Video of Kerry on ABC morning defending Murtha, attacking Bush Iraq policy

here: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1328763

He defended Murtha.

He spoke about getting the troops out NOW! I believe he said 20k-50 immediately! Even to make the pResident show benchmarks of following specific timetables. (Call that "The Big A word...")ACCOUNTABILITY...and demanded that Bush stop calling people questioning the policy unpatriotic.

And who endangers the troops?

He accurately placed it right where it goes..on those who sent them to war unprepared and continue to fight the war without giving the troops what they need and deserve.

Kerry did great! ALL the Dems are doing great.

Let's try to keep the positives on all the dems instead of using the pro-peace movement to divide us! We're all on the same side.

for the link. Direct, forceful, and right on target....in spite of the interviewer trying to direct elsewhere.

Love it.

.

...PRICELESS! ! :rofl: Thank you for the video, blm...it made my morning! GO, SENATOR ( President) KERRY ! ! ! !:patriot:

got it, though I doubt she did. :rofl:

:)

I was going from someone else's post on another thread. I don't watch these shows often enough to know the people.

:rofl:

:loveya:, John!

What a joy it is to hear the voice of sanity, reason and intelligence.

Did you catch the part where the interviewer tried to make it sound like 'a campaign speech for 2008?' *Geesh.
Kerry: It's not about 2008, it's about policy in Iraq, now.
That's not a yes or no on 2008, though...

Thanks for the link, blm.

Bush slaps down top general after he calls for troops to be pulled out of Iraq

The top American commander in Iraq has been privately rebuked by the Bush administration for openly discussing plans to reduce troop levels there next year, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.

President George W Bush personally intervened last week to play down as "speculation" all talk of troop pull-outs because he fears that even discussing options for an "exit strategy" implies weakening resolve.

Gen George Casey, the US ground commander in Iraq, was given his dressing-down after he briefed that troop levels - now 138,000 - could be reduced by 30,000 in the early months of next year as Iraqi security forces take on a greater role.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/14/wirq14.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/14/ixworld.html

They're waiting for the perfect time where it can align for the 2006 midterms and the presidency of 2008. That's all they care about. I loved when Kerry called him a campaigner in chief.

Kerry did a great job in that interview!

:thumbsup:

are still hovering, you could even include Murtha, over the last brink of coming out and saying the obstinate failed course of the Bush administration endangers the troops, makes the achievement of ANY objectives impossible, is poised for an open ended, unending presence of the troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the ME, constant expanded war and more and more terrorism for which they are equally unfit to handle.

They still stop short of the gauntlet slamdown, although I think a big chunk of the populace(not the full 70% opposed to the war) is there to stay. We KNOW what the GOP response will be and that it will also fail and not lead to any change for the better- for anyone at all.

The Dems DO have plans, the GOP have secrets and fog. But no plans will be allowed except the whim of the WH when they deign to choose more deception, more political gain, more war, more theft. And which they are guaranteed to do very badly to the detriment of the US and the world.

Alternatives are not clear, have no recourse in suppressed debate(thanks for nothing MSM) until the losers, the frauds, the totalitarians are removed.

elsewhere made the Bush Administration wallow in its own mess. What a Republican Party!

He had a chance to clarify the resolution switcheroo, and he didn't.

Directly asked by dumb blonde...."but the Democrats didn't even vite for the resolution...."

Kerry response SHOULD HAVE BEEN:

"That was NOT the Murtha resolution last night. That was a REPUBLICAN sham resolution that the Republicans didn't even vote for!!!!"


Kerry is for continuing the WAR!

www.johnkerry.com

His plan differs only a little from Murtha's once you get down to the nuts and bolts and realities of it. However Kerry's is phrased in a way less susceptible to the meme "cut and run". That said, I noticed that it is interesting that the Dems pretty much have all the bases covered with different proposals for getting out of Iraq. Now, any actual plan the repubs propose, was already proposed by a Democrat. And since Dems still aren't in position to force a policy change (altho it's getting better), it is just as well to stake out the political territory so that when repukes are woken up by their constituents, there is some fallout that benefits Dems.

Kerry's "Plan":

"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 - beginning with the draw down of 20,000 troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months."

