what follow-up do you expect to Kerry's Iraq speech after 5/22?

[welshTerrier2]

it looks like no real government will be formed in Iraq by the deadline Kerry set. do you think he'll speak out for immediate withdrawal at that time?

[karendc]

1. Movie Night tonight...

Dick and I just watched a double feature of "Sir, No Sir" and "Winter Soldier". We both feel our hearts hurt; we have been stabbed by history. John Kerry lived this too and these films need to be seen by every single person in this country. Every one.

The first person who testifies in "Winter Soldier" and who is featured in "Sir, No Sir" is Joe Bangert. A quick google search reveals that the SBV Liars Club has been after him, and by attacking him, they attack JK as well. Well, Joe is a friend; an English teacher and writer on the Cape. I met him in NH and he is a feisty clear-headed gnome. I am furious just reading the posts I found on google.

What hurts so much is this:

We have learned NOTHING.

I don't even know what to write here. Listening to the raw testimony and the visual images of Vietnam is seering enough. Writing FEAR UP and listening to the stories we heard in London of renditioned men, sent to Syria to be tortured so their blood and pain is not on our hands--as if it could ever be washed FROM our hands--I am ashamed and angry and horrified.

What we do to the world is depraved. What we do to other people is horrific. What we do to ourselves and the future of our children is unforgiveable.

I must do better. I must do more. We must be effective.

[welshTerrier2]

2. i'm still recovering from this one ...

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/12942/Quite_A_Chilling_Video

someone else recommended "Sir, No Sir" to me ... it's on my "to do" list ... sometimes i almost can't even watch that stuff ...

[whometense]

16. Chilling.

Just got back from a week in the Czech Republic, where it still feels as if the Nazis happened only yesterday. The first night there we met and had supper with a woman who had escaped (barely, and in a jaw-dropping way) from Nazi-occupied Vienna.

We visited Terezin as well. As the tour guide talked about the kinds of (physical and psychic) torture inflicted on the prisoners there, it was impossible not to draw comparisons. When you see the details of how it all came to pass, it's shocking how utterly mundane they are. And you wonder over and over again that there never was a point where people rose up en masse and said "NO."

The Nazis are not ancient history there. Everywhere you turn there are vivid reminders of the past. It could happen there. And it did.

[MH1]

15. "We have learned NOTHING."

Not to start a tangent, but that is why I have so much problem with James Webb - to me he personifies this problem, and it's hard to see him as a Democrat.

It is good that Kerry is trying to be a team player and met with him. But I don't think it is good if we give someone power in the Dem party who has Webb's views on Vietnam and the Vietnam protestors. I just don't think it is good.

< / tangent > Sorry, just can't help thinking of that now when I think about Vietnam. btw I just watched Going Upriver again. I don't have Winter Soldier - anyone know where I can get it?

[beachmom]

3. A new government has been formed

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-iraq21may21,1,902895.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo

BAGHDAD — Iraq's battling communities came together Saturday to approve their first full-term government since the fall of Saddam Hussein, placing a nation fractured from three years of war into the hands of a diverse but potentially weak Cabinet.

In a stuffy chamber tucked deep inside rings of blast walls, barbed wire and bomb-sniffing dogs, parliament voted in favor of a 36-member Cabinet cobbled together by new Prime Minister Nouri Maliki. In the heart of the Green Zone, far from the reach of ordinary Iraqis, lawmakers raised their hands to vet each member.

The prime minister has yet to quell a swelling crisis over management of Iraq's security services. In the end, staring down a Monday deadline to appoint a Cabinet, Maliki delayed decisions on the key posts of the Interior, Defense and National Security ministries.

To buy time and push the government through parliament, he nominated temporary fill-ins — himself as interior minister and his deputies, Barham Salih, a Kurd, and Salam Zikam Ali Zubaie, a Sunni Arab, for the National Security and Defense posts, respectively.

Whether it's a "real" government can be debated, but technically speaking, they did meet the deadline. As follow up, I think Sen. Kerry needs to keep pushing for the deadline of 12/31/06 for all combat troops out of Iraq and a transition over to Iraqi forces. Most likely, Iraq is going to fall further into Civil War, but who knows -- maybe this Maliki guy will surprise us with a backbone and crack down on the shenanigans of the militias from his own sect. But will it be fast enough to satisfy the Sunnis? Who knows.

