a DU exclusive: "live" report from Kerry's press conf. on Iraq

DU's roving reporter, mrs. wt2, has graciously agreed to walk over to the Kerry announcement about Iraq and provide a real-time report ...

the following is being captured over a cell phone to the best of my ability ... i'm sure someone will post a full transcript when it's available ... consider this post "raw data" ...

The press announcement was scheduled for 2:45 pm (et) outside the studios of Channel 7 in Boston. I called channel 7 (they totally suck) and asked if they would carry it live. The guy said "No, but we might try to fit in to our newscast if we have room." What with all the really important stories about runaway ducks, those wacky traffic lights, and the latest on the Nixon library needing a paint job, don't count on it ...

waiting for the cell phone to ring ... ahhh, here we go ...

about a dozen people outside, cameras, and a podium and a bunch of flags ... currently 2:55 pm ... tick ... tick ... tick ... maybe they're shooting for 3 pm ...

while we're waiting, Iraq's PM said today that he thinks Iraqis will be able to handle all security for Iraq by the end of the year ... does anyone believe this?? you can read the article from today's Guardian here: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1780432,00.html?=rss

2:58 pm now ... hmmmmm ... the pressure's on ...

3:00 pm ... OK ... Kerry is at the podium ...

bush and rove concerned only with election and safety of troops
no defense or interior ministers
the job's not done forming a government
reign in the militia or it will be a civil war and a disaster
bush has declared a new day instead of pressuring the Iraqis to fill the missing positions
we can't tolerate delays while troops are on the line
Iraqi leaders only respond to deadlines
we need to set another deadline to extricate our troops
we must agree on a schedule with the Iraqis for them to stand up
it will undermine the insurgency
the insurgency is fueled by a majority of the Iraqis who want the US to leave
our soldiers have done their job
the Iraqis have to want democracy for themselves
the only troops who should remain after the end of the year must be essential
Rumsfeld said he can't make promises
bush said future presidents will decide on withdrawal
bush won't even rule out a permanent military presence
we need serious and sustained diplomacy which is long overdue
we need a compreshensive understanding with other countries for the whole ME
after the summit, we should form a political agreement
it's long overdue
we need a change in policy and a change in course

Q&A:

Q: bush wants to stay because he's getting killed in the polls
A: he's been wrong about Iraq every step of the way

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

WT2 says: I'm very disappointed in this ... more later ...

Just reported on C-Span1:

Senator Durbin: "Iraqis are NOT PREPARED to stand and fight and defend their own country."

Ahm, it doesn't sound like anything new was said.

Anything announced as news?

The jobs not done forming a government is true. Is it clear what this means vis a vis the deadline of May 22nd to 'form a government or withdraw'?

i suppose you're right that it was left a bit vague ...

on first pass, i heard "the only troops who should remain after the end of the year must be essential" ... on a reread, it sounds like a "let's sit down with the Iraqis and define a schedule" ...

the Iraqis said today that their target was 12/31/06 ... see link in OP for details ...

it seems like we went from a near-term "date certain", i.e. today given the stipulation about an "effective" unity government, to a much vaguer "let's sit down and talk" ...

is that a fair assessment?

In all honesty, it depends on what was said about that new government. (How much of a loaf did we get in that new setup? Is it enough of government to be in any way functional? Will it do anything? This also means out by 12/31/06 anyway, is that now backed by other factions?)

BTW, nice job. Again, this is not easy to do. There should be something written out soon and maybe that will clarify it. (In other words, I don't want to ask you specifically questions you don't know the answer to. That is unfair.)

I will say I'm not all that pleaed with it.

John Kerry on Developments in Iraq, New Iraqi Government

“Rather than set deadlines and get tough in Iraq, all we hear is more rosy rhetoric from Washington and a presidential advisor worrying that the war has put voters in a ‘sour mood’ for the 2006 elections. This Administration should be worried about the safety of our troops, not the job security of Republican congressmen.

“Our soldiers have done their job. Now it’s time for the Iraqis to do theirs. We must immediately begin working with the new Iraqi government on a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by the end of this year. Prime Minister Maliki said last week that his forces could be in charge in most of Iraq by December, but the Administration sees no end in sight. Secretary Rumsfeld said he ‘can’t make any promises’ about reducing U.S. troop levels in Iraq and President Bush says that troop reductions ‘will be decided by future Presidents.’

“It is long overdue for a Congress that shares some responsibility for getting us into Iraq to help get us out. It is time for us to demand a change in policy and a change in course – for Iraq, for our troops, and for Americans here at home.”

I'm sure you wanted him to stand up and say it's time to pull the troops out tomorrow, no matter what goes on in Iraq. Sounds to me like he's continuing to call bullshit on Bush's happy days in Iraq, and continguing to focus on the HOW of getting out of Iraq as well as the big picture of stabilizing Iraq after we're gone.

No written statement yet.

Really hard, especially at a outdoor event.

Today is May 22nd. This is the deadline Sen. Kerry wanted for the Iraqis to form a government or he wanted the US to tell them they would withdraw the troops. I know, as does everyone on DU (or the planet) that Kerry can't withdraw the troops. But I would like to hear about the new government, where it does and does not meet the criteria Kerry set up and what happens or should happen next.

