset that the Dems are once again all over the map....

I thought Murtha himself muddied things when he called for withdrawal in 6 months and then talked about withdrawing as quickly as is "practicable."

So now all the media talk is about specific times...

And Democrats are all over the place.


I was fervently hoping they would hold their fire and then put out a cohesive scenario...but no, it won't happen.

Realistically, Bush isn't going to do any of this...but now we're fodder for all sorts of Rovian games....

Meanwhile, I can see Clark being bypassed, which I hope is not true...but I wouldn't it put it past them...

[BJW]

90. Maybe you don't get politics

There's now Kerry, Murtha and Biden (saw him on C-Span)with separate specific plans out there for troop drawdown and withdrawal, in addition to the immediate pull-out option supported by Kucinich and a few others. Hillary wants to wait till after the next election to start formal evaluations of troop drawdown.

There's no need, nor is it ideal, at all, for Dems to have only ONE plan.

What Dems are doing right now is keeping the conversation going and forcing the Repugs, who ARE IN CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES, to debate the issue and explain themselves. And people are getting sicker and sicker and sicker of the Repug TPs "stay the course" "achieve total victory" etc., and their refusal to debate the Dems on SPECIFIC PLANS that the Dems have.

Dems ARE the ones with the plans and ideas. Dems (with a few exceptions) support leaving Iraq sooner rather than later. The Repugs have no plans to leave, period.

What Dems are doing is presenting a wide variety of options first--which is extremely important to do because it forcess the Repugs to take a stand on each one and either shit or get off the pot.

[madfloridian]

29. Geez, can you see what they are doing?

Never mind. I get too tired of explaining and even bothering. Believe what you wish.

[mmonk]

31. Some have their own plans,

some share the neocon vision. The ones that share the neocon vision need to be challenged in the primaries. It's time to fight for our country and try to restore the republic.

[DavidBowman]

35. That's not so

Murtha is the arrowhead of the leadership. He made a big explosion, and the Dems are pretending to try to put out the fire. In fact, they're advancing the debate towards a pullout from Iraq to embarrass Bush and end the war. This was planned, and it's very clever.

[Sparkly]

36. "The Dems are pretending to try to put out the fire."

How so?

[DavidBowman]

38. By publicly disagreeing with Murtha

Hillary Clinton, Bill, Kerry, Ford, any number of big-hitters who cautiously backed away from Murtha when he first opened his mouth.

That way, they can appear to be moderate to the public and at the same time advance the debate significantly in their preferred direction.

[Sparkly]

40. Their proposals are somewhat different from Murtha's.

I don't see how that's "pretending" anything, nor do I see them trying to "put out the fire."

[DavidBowman]

46. What, exactly are their proposals?

No one wants to come out and propose anything specific, not even Murtha. He did it at the behest of the leadership so that there could be some movement in the terms of the debate.

If you can tell me what Hillary Clinton's "proposal" is for the withdrawal of Iraq, I'll give you a shiny nickel.

How old are you?

[Sparkly]

55. "How old are you?"

:eyes: I don't think I've seen that question since I visited an AOL board.

Hillary Clinton has criticized Chimpy and called for more international involvement, but that's all I know of her views. Her supporters can add more, I'm sure. I doubt she agrees with Murtha.

Kerry, Clark, and others have put forth very detailed proposals, outlining steps toward achieving the end goal -- withdrawal -- but again, their ideas don't match Murtha's. Nonetheless, they've both defended him against rightwing attacks.

There are a lot of differences among Democrats on this, but the one consensus seems to be, "Either FIX it, or get out." Some think it's already fubar, hence, we should get out; others think there's still a chance to mitigate the disaster before getting out.

In any case, I don't see Democrats "pretending to put out a fire;" they're not attacking Murtha, nor are they all in agreement with his view of "asap" being about six months. And, I don't see their purpose as "embarrassing" Chimp, as you suggested.

[DavidBowman]

56. Well then

I guess we hard gangstaz disagree.

[blm]

73. So you missed Kerry's withdrawal plan put forth a MONTH AGO?

Then resubmitted 10 days ago as a Senate bill?

Seems you aren't factoring in that Kerry supported Murtha's basic goal but offered a different approach and timeline, and did so 3 weeks earlier.

[DavidBowman]

105. I guess I missed it

What did it say?

[mmonk]

64. Show me proof

that the pro-war dems don't want a continued presence in the new bases.