[welshTerrier2]

4. "an effective unity government"

thanks for the update ...

it's pretty tough to see this qualifying as the "effective unity government" that Kerry set as his condition for the May 22 deadline. I think the phrase you used "technically speaking" is unfortunately as close as its going to get to being "effective" ...

perhaps this will "buy time" as the article suggests ... i truly hope Kerry does not allow this to buy Maliki an extension to 12/31/06 ... frankly, i have no faith his government can work at all ... if this latest move "buys him time" at all, it should probably be time borrowed on a day-to-day basis ...

Kerry did the right thing linking a "near term date certain" to immediate withdrawal ... the combination put real pressure on Maliki (and bush) to react with this latest effort ... without the threat of imminent withdrawal, however, there will be no progress ...

I'm afraid Iraq has now slipped into full civil war and US occupation can do absolutely nothing to stop it ... even if we remained in Iraq until 12/31/06, what would be the purpose? US presence in Iraq is more destabilizing than stabilizing ... here's an article about the latest round of ethnic cleansing: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article548945.ece

here's another article about the new unity government:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article549523.ece

it concludes with this disturbing paragraph:

"The need for each party to get a slice of the cake roughly equivalent to their share of the votes in December has led to some strange choices. Former interior minister Bayan Jabr was openly accused by the US of running Shia death squads. He has lost his old job, but has been appointed Finance Minister."

[fedupinBushcountry]

5. I've been wondering

last week I heard Tony Snow mention the deadline 5/22, now did I miss something and where did that date come from? I know Kerry mentioned 5/22, but I wasn't sure what he was basing it on. I know once Kerry spoke out things started to happen and that is a good thing. As far as Kerry allowing this to buy an extension, I think he said he would allow them 30 days to see if it really is a true government.

Kerry is continuing to speak out and sadly that is all he can do, if he were president, I know that our troops would have already been coming home. It is Bush's move sadly, and we can only hope to win either the House or Senate to make things happen.

[welshTerrier2]

6. the May 22nd deadline

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_what_s_next

"Under the constitution, al-Maliki will present the names of his Cabinet members to the 275-member parliament by May 22."

If Kerry called for a 30 day extension, I think that's reasonable although i'm afraid i have no faith whatsoever this government will ever be effective ...

[fedupinBushcountry]

7. Thanks for the info

he did say that and I don't think he thinks it will be effective either.

[MH1]

8. I think Kerry speaking out DID add pressure to the Iraqi government

to make them get their act together. I think this because they know that

a) Kerry still commands a lot of respect among average US citizens

b) Kerry has advocated a measured approach all along, calling for troop withdrawal but based on benchmarks etc - setting the May deadline was the first he ever suggested a rapid withdrawal.

c) If they blew this deadline they'd have a really big gun - Kerry - rousting a lot of American sentiment that so far has been anxiously seething on the sidelines.

It's not that the anti-war movement isn't already meaningful and effective. It's just that if Kerry comes out full-bore "out NOW" then the pressure will ratchet up immensely.

I agree with Kerry too btw. There is no good option in Iraq - only less horrible options (we've already passed "horrible" a long time ago). A measured withdrawal of troops is probably the best way to get out and minimize further harm - as long as it starts soon.

If I understand correctly Kerry called for withdrawal by end 2006 regardless. So, an effective Iraqi government will be able to sit down with the US leaders (such as they are) and map out a withdrawal plan that gets us out by end 2006. A rapid withdrawal that deploys all our troop and equipment transports to get "out NOW" places additional risks not only on our troops in the Middle East and engaged in the withdrawal itself, but also our readiness around the globe for other incidents that may occur while we are 100% focused on getting out of Iraq. I think that is why Kerry and others who understand military operations are resisting demanding "out NOW" - it is too easily interpreted as a call to throw all rationality to the winds in the way we execute the withdrawal.

But either way the repukes running this country won't do it. They are not at all interested in what is good for Iraq OR what is good for the US - only what is good for their bank accounts (and maybe now at least they are thinking about staying out of jail).

[MH1]

9. Just to add - 6 month withdrawal of 150,000 troops seems challenging

And that is what Kerry has called for regardless. (if I understand correctly).

He knew when he set the May date + 30 days for government to settle in, then we would be down to 6 months for withdrawal (I've heard he's pretty good at math).

That's A LOT of troops to pull out in 6 months. Even an "out NOW" strategy would be functionally equivalent, IMO, unless we exposed our troops to unacceptable risks (by definition higher than what they face today).

[welshTerrier2]

10. Kerry's statement about "immediate withdrawal" was:

"Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military."

