Candidate supporters ONLY: do you support Murtha's plan?

Many different plans have been put on the table by various prominent Democrats. But no plan drew the attention of the nation like Murtha's recent call for IMMEDIATE REDPLOYMENT which he believes could be COMPLETED within 6 months.

The question is, will the Democrats unite behind Murtha's plan.

This poll is for supporters of the various prominent Democrats and seeks to determine whether they support Murtha's plan. While there are always nuances and alternatives, the question is whether you generally support Murtha's plan or you don't.

Supporting the plan would mean supporting the immediate start to troop reductions in Iraq. It would also mean unconditional, phased "redeployment" to be completed in not more than 6 months.

The essential justifications for the plan are:
1. bush is incompetent and nothing can be achieved in Iraq
2. 80% of the Iraqi people want us to leave and
3. removing our military will pressure the Iraqis to seek a political settlement.

The question is NOT whether you prefer your own candidate's plan but rather would you consider Murtha's plan acceptable.

(selected Democrats are listed alphabetically)

please elaborate on your answer ... for those not currently backing any particular candidate, please feel free to discuss the issue.

I'm a Clark supporter ( but will work for and vote for ANY Democrat)
I think Murtha's plan goes nicely with things Clark has said, and I imagine Clark would think it was a good approach.

would make my day ... no wait, my year ... oh what the heck, and next year too ... :woohoo:

do you think he would formally endorse this plan?

Clark jumped in and said, "I'll tell you who's with John Murtha and it's the American public... The real issue is this: We're in Iraq now. We've got to put the right policies in place... To succeed in Iraq, you've got to deal with Iraq's neighbors - Syria and Iran."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x7764

This is in the DU Clark group.

To succeed in Iraq, you've got to deal with Iraq's neighbors - Syria and Iran."

here's an excerpt from Clark's position paper on Iraq:

I support any plan that gets us the hell out of there ASAP. I don't think Iraq will descend into chaos if we leave. Isn't it already there now?

Support for it woud not be a litmus test for me, but opposition to it would incline me against a candidate somewhat.

There is no question in my mind that the sooner the U.S. is out of Iraq, the better off we will be, and the less damage will come to the country from the feckless adventure these creatures of the '00 Coup have committed our nation to. The only real argument against speedy withdrawl is the conviction it is a politically dangerous thing to call for. There may still be some weight to that argument, but there are elements of self-fulfilling prophecy in it; after all, the more political figures who call for speedy withdrawl, the more viable politically it will seem, and seeming in this instance is the same as being. It is pretty clear the people of the country are disenchanted with the venture, and would prefer it to end....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

yes, one must always consider the politics ... but one should always act on the best policies ...

great leaders cultivate great ideas and build tidal waves of support for them ... good leaders spot tidal waves and ride them into the beach ...

and then there are those who just sit on the beach and are drowned ...

while there are always risks, it is time for bold, Democratic leadership to step out in front ... the nation awaits ...

The time has come to make the wave we need: people need something to rally to if they are to move in a new direction....

"The art of war consists in a well-reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive, followed by audacious attack.:

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

if elected, i promise to use power like a drum, and leadership like a violin?

But it as excellent evocation of what is needed in a functioning Democracy!

I have been lurking here for years and you SIR are my favorite poster. Your reasons for supporting Murtha's plan are logical as always. Are you a Clark supporter?

It is a pleasure to have pleased you.

Gen. Clark was my prefered candidate in the early stages of '04, and still strikes me as excellent Presidential timber. But at this point, it does not seem necessary to me to commit to a particular candidate for '08.

Welcome to active posting posting in the Forum, Sir!

Happy hunting!

Our approach has to be political, diplomatic, and military, a very different military approach. This is just common sense.

...and I support Murtha's call for immediate redeployment.

i figured the Ku-citizens would back this ...

I am a Kerry supporter. I don't quite buy the all the
assumptions of Rep. Murtha's plan but he is essentially
right. Letting the Iraqis sort this out is risky,
but it is the least bad option.

If someone has a credible alternative, I'd love to hear it.

there is no way to know whether the notification of US "redeployment" will actually create the desired effect on the political process ...

but it might ...

it's clear nothing else will ... and investing more deaths, more money and the nation's soul for another year or more of a bush led war just doesn't make any sense at all ...

continued military action is madness ... it leads nowhere and the price is high ...