There are enough caveats, loopholes, and ambiguity to sufficiently fog
ANY attempt to DEFINE a strategy. The 20 thousand Kerry speaks about are the very same 20,000 that bush* INCREASED to provide "election security" and promised to remove after the election.
Kerry's "Plan" resembles the Bush* Plan for "Winning the War" much closer than it resembles Murtha's plan.

Murtha's Plan:
Immediate "Redeployment" with withdrawal to a regional base.
The BIG difference is Murtha admits that the "WAR" is lost.
Kerry (and the DLC) still want to WIN the damned thing (whatever THAT means!

You DO know what "redeployment" means?

that's why the emphasis on political negotiations and important symbols of goodwill, like NO PERMANENT BASES, hand them over to Iraqis and let Iraqi businesses make the profits from rebuilding and cut out the American companies lining their own pockets.

Murtha even said he thinks it MAY be possible to have them redeployed NEAR Iraq at 6 mo. but based only on safety conditions, and it also means when all heck breaks loose they're close enough to get in quickly.

Kerry's plan is DOABLE. I believe Murtha kept his plan deliberately vague and his actual goal was to advance the IDEA of sooner withdrawal.

I also think he and Kerry consulted beforehand, since Kerry offered his plan 3wks ago, but stayed off the media circuit, and Murtha offers his plan the very morning that Kerry was sceduled on the shows later that day. I think Murtha was setting up the Repubs to force the debate on the ISSUE of withdrawal and offered his plan to pull Republicans into some compromise positions.

They knew Murtha would get attacked the way he was, and Kerry was already in position with the tv schedule to fight back.

If you look into their history, they have been longtime allies and worked on other military issues together, too. Murtha was also consulting Kerry during the campaign.

Was for every invasion proposed by Reagan thru Bush2.
Murtha saw the light here(its a fuckin searchlight shining straight in anyone who has eyes, so how could he not, i can't believe the rest don't), and i respect him for that but overall his policies have usally been for the birds (hawks... or as i call them, imperialists)

He is for withdrawing the troops in bases in neighboring countries or at the periphery, and is still an hawk, as proves his proposition to keep an intervention force over there.

He just understand this war is lost, and does not want to continue. I saw nothing that tells me he would NOT continue, if he thought we can win.

Do not misunderstand me, this is already a great step, particularly coming from him.

I am just fricking tired to see his positions equated by some to anti-war positions. This is not anti-war. This is cut the losses.

Huge because if Bush is losing these guys, we can hope he will lose the Republicans soon; but if people cant see that other people like Feingold or Kerry are trying to make sure we dont need to go there again, and people like Kucinich would like to leave NOW, we have a problem.

Some Dems have said positive things about Kerry's plan (not implying they endorse it). They include: Dean, Boxer, Kennedy,Feingold

Who on that list is DLC? What DLC plan is there? Clinton - has not said one positive word.

How can you say Kerry's plan is close to Bush's - we don't know Bush's. Kerry specifically SAID the 20,000 is those added. He is concerned about the signal sent if they are not removed. Kerry also says very clear things about WHAT the soldiers should be doing - and calls for Iraqis to immediately do the Search and destroy and policing. (Getting us out of the most dangerous things that we do the worst at)

we can stand down".
Now THERE's a benchmark!

are standing up for themselves. Time to come home.

Kerry's plan is to begin withdrawing troops, sector by sector, and bring them home. Send Iraqi security in, bring troops home. Not complicated.

Murtha's plan is to redeploy within the region, but continue to have "quick action" units to respond to terrorist cells that remain. While those troops are still in the region, he will continue to work politically to bring democracy to Iraq. He is not saying the war is lost, he is saying we need to change course for a chance to leave behind a secure and functional country. Which is exactly what Kerry is saying.

There isn't that much difference between the two, although I personally think Iraqis will need to see many troops landing on US soil before they'll believe we're really leaving. Still, I'll bet within a week or two you'll see Kerry & Murtha on the same page. You do know Murtha has been bitching about everything he said this week since early last year? And that much of the information the Kerry campaign got about DoD plans came from Murtha, right?

when someone doesn't want to.

;-)

Of course you are right about Kerry and Murtha working together. We'll probably never know whether or how closely they were working together these last few weeks on Iraq strategy, but it's reasonable based on their prior relationship to think that they at least had some discussions about each others' approaches.

that he laid out over 3 weeks ago and then submitted as a senate bill last week?