He clearly distinguished between the year-end withdrawal deadline (if the "effective unity government" condition was met) and the 5/22/06 "immediate withdrawal" deadline if it was not ...

it's hard to see how Kerry perceived both withdrawal timelines as "functionally equivalent" ...

[globalvillage]

12. WT, I read yesterday that we're sending more troops

"temporarily", because of a proposed British withdrawl. I have only seen this one thread, and no other discussion. Do you know if this is accurate?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1247049

[welshTerrier2]

14. sorry, i don't know ...

there was an article from an "anonymous source" on Friday that said the troop redeployment from Kuwait was "under consideration" ...

i haven't heard anything definitive since then ...

[TayTay]

13. Withdraw by May 15th was a coercive move

withdraw by the end of the year was a strategic move. Kerry argument in the first was that Iraq was allowing the situation to fester and that the US had to wield a heavy club to get them to come to a political goal. They have, minimally it seems, achieved that goal. (The May 15th or May 22nd date was not important and fluctuated according to internal Iraq events.)

I always thought the Iraqis had wiggle room for the first withdrawal date. They did as this minimal 'government' shows. The more important date is the withdrawal by the end of the year. This six month 'get serious and get out' argument is what Jack Murtha used. (So the six months is a moving target as the Admin wants to neither get serious or get out. Murtha has always said that a withdrawal will take six months, logistically, to enact. It takes a while to safely move that many troops and that much equipment.)

Again, there are not only opposition voices to this within the Rethug Party, but there are Dem voices of opposition. I think the Kerry/Murtha position (And this could be the Feingold/Harkin/Conyers et all position as well) is moving the argument along. But there will not be any definitive and decisive call for any time soon. There are too many people who are dug in to their positions and they don't want to move. (Awful beyond belief. Yup. How can you change it though? The antiwar movement is largely ignored as a sufficient social force and is not applying overt pressure to the Congress. We already know the people oppose the war and now no longer think it was worth it in the first place. But Congress is ignoring this. What is it going to take and how long is this going to take. I'm betting until the 2008 election.)

[MH1]

17. Kerry didn't say that, and I said "IMO"

They are not functionally equivalent in the political sense, not at all. (Political meaning all theatres - Iraqi politics, US politics, and yes of course Kerry's own continued viability.)

IMO they are "functionally equivalent" in terms of loss of life and limb, and what date ultimately the troops are out of there.

And it is ALL a friggin' pipe dream because Kerry and Murtha and ALL of the Dems CONTROL NOTHING.

One more thing to consider:

Nixon may have been a crook and even a bastard but I believe he did have a conscience. These cretins running the White House today, I believe, have no conscience at all. It just.doesn't.matter. to these cretins about the death, suffering and horror. It just.doesn't.matter. And that is why any Dem message has to be targeted at the Iraqis and the American people - the masses of American people, not the fringe - because the US government currently is unsusceptible to shame, and will only be moved by the loss of their income, jobs (maybe), or the fear of going to jail.

[welshTerrier2]

19. i wasn't suggesting Kerry called them "functionally equivalent"

i understand the point you're making ... i was trying to point out that i don't think Kerry agrees with it because he clearly delineated between his two withdrawal timelines ...

if the argument is that his "immediate withdrawal" timeline was never real and was only meant to manipulate the political process in Iraq by using immediate withdrawal as a threat, i can only say i hope that's not true ...

[MH1]

23. Well I guess I am saying that it is "immediate withdrawal" either way,

because "immediate withdrawal" will take close to 6 months anyway for the numbers of troops involved. IMO.

A key feature that I forgot to mention:

The difference is that if the Iraqi's meet the deadline - then the call is to work with the new Iraqi government to develop the withdrawal plan. If the Iraqi's can't put together a government that can effectively negotiate a withdrawal plan, then it is time for the US government to put the plan together without the input of the Iraqi government. Either way you get a withdrawal plan.

Either way we pull out pretty fast.

But to reiterate, neither way is actually going to happen, because the people controlling the US will not make it happen.

UNLESS the Iraqis can be pressured to make it happen themselves -i.e. start asking for our troops to leave.

I disagree with you that this being a political ploy to pressure the Iraqis would be a bad thing. I think it is a very good approach. Kerry has more power (imo) to affect the actions of the Iraqi government (by the implicit threat of Kerry being able to sway American opinion) rather than the actions of the US government (of whom the party in power doesn't actually give a shit about American opinion or morality or anything else you might wish, and meanwhile Kerry's own party is taking direction from those who apparently lean towards a more drawn out occupation).