No body there that I could support.

fwiw, i'm not supporting any candidate ...

and either way, what are your thoughts on Murtha's plan?

that he is unlikely to accept any advice from Wes Clark, I support Murtha. I think it will have ill consequences and we will be involved again further down the road. However the lack of understanding and leadership under Bushco leaves little choice.

because 2006 is more important now.

I support the Murtha plan in it's goal if not the letter of its content. I doubt the 6 months mention in the OP is a realistic goal but we must put the Iraqi people and their leaders on notice that the end of our involvment is at hand and they need to get their own house in order.

If they fail in getting it together and the civil war intensifies then so be it but they must understand that they are now responsible for the outcome.

If I understand correctly, that means the troops will not be coming home.

Also I am concerned that he says "as soon as is practicable" (right?). That leaves a lot of leeway.

I am a Kerry supporter and am not sure whose plan is better overall. Since I don't believe for a minute that either plan will be accepted exactly as presented, I think this is an academic exercise.

What I like most about Kerry's plan is that it sets a definite event to bring the 20,000 "extra" troops home that were sent over to support the elections - successful execution of those elections, this December. Since we have managed to declare victory in the previous elections there, it's seems pretty sure that the criteria will be met to bring 20,000 home. I would really like to see that happen. And I'm afraid that * will not bring those troops home unless this specific opportunity is emphasized.

i understand the point you're making about the republicans controlling the levers of power but i think power does not only reside in the WH and in the Congress ... i think the Dems can bring huge political pressure on the republicans by tapping into the tidal wave of energy that wants the war over NOW ...

i also have concerns about "redeployment" of troops "just over the horizon" ... i'm concerned that sends a bad signal ...

finally, i strongly support Kerry's call for the 20,000 troop withdrawal in December ... maybe that could be integrated into Murtha's position although when he says all troops out within 6 months, he might be envisioning a larger withdrawal than Kerry's 20,000 ...

but that's the reconciliation of the details working toward a single "end the war" solution we should support ... there's plenty of room for compromise ... but we still don't have a "negotiating process" in place ... that's what i've been trying to do by raising comparisons among the various plans ...

And that it can be streghthened by imput from more Democrats. (In a perfect world, it would also be aided by help from Repubs, but they are disinclined to do anything that says the war is wrong, with few exceptions.)

Dems need to agree that:

We need to put an end date on the occupation. We cannot stay there forever as our presence is fueling the insurgency and the resultant pain that the Iraqi people are feeling from the unrest.

There is no military solution to the problems in Iraq. The US cannot win this war with guns and bombs and needs to find a diplomatic solution. (We actually need more politicians over there LOL!)

We need to make it clear that the US has no plans for permament bases (or a permanent presence) in Iraq that isn't diplomatic in intent.

Iraqis have to be the ones to go in and do the police work in Iraq. We cannot have Americans doing this. It is also fueling hatred and unrest.

Mr. Murtha's plan calls for a drawdown in six months. Other plans from other Dems have this in 12 or 15 months. What is extraordinary is that a lot of Dems are agreeing on these basic points. I think this is what the Party can rally around.

first, i wanted to be clear (Mass raised this issue below) that Murtha's "bill" does not make any mention of the 6 month timeframe ... Murtha did state, however, that the 6 month timeframe should be about how long it should take to get the last troops out of Iraq ... but his call for IMMEDIATE REDEPLOYMENT seems to indicate that the withdrawal process should begin immediately ... perhaps someone knows whether Murtha provided a "starting date" ...

like other plans that have been proposed, disengaging from direct engagement with the insurgency seems to be the objective of some of the plans ... it's not clear to me that Clark's plan calls for this, however ... and, at least based on my shaky memory, i don't think Levin's recent proposal, the one that Frist and Warner co-opted, included this idea either ... i believe only Murtha and Kerry have called for this disengagement ... Murtha's plan is different than Kerry's in that Murtha thinks the "leverage" he hopes to create to get the Sunnis to join the political process will require withdrawal outside Iraq ... i believe (is this correct?) that Kerry's plan pulls the troops back from direct engagement with the insurgency but retains them inside Iraq ...

a second difference between the plans is the timeframes involved ... several different plans have suggested an "end of 2006" target date ... i think Feingold's plan and Kerry's plan fit that approximate timeframe ... not sure about Clark ... Murtha's plan is much more immediate in that it starts right away ... and it has a "date certain" or at least a pretty clear estimate of one ...