You do know it's a problem when you spread incorrect information, don't you? Dems have it hard enough with a pisspoor media, we don't need bad information being spread by DU members.

...AND read Kerry's "Plan".

Comprehension can go a long way.

You obviously don't even realize that Kerry and Murtha are likely working together to make withdrawal the issue.

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.

..some troops based on certain benchmarks for success.
What are those benchmarks?
What is "success"?
Isn't Kerry's Plan dependent on the "training of Iraqis" and achieving some vague notion of success??

So is the Bush* Plan.

Read his PLAN!
Watch the VIDEO.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1328763

These are FACTS! (or as close as one can pin JK or his groupies to FACTS)

George Bush benchmark for success:
"When the Iraqis stand up, we can stand down".

John Kerry:
"We can withdraw based on achieving benchmarks for success."

When given several opportunities to endorse Murtha's Plan, or to even credit it with potential, Kerry absolutely refused. He danced away in one of the best Kerry performance of equivocation since the campaign!
Watch the VIDEO!
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1328763

The Murtha Plan:

<snip>
... additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

<snip>


Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region,

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

*************************************************************


Is the Kerry plan closer to bush*, or Murtha?

See the difference now?

safety conditions. So if it happened as you believe that troops are immediately redeployed NEAR Iraq, how long before they are rushed back in to deal with certain chaos, if Iraq hadn't been properly prepared for such an abrupt leaving?

If you think Kerry's plan is close to Bush's that's YOUR perception problem.

No one even believes Bush HAS an exit strategy at all. Apparaently YOU believe his rhetoric and jingoism and call it his plan.

"Apparaently (sic) YOU believe his rhetoric and jingoism and call it his plan."

And YOU question MY perceptions?
Sir, YOU discredit yourself.

He has NEVER laid out a real plan for withdrawal - Kerry has.

and your personal attacks are nothing but a cheap trick to divert attention from the TRUTH.

Kerry has a plan for WINNING the War on the Iraqi People, AFTER which we will withdraw.
"Defeating the Insurgengy, Stablizing Iraq, and Installing a Democracy" IS Kerry's "benchmark" for withdrawal.

Don't believe me, READ KERRY'S WORDS!

There is a HUGE difference between Kerry's and Murtha's plan!

"The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy."

THAT is NOT vague.


"Withdraw after achieving certain benchmarks"...
Now, THAT's vague.

speeches - he had no plan, so where do you come up with comparing the two as if Bush had submitted a plan?

Please point out in Bush's plan where he has done or is doing what Kerry has laid out here:




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."

# # #

"When the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down".
This is actually quite literate for our president*.

bush* has also said: "We will stay in Iraq as long as it takes".

"We will withdraw AFTER we achieve benchmarks" is simply a more literate way of saying what bush* has said. Kerry then guesstimates that the benchmarks will be achieved in 12-18 months. If his "benchmarks" are NOT achieved, we will STAY in Iraq and kill more Iraqis.

I have not misquoted or distorted the words of either man.

Kerry has NOT change his position on the War in Iraq.
He has been consistent in his belief that WE can WIN this war by killing more Iraqis and Americans.

Or do you believe Kerry has "flip flopped" on this issue?

solutions left for Iraq. He said this over 3 weeks ago. And if you've been listening to Murtha the last few days he used that exact same language.

Amazing how some try to see and promote division with Dems instead of the actual positiveness in their common message.

You are right, he did not change his mind. HE WAS AGAINST IT.

But some here are working exactly like Bush and the media whores, quoting OUT OF CONTEXT.

This said, for some here, it is easier to attack Dems who try to find a solution than to put the blame where it belongs: BUSH.

Unfortunately, when most democrats begin to understand the problem and do what they should have done a long time ago: propose solutions, some think that the best thing is to misread ALL these plans and make them what they are not.

BTW, Murtha wants to kill more Iraqis if it is needed (at least if I put it the way you do). He wants an intervention force over the horizon.

So none of those two plans are perfect. They are however a step ahead. All we can hope is that people of good will will stop "shooting"at each others and seat and find a solution. But I dont have too much hope.

