recap of Kerry and Reed press conference on Iraq

Reed:
"we can't "fail" there but we do need a plan to succeed"
"bush's speech today was generalities"
"what will be the cost in terms of dollars and the safety of our troops"
"what is the president's plan to stabilize Iraq in a "reasonable" time?"

Kerry:
"i'm presenting an alternative view of how we "succeed" in Iraq"
"backdrop at Coast Guard Academy reminds you of an aircraft carrier with a "Mission Accomplished" sign"
"the truth is that the president draws a false line"
"the troops don't belong to his point of view; they belong to Americans"
"this debate is not about an "artificial date for withdrawal""
"the Democrats plan was an "estimated timetable for success""
"no Democrat suggested we should run in the face of car bombers or assassins"
"what the president did not do again is acknowledge the fundamental issue of the insurgency"
"insurgency will not be beaten at the face of a gun; they will be beaten by the political process"
"bush acknowledged he will withdraw some troops if the elections are a success"
"General Casey has said that it is the large presence of American forces on the ground that feeds the insurgency"
"the president did not acknowledge that today"
"45% of Iraqis say it's OK to injure and kill American's in their country; 80% want the US to leave their country"
"in the end, the strategy for exit is part of the strategy for success"

Q&A:
Kerry:
"we do not agree with the choice Congressman Murtha made"
"we believe you need to have measurements for success"
"the best way to protect the troops is by standing up for them and giving them the best policy possible"
"i think we've been proven correct almost every step of the way" (e.g. not disbanding the army, providing services, guarding the ammo dumps)

Reed:
"Murtha summarized the feelings of many, many Americans"
"our forces are there without a comprehensive plan"
"we need economic reform, political progress"
"reconstruction is a much bleaker picture"
"we're talking about a phased conditional withdrawal based on circumstances on the ground"
"a timetable would be detrimental but we have to have a sense of how long we'll be there"
"we have stretched are Armed Forces to an extreme point"
"bush was over-optimistic about the readiness of Iraqi security forces"
"there are ethnic divisions; it is not an integrated force"
"the ultimate success will be based on political, military and economic development"

Kerry:
"the picture he painted about Iraqi forces was primarily statistical"
"it was not a realistic picture"
"bush's description of the insurgency was fundamentally Sunni (with no oil - they see no safe and secure future) and secondly you have people who want to be restored to power and that's not going to happen - and we don't believe it should"
"need much greater diplomatic leverage in the region"
"we need a regional security effort like we did in the Balkans"
"the bottom line is you had a disconnect between what the president described about training of Iraqi forces"
"if the Iraqi Ministries can't function, it doesn't matter what you do with their troops"
"you need additional personnel on the ground - construction, diplomatic, delivery of services"
"a lot of the missions our troops are sent on are unnecessary"
"Iraqis should perform many of these missions rather than our soldiers"

Reed:
"you'll never lose money in Iraq betting on the worst case"
"the worst case would be civil war"
"the best case will take a long, long period of time"

- end of press conference -

just because ...

This was an excellent summary.

i was typing as fast as i could while the press conference was in progress ...

a transcript will be a better source when it's available ...

you were at least 95% accurate.

There are good points in there to further the Democcratic debate. Nice job!

that what isn't discussed is that they share the same goals to withdraw the troops.

Funny how few in the media notice that there is much in common with the withdrawal plans, yet they insist on attacking Murtha's as cut and run to complement Bush's criticisms.

for withdrawal as soon as "practicable," and Kerry just did the same thing.

IMO, regardless of specifics, Murtha is going to be remembered as the guy that shook the administration and sparked debate in Washington. He'll be remembered for leadership at a time when high-profile Dems (Biden, Kerry, Clinton...) were trying, finger to the wind, to "position" themselves.

Kerry came out with a plan to get out of Iraq not only last month, but has been consistent on how to get out of Iraq for 2 years now.

I think Murtha and Kerry are on the same page here. I think Murtha held a press conference purposely to draw in the media and declare its time to bring the troops home and Kerry gave his Georgetown University speech, close to a month before, in a more formal setting, in order that the call for benchmarks and troop withdraw be looked upon more seriously.

That's what he said. To imply that he didn't support Murtha is just wrong.

then submitted it as a bill on the senate floor a week before Murtha.

Kerry waited to appear on the news shows to discuss it until the day Murtha announced his plan so Kerry could be in place to defend Murtha when the inevitable swiftboating commenced. That didn't happen by coincidence. Kerry scheduled his appearances the day before with the networks, none of who even knew Murtha was announcing his plan the next morning.

Kerry and Murtha know exactly what they were doing. They were drawing out the WH on the swiftboating to expose their role in the tactic, while putting WITHDRAWAL on the table for debate, whether it was Murtha's 6month plan or Kerry's 1yr plan.