Ahm, I will wait for WT2 to get through what was said and then post it. (I have to do that on live stuff. It's not that easy.)

Kerry said we should "withdraw immediately" by TODAY if the Iraqis didn't form an "EFFECTIVE" unity government ... he was clearly critical about the new government in his remarks and certainly gave no indication he thought the government met his stipulation.

yes, it's good, even excellent, that he continues to call bullshit about what bush is doing (and not doing) ...

the question is, though, has Kerry stuck to the plan he defined?? it seems to me, subject to further study of the full text, of course, that he has not ...

And they have taken a baby step forward. I don't know, how useful would it be to ignore that completely?? Do you think it would be credible to say no government has been formed and troops must come home - if that's not the entire truth? I'm asking you what your opinion is about that, separate from the press conference.

first, to directly answer your question: no, i don't think it would be at all credible to say that "no government" has been formed. But that was not what Kerry's 5/22 stipulation for "immediate withdrawal" called for ...

he said the measure was to be "an EFFECTIVE unity government" ... his own characterization today clearly indicated that the new government, which lacked agreement on critically important cabinet positions, could in no way be construed as "EFFECTIVE" ...

so point one is that Kerry's test was NOT met ...

now, does that mean that i'm inflexible and unreasonable ... of course not ... i would have preferred his support for immediate withdrawal ... but everything need not be so black and white ...

he could have said that the deadline would be extended for a short time, say a few weeks to a month, to reassess whether the Iraqi government can begin to demonstrate its EFFECTIVENESS ...

as for my opinion, i believe Iraq is now in a full civil war ... some details here: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article548945.ece

i don't think bush has any intention whatsoever of trying to bring peace to Iraq ... and i don't think having our troops spend even another five minutes there makes any sense at all ... if a different CIC would commit to taking the necessary steps to bring peace and someone asked for the rest of the year to try, i would be far more tolerant ... but bush NEVER WILL regardless of what anyone thinks he should do ... the right path is to recognize that and recognize the cost to this country in terms of blood and treasure and get the hell out of there NOW ... that is my opinion ...

and continuing to push the absence of that, seems to me to be what he did. To generic America: Don't let Bush fool you into thinking significant steps have been made, there's a long way to go and here are the next specific steps that have to be taken in order for there to be any conversation about troops staying in Iraq.

Perhaps if absolutely nothing had been done by the Iraqi's, he would have called for immediate withdrawal. Since a teeny step was taken, he outlined the next step rather than take the focus off of what needs to be done to get our troops home. Considering Bush IS the one in charge. Seems to me anyway.

All the Iraqis have is the U.S. Ambassador to help them negotiate a unity government -- the summit that Kerry and many others have called for has not happened. I think the Iraqis, under Maliki, have done the best they could without the help of any outside negotiators and regional countries, U.N., Nato, etc. My opinion is, considering these circumstances, a government has been formed and therefore the Iraqis have met the 5/22 deadline. I haven't read the exact transcript, but it seems that Kerry is unhappy about the lack of the interior and defense ministries (but there are temporary people in those posts), but that doesn't mean that a government hasn't been formed -- it's just extremely imperfect. Maliki has said that his #1 job is security in the country including, most importantly since he is a Shi'ite, that militias need to be disbanded. That it's not just about the Sunni insurgency anymore but criminal militias.

We have to give Maliki a chance, plain and simple. That would include negotiating with him the withdrawal of American troops to be replaced with Iraqi troops. Maliki needs to tell * to withdraw troops on a set deadline. If he doesn't, then that means he is weak and has no political support from the people, and therefore needs American troops to keep him propped up. The people are obviously very wary of this government that took 5 months to form, but he does have at least a 2 week honeymoon period, right?

Had Kerry come out for an immediate withdrawal RIGHT NOW even after some semblance of a government had been formed, that would have been irresponsible and I personally would not respect that. The truth is that Kerry's plan all along was combat troops out by 12/31/06 (his saying only essential troops stay is no different from before -- trainers and security). By that time, Murtha, Kerry, Feingold, the anti-war peace activists, nearly everyone will be on the same page.

Back to now -- the people who could pull this off are the Iraqi government, troops on the ground, and our military commanders. * and Rumsfeld, lacking no credibility whatsoever, should stay out of it as much as possible. Let's see if the parties I have mentioned can get a transfer of troops done by the end of the year. It'll be ugly and the situation on the ground will short term get worse, but that is unfortunately the most we can hope for.

because once those deadlines pass, then what?

This is Bush's War, and only he controls the timetable in the end.

Until we get a majority Dem congress or/and a new President, Democrats can only state how they would handle things if they were charge. they are not in a position to give out ultimatums with dates certain, due to their lack of being able to reinforce such calls of timetables. They should, however, remind the public who it was that wanted this war, who ran this war and how, the fact that there were no good reason to get involved in this war, and why we are worse off today and not "more safe". Mentioning that Bin Laden is still at large adnauseum doesn't hurt either, even if the White House has no comments on this phenomenon.