Here is one:
"The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy."
*************************************************

“Strategy for Success in Iraq Act”
is NOT a reality based solution.
It is a strategy for the continued Death and Dismemberment of Innocents based on achieving "benchmarks".

Which is basically what Section 2 implies.

Not advocating for Kerry's plan here. I am advocating for OUT NOW. Get the troops out. It is not the US's business to be the policeman of the world.

by sending the troops back in to Iraq once they are withdrawn?
I think Murtha is making the withdrawal option more palatable by using the this framework.

I actually believe we are in MUCH MORE SERIOUS trouble in Iraq than the CorpoMedia or our Politicians are telling us.
They have suggested that if we withdraw, the Shia's will exterminate the Sunnis who they protray as an underdog. This is NOT the case.

Saudi Arabia ( the home of radical Waahabism) is Sunni.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0851259.html

Syria is Sunni.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/countries/bl_SyriaIslamSunni.htm

Pakistan has a militant Sunni majority.
http://www.pakistan-facts.com/article.php?story=20031007094614868

ALL three of the above are mlitary POWERHOUSES with WMD including nuclear (at least Pak., but probably Saudi).
If the Shiias try to "steamroll" the Sunnis, I can't help but believe that the above three will support their brethern (Iraqi Sunni).

If we withdraw, the potential for a HOT REGIONAL WAR (or even World War) is VERY REAL.

Immediate withdrawal to "over the horizon" position may deter the entry of the 3 Sunni powerhouses.

Murtha is correct.

Fucking Around inside Iraq trying to Win the War(whatever THAT means) is NOT a viable option. Killing MORE Iraqis will NOT "stabilize" the situation. Writing a pretend Iraqi Constitution, and holding pretend elections are not going to work as long as US Tanks are on the streets of Baghdad.

Was submitted to the Senate on November 10 -

Kerry Introduces “Strategy for Success in Iraq Act” in United States Senate
November 10, 2005

Speaking a a short time ago on the Senate Floor, John Kerry Introduced the “Strategy for Success in Iraq Act.”

The “Strategy for Success in Iraq Act” Would Bring Home 20,000 Troops After Iraq Elections and 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.

MORE - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1117

ultimately not the point: The bungling and chckenhawking are the point: He kept saying they've nver put on a uniform, calling vets cowards. Beautiful. That's the point that sticks.

Kerry knows that today's boxing match will be forgotten, but chickenhawks calling vets cowards will not be.

He's turning the 06 vote on veteran's loyalty. He's allowing vets to question the B*** crime family. He's saying B*** threatens the safety of the soldiers.

It was helpful, and correct, exactly what we can expect from this great man.

Yes there is!
Try this:

The Bill that the REPUBLICANS brought to the floor last night was a "Political Stunt" and was NOT the Murtha Bill. The Republicans didn't even vote for THEIR OWN BILL!.

Simple.

Try this, and compare to the link in the OP.
http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/kucinichnov18republicanstunt.wmv

calls up Zell Miller to build a deal because he's impossible to talk to. Kerry has to make sure he can still do business, so, he hugs the words like lie and trick but doesn't actually use them.

Kerry is a Senator. He had no part in that fiasco in the House. He did his job by sticking up for Murtha as a veteran, which is something Kerry can legitimately do.

House members should have been invited on to speak to specific House resolutions. It's not Kerry's job to defend the House and it's actions. He's a Senator, not a Rep.

There are different bills winding their way through Congress. Murtha has one that the Repubs will ignore. Kerry has another one that the Repubs will ignore. They say the same baseline things:

There is no military solution to Iraq, only political ones.

We have to get out of Iraq because our presence is fueling the insurgency.

We have to get Iraqis to patrol Iraqi and to act as Iraq's policemen. The US can fulfill a training role, but should not be involved in search-and-destroy missions and in policing Iraq. We don't speak the language, we don't understand the customs and the social structure of that society and are making things worse.

We have to draw troops out of the cities and the active theaters of operations. We are fueling the insurgency.

Murtha says out in 6, Kerry says out in 12-15. Their background reasons for wanting this are the same. The rest cold be worked out in a real conference committee, which won't happen because the Rethugs control Congress. And they want the oil. Murtha and Kerry are both saying that we also have to unequivocally tell the Iraqi people that we have no plans for a permanent presence in Iraq and we should not be building bases there. They are pretty much on the same page.