but the greatest difference among the plans, and i think the difference is HUGE, is that only Murtha's plan (and McGovern's plan) call for withdrawal WITHOUT pre-defined conditions ... my understanding of Feingold's plan (such as i remember), is that he hoped to have the troops out by the end of 2006 but, iirc, said that this could only happen based on certain conditions (sorry to be so vague ... too tired to look up the details right now ... hopefully someone can clarify this) ... and Kerry began in a very definitive way with a 20,000 troop reduction after the elections ... but then Kerry's plan becomes much more conditional ... again, from memory, the essence of Kerry's plan is that subsequent withdrawals would be LINKED to the achievement of pre-defined benchmarks ... and Kerry called on bush to provide those benchmarks ... while Kerry's plan seeks an end to the war in 12 - 15 months, that would be totally conditional on whether bush actually achieved the benchmarks ... at least that's how i read the plan ... is this essentially correct?

so, in comparing Murtha's plan with Kerry's, while there are definitely some similarities, i think Murtha's "unconditional redeployment" to be completed within 6 months differs significantly with Kerry's "conditional withdrawal" to be completed within 12 - 15 months ... and it's not clear to me that Clark provided any timeframe at all ... is there a Clarkie in the house?

hopefully i've fairly stated the key characteristics of the various plans ... i know there are many elements i've omitted but the issues i've raised is where i put my own subjective emphasis ...

btw, i've had several other threads the last couple of days that, in one way or another, sought a reconciliation of the various Democratic plans that have been presented ... virtually all the feedback i received was from people supporting the Murtha plan ... that was NOT the intent of these threads ... i had hoped that DU could hash out the differences on the various plans ... maybe most DU'ers are satisfied to just get behind Murtha's plan ... i have my issues with it but would be willing to support it ...

I've just picked up my Galbraith biography again, and I'm reading about Vietnam right now. Glabraith was one of the most powerful voices in the anti-war camp and he had the benfit of having LBJ's ear.

Reading about how he framed his proposed exit strategy (enclave and negotiate, even though he felt that an immediate withdrawal was the best idea if one could disregard political reality), it was obvious that all the conditions were meant only to find a plan that wan't a political disaster for the democrats.

Since the Democrats now don't have to come up with a strategy that protects the president (since the President is Bush) the political consideration is that the Democrats come up with a plan that doesn't sound like "cut and run." That's why the Republicans are so quick right now to characterize EVERYTHING the democrats say as "Michael Moore-ish" and cut and run.

In trying to bring these plans together to find an appropriate common ground, it might also be helpful to discuss the politics of the situation -- how will the republicans characterize them, and how their characterization can be undermined.

Also, what Democrats really need is for Republicans to start calling for withdrawal -- the call has to come from within their own party too. It would be nice if Republican business interests started getting worried about the almost inevitable inflationary consequences of a regresssive tax structure, very large war spending, and increasing the FedReserve interest rates (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5404691&mesg_id=5404691) and if the non-defense industry segments of the Republican Party started calling for withdrawal.

It may not be the best in the circumstances Wes had hoped for, but he knows there is a limit to how much of this dreadful war the American people are willing to put up with.

I'd support Murtha's honest, heart-felt explanations and well thought out plan to the Repuke self-righteous, talking points bs NO PLAN.

For Repubs, those in power, the ONLY plan is NO PLAN.

OT:

Why did the Republicans cross the road?

Answer:


To get to the other SNIDE.

Murtha's is a good and reasoned one that deserves more discussion. I do believe we need to put more pressure on the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security, and Murtha's plan would do that, although it is not without risk.

It's certainly better than "staying the course." We need to change course, and well-reasoned plans like Murtha's deserve our attention and consideration.

So yes, I support Murtha and his plan.

I also can't believe they you continue to lump Kerry PURPOSEFULLY in with those who haven't offered a withdrawal plan at all. That's getting tiresome because we all know you KNOW BETTER and yet you do it anyway.

And I also can't believe that you haven't figured out yet that Kerry and Murtha came out to talk about their plans on tv almost simultaneously even though Kerry submitted his 3wks earlier. Yet he waited to hit the shows.

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 and especially to set the issue as one of withdrawal?

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.

get in the way of your better judgment.

There is nothing stupid about this poll at all. We need to have these kinds of discussions. A good plan to me is far more important than how it reflects on the political ambitions of any one individual.

You seem to think protecting Kerry from criticism is more important than discussing the issue.