One day, I want the media to explain to me why Dems get criticized for not having more than a vague plan for Iraq, considering that the President ignores them constantly.

Bush has already said that Iraq will be "finished" by the next President. That's one thing that he has said that I tend to believe....even if he pulls out troops temporarily in September as PR for the November elections.

And numbers of troops as well. Bush has repeatedly said he was going to pull troops out after various votes and what have you, and he hasn't done it yet. It's time to start making him at least accountable to his own words and that can't be done without reminding people of the benchmarks and that those benchmarks correlated with actual dates certain. If we don't start putting troop numbers and dates on this, we'll never get out of there.

set a deadline. I think that Kerry is doing what he can do accomplish 2 things - To put as much pressure on Bush to face reality and move to a sensible plan and 2) to change public opinion as much as possible away from thinking that we are acoomplishing something by staying.

He answered many times that a deadline set by him wouldn't work - it had to be Bush. The pressure may have had an effect on the Iraqis - who moved a small amount towards a government. Kerry has every right to say what he would have done and he is speaking the truth about the real state of the Iraq government. The question now is to push for moving more things over to the Iraqis.

when they know their advisement is not taken. At least it adds some pressure that wouldn't be there if they kept their mouth shut.

And, at least, the Iraqi pols are listening and feeling some responsibility to get their act together. Bush certainly isn't giving them any pressure. By not letting up, Murtha and Kerry are letting the Iraqis know there are plenty of Americans who WANT a withdrawal.

I didn't think it was about you. I was thinking out loud and used you in the non-personal sense. (It's what I wanted though.)

I will be looking for the written, not becuae I doubt what you said, but because 'the devil is in the details.' It seems to me that the crucial point today was Kerry opinion on how much of a loaf that new government really is. (That's both devil and details.)

I have nothing but thanks to you for what you wrote. (I think that's why my questions can't be answered by you.) How would you know the answer to my questions? You were reporting, fairly, what you heard.

Nothing but thanks! And I'm sorry if I wrote questions that sounded like they were to you when I was thinking out loud what KErry meant.

actually i was responding to my good friend sandnsea ...

it is always wise to wait for the transcript ... Kerry said it ... mrs. wt2, who didn't want to disturb the people around her by talking while Kerry was talking repeated it, and i typed what i could remember while she was already on to the next sentence ... did you ever play "telephone"?

i think we caught the essence but, as you astutely pointed out, the devil is in the details ...

my preliminary read here, though, is i'm not optimistic ... i hope i'm dead wrong ...

I suspect you got the gist just fine. If he had called for immediate withdrawal, I suspect that would be all over the news. His approach on this war has always been to push the next necessary step based on current circumstances. I think you would favor a peaceful outcome in Iraq, if that were at all possible, no matter how unlikely. I'm guessing Kerry looks to both our troop safety and Iraq possibilities every step of the way. Because for the US to ever regain our esteem in the world, we do have to consider that this war is about the Iraqi people too and not just us and the oil. If there's any remote possibility that our troops can help divert a civil war, I'd like to see that done.

highlighting the same measures he outlined in the past that NEED to be taken to effect a real pullout.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 22, 2006

“Rather than set deadlines and get tough in Iraq, all we hear is more rosy rhetoric from Washington and a presidential advisor worrying that the war has put voters in a ‘sour mood’ for the 2006 elections. This Administration should be worried about the safety of our troops, not the job security of Republican congressmen.



“Our soldiers have done their job. Now it’s time for the Iraqis to do theirs. We must immediately begin working with the new Iraqi government on a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by the end of this year. Prime Minister Maliki said last week that his forces could be in charge in most of Iraq by December, but the Administration sees no end in sight. Secretary Rumsfeld said he ‘can’t make any promises’ about reducing U.S. troop levels in Iraq and President Bush says that troop reductions ‘will be decided by future Presidents.’



“It is long overdue for a Congress that shares some responsibility for getting us into Iraq to help get us out. It is time for us to demand a change in policy and a change in course – for Iraq, for our troops, and for Americans here at home.”

I look at this Maliki guy and see him going in the right direction. To hell with *, and let's see what this new P.M. can do. He actually said December -- same as Kerry. Our soldiers need to leave in an orderly fashion, that's the point. Even "now" would still mean 6 months or more, which is . . . 12/31/06. It's coming together -- let's give Maliki a chance and see what he can do. If he flounders, then we'll address it again.

We need to start to extricate troops and turning over authority, but how can we do this with Dummy & Rummy in charge?

I would have preferred something with more specific benchmarks throughout the year. This gives Bush way too much leeway and puts the ball back in his court. I don't like it much at all I have to say.

by involved in pushing for this.

I didn't see this when I posted above. Thanks!

Not a word about the fact that two of the most important positions in the Iraqi govt are not filled or that the media are reporting Chalabi could fill one of them.

I am not sure why he would have made a press conference for that.

I think he had to say something, I just wish he hadn't let troop withdrawal remain open-ended throughout the year. We need numbers of troops withdrawn to correlate with specific political movement.

and more bloodshed. One more reason Washington (i.e. *) is no longer relevant to the reality on the ground in Iraq.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1258807&mesg_id=1258807