Dean is now promoting the "Korb" plan for getting out of Iraq.

At least that's how I read it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5422214&mesg_id=5422214

More of the Dean interview:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/11/21/122636/38

The Korb article:
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-toptruk4515718nov17,0,7373450.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

I've got to go do some stuff now but I thought y'all would be interested in this. I posted my initial thought to the DU thread.

On edit - who wants to summarize the similarities / diffences between the Korb and Kerry plans?

Jonathon Alter - pretty good article overall
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10117464/site/newsweek/

the only main difference is the "troops over the horizon" part. And it makes sense to guard our embassy, and to help with certain counter-terrorism stuff--which after all, we owe them, having createn a terrorist haven.

This is Kerry's plan, plus a few more details.

It does not recognize a few basic facts, like the fact that we must say we are not there forever, or the fact that the Iraqis must take their business in hands.

It is also much longer. But altogether, it is a progress. I was not expecting the Democratic Party to adopt Kerry's plan, because some people would have had to accept a few things they are not ready to accept, like the fact that we do not need permanent bases in the ME.

and now I can't find it. My bad.

Or is that only a fun pasttime when it's Kerry who's not supporting Murtha.

They are so hypocritical - They are STILL whining that Kerry won't say lie. Why is there vocabulary so limited? Kerry's statement is as tough as any and tougher than most.

I loved part of Kennedy's (per the quote on TV) essentially saying Bush may have repeated lies given to him by Cheney. - If Kennedy's possibility is true Bush technically didn't lie if he didn't know they were lies.

Dean's statement makes it clear that it's not only the Democrats calling for withdrawal. Funny the media wouldn't report that since the Republicans have made this a partisan issue.

On further edit: Korb's plan is not so bad, he laid out diplomatic solutions. Also, a different take on my media statement: let's see if this gets significant mention in the broadcast media.

However, this plan, as I read it, withdraw the troops a lot slower than Kerry's does (It is more or less what Biden proposed today), and involves a lot less international forces. Also, it does not pull the troops out of danger like Murtha's or Kerry's plans and does not insist that we denouce permanent bases.

I think this is a position people like Biden can rallye around easily, so it is fine for that.

for not wanting to leave Iraq quickly enough.

Of course I found such attacks on Dean to be amusing. After all, he was never the anti-war candidate they believed him to be, and never the anti-war candidate Kerry actually was.

actually.

Of course, there are one or two who've reacted in dismay over Dean's stances. I've had to defend him here and there.

I guess somebody got mad, but I think it is about Dean's threads in general because most of the time, I defend Dean, so I was a little bit taken aback by the reaction.

Things like that make me very, very dismayed.

Hmm.

contradiction with the Congress Leadership.

Even Kerry's plan is too quick for many in the House and the Senate (read what Biden and Clinton said today).

But a plan like Korb's, with few specifics and a goal that is not to near, is fine to unify people. I dont think this gives us any idea where Dean's as a person stands, it is just what he sees as an acceptable position for most officials.

aren't people going to get mighty pissed, even Dean fans, at a plan that is vague? The peace people won't be pleased. I guess we'll find out how many of them are the base, and how many still are under the dellusion that Dean is an anti-war guy.

party.

The peace people will not be happy, but Dean's main preoccupation these days is to win the 06 elections, not to please the peace people. So he has to deal with everybody that is in the party.

Happy to see he is playing his role, even if I'd like to see the Democrats coalesce around a plan that is more for peace.

as some Deaniacs react as if they don't know their guy sometimes when this stuff comes up.

I worry about a plan from a Reagan official that has few specifics being chosen by NAME by the DNC head. What if it becomes more unacceptable as the details come out. This is not like accepting a Kerry of Feingold plan after getting a sketchy outline - their values are known.

It has half our troops out by the end of next year instead of almost all of them. It includes the over the horizon aspect of Murtha's plan, which I never saw in Kerry's plan. I think that's almost the same as bases in Iraq and will have the same affect as having the military in Saudi Arabia previously. I like redeployment into Afghanistan, but which we would focus more on rebuilding the country instead of just constant fighting. We aren't going to defeat terrorist ideology through the military. Where is the plan for that? Besides sending Karen Hughes on a cookie baking tour I mean.

Kucinich, as a minimalist solution.

But it certainly is not better than Murtha's. IMHO, it is worse, because it is so slow and so vague.

It speaks about withdrawal, but it doens't challenge the Admin to 'put up or shut up' as Kerry's and Murtha's plans do. Hmmm, who has Dena's ear these days?

that he was for his 12 years of being a Governor.

It's the thing to do these days if you're doing it for the right reason.

That's why I don't think this is a bad thing. Dean could have easily said he would support Murtha's plan, but that would have knocked down all the other plans offered by Democrats?

Imagine if Dean had said:

1) I am for immediate withdrawal, the media would constantly pose this to Democrats saying Dean is against Kerry's plan

2) I against immediate withdrawal, he'd be slapping down Murtha's plan

Dean said what he said and what has happened? Nothing. I think it's because if the media comes back with "well the party chair is supporting a plan offered by a Republican (and the media will not)," it's easy enough to point out that no Republican in Congress is behind this plan, which calls for withdrawal (actually redeployment, but it's not easy to make that distinction, as Murtha's plan, which is really a redeployment plan, proves).

When the Democrats rally around one plan, Dean can voice his support for that plan.

Even if Dean's full support is behind Korb's plan, I think avoiding the clashing Democrats syndrome was best. This idea that people can't have differing views is really bugging me.

Kerry's is the best plan by far because it accomplishes the two objectives that matter most to Americans: get the troops completely out and in a way that doesn't stir up more violence in the region (or as Bush likes to say embolden the terrrist).

I'm rambling, but what do you think about this POV?

none of these plans are going anywhere. The Repubs have no interest in this type of thing and won't allow any of them to go forward in their present form. It is possible that the Rethugs will take things from these plans, retool them and then sell them as the Rethug plan to get out of Iraq. (I would bet on this.)

A lot of the emphasis on who has plans is a kind of MacGuffin. (A movie term that means something the characters in the move care a lot about, but that turns out to have no real importance to the plot. It's a diversion.)

The Dems are pushing these plans as a way to counter the Repubs talking point that Dems have no ideas and no plans at all. (Well, they do. In fact they have tons of plans. Rethugs have no plans.) But the real game here is not in the withdrawal plans that Rethugs are not going to adapt anyway. All these discussions are actually about someting else. The withdrawal plans are the MacGuffin. Getting real hearings and assigning real responsibility to the Rethugs who screwed up is the real plan and the real plot of the movie.

I was really pointing to all the discussion about why isn't everyone supporting one plan or the other. As you said, what really matters is pointing out that Bush and the Republicans screwed up, have no plan and should be held accountable.

My computer hiccuped.

they portray him as a radical leftist.

I think he's expressing support for ANY withdrawal plan, whether it has elements of Murths's, Kerry's or Korb's, since ALL the plans further the DEBATE about withdrawal itself.

So, I'm not particularly unpleased that he is using this approach.

I prefer Kerry's plan, obviously, but can understand the political maneuvering Dean may be trying to pull off with his approach.