Kerry:
"we do not agree with the choice Congressman Murtha made"
"the Democrats plan was an "estimated timetable for success""

Reed:
"Murtha summarized the feelings of many, many Americans"
"we're talking about a phased conditional withdrawal based on circumstances on the ground"

Kerry's formulation (estimated timetable for success) is, IMO, extremely weak. To the average joe, this just sounds like weasel words. I'm not calling for a "timetable," I'm calling for an "estimated timetable for success!" Jeebers.

:shrug:

As for his Murtha remark...

:thumbsdown::thumbsdown:

Kerry supported Murtha's comments too. The purely objective OP failed to mention that. Just like he failed to mention that they both called for a coherent plan for success in Iraq. In fact, Reed was more hawkish than Kerry. Kerry is the one who clarified success in turning the country over to Iraq so we could withdraw our troops.

here i did my best to capture a live press conference and you have the audacity to imply my recap was biased ...

well, i think it's time to highlight Kerry's hideous Iraq plan a bit more directly ... and rest assured, my post will make no effort to be objective ... it will be 100% my very own opinion ...

stay tuned ...

DU's Kerry supporters are Kerry's worst enemy ...

I'm sure you think you were unbiased, but your predisposition against Kerry makes you hear some things and not others.

i typed every damned word i could grab ... i'm sure your years of psychiatric training have prepared you to understand the hidden biases we all have and exactly how they manifest themselves ... i probably should defer to your professional expertise but, in this case, you're dead wrong ...

be sure to stop my my thread that will rip apart Kerry's pathetic non-plan ... when you talk about the biases i have on that thread, i'll be sure to agree with you ...

perhaps you believe your style is beneficial to Kerry; i don't ... and btw, to just clarify, this is to correct your "predisposition", i do NOT have a "predisposition against Kerry"; i just don't like his hideous non-plan for Iraq ... you seem to keep forgetting that distinction ...

At least one of us kicked this thread to make sure it got read. And did so without snark or editorial comments.

i did not appreciate the response in question ...

There's more to accuracy then reporting parts of what was said, as we well know from Bush Administration tactics. What's left out of the OP is telling, IMO.

I happen to like Kerry's plan,its a comprehensive plan with well thought out ideas. Maybe it's not perfect and it doesn't meet your expectations obviously, because, well he doesn't call for an complete and immediate withdraw- to hell with what may happen afterwords. But, I am disappointed I was actually giving you credit for being at least fair. Oh well, that was naive of me. Shame on me.

what i said was "i did my best to capture a live press conference" ...

how you arrived at the conclusion that doing that is unfair is truly baffling ... the fact that i think Kerry's plan sucks hardly makes the OP unfair ... had i sought to criticize Kerry's press conference, i would have added my own opinion to the quotes i was able to capture ...

the bias of DU's Kerry attack squad is beyond pathetic ... keep building hostility for Kerry with your personal attacks on other DU'ers ... that's probably a really excellent political strategy ...

please consider this an invitation to my "let's rip Kerry's bullshit Iraq 'plan' to pieces" thread ... even if you think yourself naive, you still should have a chance to try to defend Kerry's non-plan ...

half as much as you did in real time. The OP is very coherent and covers most of the many points. Thank you for doing it.

PS I think Kerry's plan has less BS in it than any of the others. The biggest problem he has is that he's not CIC - and if he were things would never have gotten to this point.

it was an honest, best-i-could-do effort ...

capturing news should be done with integrity, not with bias ...

there's plenty of time for analysis and editorial comment ... that was not the intent of the OP ... if it had been, i would have added my own observations ...

I've tried it myself a few times.

thanks for posting the transcript ...

Looks like both the good Senators from MA were vocal today -

“The President’s effort to put lipstick on his failed Iraq strategy fools no one. It’s still a plan for a continued open-ended commitment, which puts at risk our troops on the ground and our citizens at home. As the United States Senate declared earlier this month, and as many Americans from all walks of life and all political beliefs have called for, we need a real and honest plan for success in Iraq so that our troops can begin to come home in 2006.”

http://www.tedkennedy.com/journal/345/the-new-strategy-for-victory-is-the-same-as-the-old-one

their goals are the same, the strategy is different. As far as the benchmarks (timetables if you wish) I diagree with your assumption on the average Joe not understanding the wording. it is important that we emphasize that we are not proposing a cut and run plan. if the media insists on using the term timetables, then using a timetable for success seems like a great way of putting it. I fail to see how that equates to weasel words.

Then we'll have the real statements from the press conference instead of a biased version.

Make that damn dog stop STARING AT ME!!!! Iiieeeeee!!!