Pretty good, but I wish he'd answered her question about the house vote.
I watched the spam last night and I'm still confused--why did the dems give in after coming out so strong in the first place?

Kerry could have responded another way.


She asked why didn't the Democrats vote for a resolution to do just that, withdraw the troop (or vote for the Hunter plan)? I'm not saying it was a trick question, it may have been. But it could also have been worded that way because the correct question would have been more drawn out and confusing, having to point out that the resolution was not John Murtha's but Hunter's.

Kerry could have responded by saying they voted that way because it wasn't John Murtha's plan.

Politically astute posters here at DU who missed part of the drama of last night still are unclear that the resolution wasn't Murtha's. Without a long drawn out explanation, such a response would mean nothing to someone who didn't know the full story.

Last night's events, including the commentary, will not be replayed for most Americans to see, but expect to see much more about the Republican's fake ethics inquiry in the coming days.

I believe Kerry's response was more effective. He got to point out that the Republicans always resort to tricks and smear.

One time during that I remember there was a democrat who asked to make sure they were voting for Hunter's bill and not Murtha's because the republicans tried to make it look as though it was Murtha's.

I wasn't sure why the democrat was doing that but now I understand!!

I loved how he replied about 2008. I get so tired of it myself. We just had an election! Doy! This was a great interview. That's my president! :patriot:

K & R

Take six minutes out of your life and pay attention to this clip, Kerry really lays it out.

Kerry was spot on in what he said!

two and they were rally good too.

Drop the benchmarks, Kerry, just demand we get out. Even 6 months is too long.

I am really tired of congresspeople saying Murtha is a good man, then distancing themselves from the policy he just announced.

There is a world of difference between Murtha, who very explicitly said withdraw should not be dependent on the "security situation" in Iraq, and Kerry's who has a "goal" of 12-15 months, phased on completion of certain benchmarks.

call for unconditional withdrawal? Why just Kerry?

However, i was responding to the post subject, which was about Kerry and his praise of Murtha. If it were about Edwards, i would have asked the same question of Edwards.

The fact is, prolonging the US occupation by phased withdraw is foolish and deadly. Sure, its better than staying there for decades. Still, i think the Iraqi people have suffered enough.

A couple of observations:

1. When someone comes under fire from those at both polar extremes, it is a good indicator that that individual is on the right track.

2. You don't need to agree with someone to back up his or her right to say it. And Kerry and Murtha are more closely aligned than they are in disagreement on Iraq. It almost seems to me that they hitting the Repugs with a "good cop, bad cop" tag-team approach.


Lost in all the crossfire of the past couple of days was the fact that Kerry was the first one to actually come up with an actual plan to get us out of Iraq. His speech a Brown University was largely ignored until Bsh decided to take him to task over it. Senator Kerry's volley back at Bsh didn't get much as a wink and a nod from the press. However, when Murtha came out with both guns blazing and calling for immediate withdrawal, Repugs went nuts and the media got as excited as if someone had called "food fight" on the Senate floor.

Now everybody is jumping on the bandwagon. Everyone has a plan, but Kerry's is the most logical and practical way to do it. And it is correct to say that his plan and Murtha's plan are very similar. The only differences that I see are the benchmarks and the time frame. And remember, these are proposed time-frames from both Murtha and Senator Kerry: Murtha's plan will take about six months to effect and Kerry's best case scenario is 12 months. The reason I particularly like Kerry's use of benchmarks is that this gives us a concrete goal to work for. I also like the suggestions he makes for a political solution. Only diplomacy and getting other nations involved will do any good in the long term. He is also right about our troops doing work that Iraqis should be doing for themselves. Sure it would be nice to pull out of Iraq tomorrow, but not if it means we end up having to go back six months from now.

The troops themselves are divided, as is our nation on this war. Many of them still want to stay the course and leave only after Iraq is stable. Many others see no point in our remaining in a country where we are hated and where we are accomplishing nothing. It would be nice to be able to let the men and women actually fighting in this war to have input in how we leave Iraq. Something tells me that the consensus would lie at neither extreme but somewhere in the middle.