[DavidBowman]

106. There is none

Maybe some of them do.

[Mass]

34. Many people do not agree with the details of Murtha's plan

It does not make sense that they would stop supporting the plan they support to take his without even thinking. In fact, it would be criminal. Enough with people who follow like in the Army. The Republicans do that and we saw where it leads us.

What should be done is that all the people who want a withdrawal plan and are ready to discuss sit around a table and try to make the best plan possible to bring our troops home as soon as possible. Then, it is possible than Murtha will be the best person to lead the push. He is at least well placed.

I know that some people here have jumped on Murtha's plan because they heard the word NOW. May be we can hope better from our senators/Reps than to do that. Once in a while, let them read what they are going to support before they support him.

[madfloridian]

62. Here is a brief comparison of the two plans.

I just don't see why the Korb and Murtha plan are really that different. I don't know Murtha's timetable, but it still calls for a presence there and peripherally. I have not read Clark or Kerry's, just concerned with these two right now for purposes of the post I made earlier.

Last week the Honorable John Murtha (D-PA) detailed the following plan for withdrawing U.S. service men and women from Iraq:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

To create a quick reaction force in the region.

To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.

To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

Korb's plan in brief:

We believe the United States needs to pursue a plan of strategic redeployment - a threat-based strategy to target U.S. efforts against global terrorist networks and bring greater stability to Iraq and its neighborhood.

By the end of next year, 80,000 of the 150,000 U.S. troops currently deployed in Iraq would be redeployed from the country. All National Guard and Reserve units would be demobilized and returned to the United States next year. The other active duty troops scheduled to be deployed to Iraq in 2006 would be sent to other hot spots around the globe in the fight against terrorists, with nearly two divisions going to Afghanistan to fight a resurgent Taliban insurgency and other troops going to the Horn of Africa and Southeast Asia to meet emerging threats there.

In addition, an additional 14,000 troops redeployed in 2006 would remain over the horizon in Kuwait and in a Marine expeditionary force situated off-shore in the Persian Gul to conduct strikes in coordination with Iraqi forces against any significant threats that might emerge.

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.

Strategic redeployment differs from other plans for what to do in Iraq by recognizing that Iraq is now connected to a broader battle against global terrorist networks - even though it wasn't before the Bush administration's invasion.

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 don't know how much difference there is.

[No Exit]

63. Didn't you hear the noise when Jean Schmidt smeared Murtha?!?

Didn't you hear of Marty Meehan and Harold Ford? And the rest? I saw Sheila Jackson Lee down there in the well of the House within seconds.

The democrats ARE standing with Murtha!

[KG]

65. because the dem party leadership is NOT anti-war.

why is this so hard for so many to understand?

[mmonk]

67. So, if we keep

90,000 to 100,000 troops in Iraq as a lauching base in the middle east, will we continue present US policy of pre-emptive war for economic and political hegemony by force?

[lakeguy]

68. the dems need to stand together behind one, strong message.

the problem is, they hardly ever do. that's something they could learn from the fascist rethuglicans.

[sendero]

91. I agree...

.... it would sure be nice if Kerry, Murtha and anyone else with a serious plan for extricating ourselves from this pointless conflict would get together in a "conference committee" and iron out a plan that all can agree with.

Then to enlist, via loyalty or coercion if need be the rest of the party to get on board.

I know, I'm dreaming :)

[MADem]

100. But they ARE doing that

They want the troops home. That is the one, strong message. The only discussion is WHEN.

If the GOP had their way, and there was no rumbling from the citizenry, we'd be there for 20 years and the draft lottery would start right after New Year's.

The Democrats were the ones who threw down, who started the griping, and the icing on the cake happened when Dick Cheney's old friend, Jack Murtha, who helped him when Dick admitted he "didn't know a fucking thing about Defense" (after being named SECDEF), stood up and called BULLSHIT!

It's all gamesmanship--you cannot have a debate with ONLY ONE IDEA. Throw a half-dozen into the pot, and make the GOP, who control both houses of Congress, choose one. Because their ideas, or lack of same, are costing more lives every day.

[dogday]

87. Murtha For President

he speaks for me. the rest of them can sit on their asses and wait until it is the popular thing and speak out. None of them have the nads to speak the truth about what should happen.

[The Stranger]

112. Withdraw support from those that continue to hurt us and fail to lead.

Make plans to support their primary candidates with money. Corral them in line or cut them loose. This is a moral stand.