I guess your assessment of the political value depends on whether you want something to be effective in getting our troops out of there - regardless whether it is "political" in approach - or whether you just wish Kerry to make a direct statement which supports your views. I am happy that Kerry is focusing on what will be most likely to be effective.

[welshTerrier2]

26. just to clarify

you stated: "I disagree with you that this being a political ploy to pressure the Iraqis would be a bad thing."

but that's not what i was saying ... i did not say that using the threat of immediate withdrawal to pressure the political process in Iraq would be a bad thing ...

what i was saying was that if it was ONLY a political ploy and IF Kerry never intended the US to immediately withdraw if the condition he stipulated wasn't met, that would be a bad thing ... the point is that i hope he continues to push for immediate withdrawal if he concludes the Iraqis have not formed an effective unity government ...

[MH1]

28. Okay, got it.

No, I don't think that Kerry's intention was never for "the US to immediately withdraw if the condition he stipulated wasn't met". I believe - my personal belief based on military knowledge - is that it works out to about the same thing, except to how involved or not the Iraqi government is in making the withdrawal decisions. It's just impossible to automatically airlift 150,000 troops and associated equipment out of an area as large and dangerous as Iraq in a very short timeframe.

Now, if Kerry was in charge and had put this stipulation on the Iraqi government, I have no doubt that he'd have been positioning troop and equipment transports to start the withdrawal if/when the Iraqi government didn't get its shit together. Then they would have KNOWN the ultimatum was concrete and for real. But Kerry isn't CINC and can't command shit. And Bush won't. So Kerry does the best he can to push both governments to a position where we start withdrawing troops.

Of course that last paragraph is nonsense (except the last sentence) because the only way Kerry would be in charge would be if he'd taken office as Pres in January 2005, in which case he would have implemented the plan he campaigned on, which would have started withdrawing troops from Iraq in June 2005, and we'd be having an entirely different discussion.

Anyway I think you and I are not so far off being on the same page...I think I trust Kerry more, but I think we will both be happier with what he does than what the Dem party's so-called "leadership" does about Iraq. Peace.

[TayTay]

11. There are still heavy factions within the Dem Party that do not

support withdrawal. Sen. Kerry can act as a voice impelling the Demcorats to come to grips with the failures in Iraq and the clear fact that Iraq is in a full-on civil war. Sen. Kerry, as we all know, is not the choice of Sen. Reid to front the Dems for opposition to the war effort in Iraq, Sen. Reed of Rhode Island is. Reed has never come out in favor of a withdrawal plan, at least not one that mentioned a date with 2006 in it.

It took years to get out of Vietnam. Years. The antiwar movement began in earnest in the mid-60's. What year did we actually get out of Vietnam? Like it or not, there is a powerful movement within the Democratic Party that believes that withdrawal equals weakness and will damage the Dems at the polls. This faction is also 'dug -in' and is not relenting. There will not be unity on this issue for years to come.

Kerry is still speaking out. He has made a lot of speeches at this gradutation season and has mentioned that 'it is time for us to go' from Iraq in each one of them. The decision is not in his hands. There is no unified Dem position on this. Kerry, Feingold and a few others (Harkin, I think, maybe Boxer and few others) are arguing that the Iraq War damages the effort to realitically confront violent religious extremism and the danger it poses to the liberal traditions of the world. (Not just the West. Extremism causes suffering everywhere.) We know that Sen. Lieberman doesn't agree. We can make an educated guess that Sens. Nelsons (both of them) and many others, (Pryor, Lincoln, Landrieu, Biden, et al) are still trying to straddle this issue.

Kerry has to keep speaking out and applying pressure. (As Cong. Murtha said, the people are way in front of the Congress on this issue. We can see that in the polls.) He can keep stressing the idea that the US is basically in a near hostage situation in Iraq in light of the civil war and we are enabling, not disabling, more religious and sectarian violence. The MA Sen. can hope to enlist more public support and hope that support becomes more vocal and acts as more of a club to move the Dems along to an actual position on Iraq that is distinct, bold and reality-based. But that other faction believes this is long-term political suicide. (I don't believe that. But there are Dems who do.)

Think of a more centrist Senator like, say, Biden. What is it going to take for Biden to move to a call for the troops to come home? That is the real question.

[MH1]

18. Excellent point - shouldn't we all be asking where is Reid's "point man"

on this?