Clark may or may not disagree with me in the details of a plan, but I support the Murtha plan to the extent that it's the best alternative I've seen so far to "staying the course."

That's just my opinion, of course.

And it doesn't add to any discussion when you MISSTATE a person's position.

the very first line says: "Many different plans have been put on the table by various prominent Democrats."

later in the OP, it also says: "The question is NOT whether you prefer your own candidate's plan but rather would you consider Murtha's plan acceptable."

in response to this, you wrote: "I also can't believe they you continue to lump Kerry PURPOSEFULLY in with those who haven't offered a withdrawal plan at all. That's getting tiresome because we all know you KNOW BETTER and yet you do it anyway."

did the OP in any way whatsoever suggest that Kerry did not "offer a withdrawal plan at all?" ... in fact, was there anything that you think the OP implied or hinted at or suggested that was in any way critical of Kerry or his plan?

you and i have discussed Kerry's plan in other threads ... as for this thread, i thought the poll question was absolutely fair and attacking it or attacking me is without justification.

your other posts on this subject where you specifically state that Democrats AREN'T talking about the issues on Iraq, even knowing that Kerry IS and has been and likely crafting this entire maneuver WITH Murtha and Casey.

And I wouldn't be surprised if Clark has been part of this push to make withdrawal THE issue for debate.

And I feel we have communicated enough by now that you would appreciate me speaking to you forthrightly as if we were sitting across from one another.

with some reservations as to what the meaning and implication of the word "redeploy" is.

Murtha seems to use the phrase "redeploy" rather than "withdrawal" ... i noticed the term getting a little more play the last couple of days ...

it's an interesting term because it denotes more of a strategic repositioning than the more politically negative "withdrawal which to some could mean "cut and run" or cowardly retreat ...

Murtha said the troops in Iraq should be IMMEDIATELY REDEPLOYED to a "just over the horizon" position ... i'm not entirely comfortable with this ... i think his intent is to keep the troops nearby in case they need to go back into Iraq should a crisis occur ...

that's my best take, anyway ...

I would think that some might be moved to Afghanistan, a redeployment suggested by others, and the Marines might be held at sea or in a host country nearby. This would be a strategic positioning to prevent Iraq's neighbors from involving themselves. The idea has been advanced before that we reduce the exposure of our troops to "insurgents". This is the reason many Democrats have not called for immediate, unconditional withdrawal. Most realize the moral obligation Bushco has committed us to. Many posters seem to ignore who Murtha is and how he feels. Some have accepted the Republican portrayal of him.

deploy".

Politically, the difference is that it makes it harder for republicans to characterize it as a "cut and run" plan.

And that's what the framing of these plans is really about.

If we remain in Iraq, we're needlessly going to lose more lives, America is going to drive itself towards and expensive, domestically destabilizaing recession, we're going to lose even more of our credibility in the world, and we're going to screw up Iraq even more. We have to get out as soon as possible. But, the proposals have to account for popular sentiment and the abilities of the Republicans to mould opinion.

because many people have heard exactly what you have written and this is not exactly what is in the bill.

Here is what is actually in the bill.

http://www.bradblog.com/



While I welcome section 3, I have my own issues with section 2, and note that, contrarely to what the media have described, the 6 months delay is not in the bill (nor was it in the Congressman speech).

If we want to speak about supporting something or not, it is better to know what we support first.

When Murtha first spoke out he did NOT mention the 6 month issue at all ... the next day (2 days ago?), during a press conference, he was asked how long he thought it would take to redeploy the last troops out of Iraq ... iirc, he seemed to not have an exact timeframe in mind but indicated it shouldn't take more than 6 months ...

when he calls for IMMEDIATE REDEPLOYMENT, i think his intent is that troop withdrawal would begin immediately ... i don't think he intended the 6 months to be a "delay"; i think he was suggesting full redeployment should be completed within a 6 month window that would begin immediately ...

at least that's my interpretation ...

they were needed to intervene in Iraq again. Murtha is worried that the terrorists in Iraq might make the place so unstable that it is a threat to peace in the area and around the world. He would want troops available to intervene for security reasons.

After the election, same as Kerry. And as many of us have been pointing out for a long time, there's no such thing as "out now" because it's logistically impossible. The 6 months also takes that into account. Still, it just makes no sense to not turn areas over sector by sector, and give it adeqate time if it's working. But whichever, as long as we start doing it is the main thing.

Not as good as bringing the troops all the way home, not likely to quell the insurgency, but it's better than what we're doing now.