Where is Jack Reed's plan?

Where is Harry Reid's plan?

To co-opt one of my favorite Kerry lines: "Where are the (official, so-called) "leaders" of our party?"

[welshTerrier2]

20. looks like they're leaning toward the Korb plan

the lack of support for Kerry's plan is a very dangerous business ... it puts the country at great risk and the party at greater risk ...

[blm]

21. I agree - and some of the top miltary strategists in the party supported

Kerry's plan, Gary Hart and Bob Kerrey - and a top dove, Tom Hayden, and STILL Dems feared getting behind the plan.

I point to Biden who went around to reporters mischaracterizing Kerry's plan as cut and run and LYING straight up that Kerry's plan had no diplomacy component to it.

[MH1]

24. Biden said that? About the diplomacy component?

What an ass.

I'd love a link, if you have one. 'Cuz in the future I may want to shove it in front of a potential Biden supporter. (I only know one. But still.)

[blm]

25. He said it on Maher's show and to George Packer, who put it in his article

on Iraq withdrawal - I'm pretty sure I read it here in this forum.

[ProSense]

27. I believe Hayden's articles supporting and defending Kerry's plan

are telling:

Kerry Steps Up...Who Will Respond?

Sen. John Kerry's call for a withdrawal from Iraq, published last Sunday in the New York Times, is the strongest anti-war stand yet taken by a national Democratic leader. The anti-war movement should strongly demand that other elected officials support Kerry's position, and that of Rep. John Murtha in the House, if only to show that there is a public constituency for the politics of peace.

If Kerry, the 2004 nominee, can be isolated in his own party for favoring withdrawal, it will reveal the fatal decline of progressive Democratic politics and perhaps set the stage for the coming presidential primaries, with Kerry either as a conscience or a candidate. The same has happened with Sen. Russ Feingold, a more likely candidate at this point. Feingold's more cautious and conditional call for setting a deadline for withdrawal has gone nowhere among Senate Democrats, nor has his resolution censuring the President received much Senate support beyond Tom Harkin and Barbara Boxer

Snip...

Will Kerry, a much more formidable candidate, take the same course? No one can be certain, but the primary winds are blowing in the direction of peace and progressive politics. Sen. Hillary Clinton, the seemingly invincible front-runner, is not likely to emerge from Iowa and New Hampshire unscathed. Her hardline support of the Iraq War is not only mistaken and immoral, but appears to many voters as chronic opportunism. Unless the war suddenly ends, her credibility will suffer severely in the primaries.

This is why the "Kerry factor" becomes important. As the former nominee, Kerry commands media and public attention. As an anti-war voice, he is in sharp contrast with the silence of the lambs. As a potential presidential contender, he is a credible foil to the centrist hawks and challenges the party leaderhip to make up its mind.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/kerry-steps-upwho-will_b_18713.html

where is george packer? does he favor the war forever?

Snip...

It's another imperial scenario, of course, though it seems more benign than the continued slaughter. The problem is that Gelb-Biden take an opposite course from Kerry, failing to answer if and when a US troop withdrawal would take place, no small matter.

While these highly-placed and virtually tenured best and brightest types go on worrying about what those poor Iraqis will ever do without us - Gelb has proposed a "three state" federal solution for three years - one factual matter is constantly left out of all serious discussion - what Iraqis themselves actually think. According to reputable surveys, 87 percent of all Iraqis favor the US setting a fixed timetable for withdrawal, the very position which Packer decries. If one excludes the pro-American Kurds from these survey numbers, it means that nearly one hundred percent of all other Iraqis say the US should set a deadline. Recent projections even show that a majority of the newly-elected Iraqi parliament favor a US timetable.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/where-is-george-packer-d_b_20323.html

[karynnj]

29. In the case of Biden - would it be too cynical

to say it would take a few polls showing that say 60% of all democrats likely to vote in the primary want the US out now. We are nowhere near that now.

[_dynamicdems]

22. The answer to this question is something we all eagerly await.

Meetings and discussions are most assuredly going on behind the scenes. Senator Kerry is one to get the facts together and discuss situations and options with the experts in the field before making decisions. Undoubtedly he'll be working to assess the situation in Iraq with the 22nd deadline in mind.

Expect something would be my guess. What the something will be is not ours to know at this point. That said, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see several Democrats join together with Senator Kerry in his answer to the passing of this deadline.

This is just a hunch, but I'm expecting more Democratic unity on Iraq from this point forward.