Is this support for Kerry's plan?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/25/18822/3149

Don't answer that!

You have got to be kidding me!

There's one who goes through all the 2008 hopefuls and trashes them> Kerry is said to care nothing for 2006 because he put his op-ed out 3 days after Clark's venerated plan (which is as full of content as a cloud).

The irony is that Clark deviated from this same plan - put St Wes apparently is blessed and can speak for all Democrats. While the man who easily beat him as the choice to laed the Democrats is apparently not allowed to talk. Oh - he did it so he could get on the talk shows.

I don't care if they like the Kerry comparison or not. KERRY WAS FIRST!

I think the Clarkies also ignore that the "year of significant transition comes form the Levin amendment which the Levin, Feingold, Kennedy and Kerry wrote and made as vague as they were comfortable with in Nov 2005. (Also, Is Clark asking for a complete withdrawal or, like even the Republicans, for the "start" of withdrawal?)

I have no problem with Clark joining that wing all of whom have had the position of no bases and have been in favor of creating withdrawal plans for months. I do have a major problem with their view that all Democrats had to toe the party line on Iraq. I have greater problem that they not only believe that, but think that Clark CAN speak of issues beyond the vague compromise non-plan.

I assume Massachusetts would like their very capable Senators to speak out on important issues. They didn't send Kennedy and Kerry down to Washington for them to not speak anything other than the words blessed by (even a very capable) unelected former military officer selected by a Senator from Nevada. In fact, if I remember right, Kerry promised his constituents that he would speak out when he thought the facts in Iraq dictated - he would be breaking his promise and as he has said in his dissent related speeches would be doing what he critisized Senators for doing in 1971.

during the campaign (if I remember correctly) and thought that if president he would start to bring home the troops in the summer of 2005.

The difference is between start withdrawal and total withdrawal - and Kerry's 2004 comment was in the context of himself as President. He didn't have to say when they would be totally out - as they would be in a totally different situation and he didn't want permanent bases.

this statement. All I have seen is his statement calling on troop withdraw, which seemed to me to be reckless without offering up further details.

was wussy. It was not a plan for national security and defense, it was a pre-emptive strike to make the public think the Dems are to the right of Bush on National Security. I thought it was wrong and unsubstantial.

We don't need to go to Bush's right on National Security issues. We don't need to say that Democrats eat steel biscuits for breakfast and shoot bullets out their butts. (Really, what a dumb, dumb thing to say.) We need a grownup who will say that that massive military response to the horrible events of 9/11 was wrong, misguided and badly executed. We don't need more military, we need smarter plans that actually attack the problem in front of us rather than the fantasy target the Republicans wanted.

The DLC approach is wrong. It is not a little bit wrong, it is totally wrong and will not make anyone who isn't already a Dem want to vote for us. It wimped out on what is wrong with this 'War on Terror' and what is wrong with how the United States of America is taking on the serious problem of religious extremism in the world. We have to fight a targeted engagement that will be long-term, serious and aimed at those who are acutally guilty. We have to engage diplomatically with the people of the nations that spur these extremist movements and try to figure out a way to help those people so that extremism is not so appealing.

It's not rocket science. It's called strong leadership. We need that and not more namby-pamby pandering to an audience that doesn't really exist anyway.

So, I will go back and read it. I suppose it can be said to be the DLC's approach on how to win over the moderate voters with tough talk rather than disciplined, smart leadership?

that doesn't mean anything is is solely designed to pander to voters who will never vote Democratic. Why don't Democrats talk about what they believe. Everyone knows this rush to war was wrongheaded and had devastating consequences.

People would rather hear about sensible ideas and see some real progress rather that the "talk".

Unless it was the March stuff which reminded me why the meetings I hated the most were ones designed to work on project mission statements where we fought over which big words to use to say as little as possible to avoid saying anything too specific and not to promise too much.

about the tough on terror BS. The phrase has come to symbolize rhetoric. Tough should mean a smart approach, not a posture to look tougher than the Repigs!

Clark is only reiterating the Democratic policy: 2006 is a year of transition where the Iraqis will start to take their business into their hands. No permanent bases.

These two points have been voted by the Democrats in the Senate during this year. No permanent bases has been voted by both chambers.

What Clark does not say (and that Kerry, Murtha, and Feingold are saying) is that the troops should be withdrawn BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.

Clark is stating what all Democrats agree on (Lieberman excepted). This is good, but how does that make him a leader on the issue?

Both the DU and DKos threads really were blowing his comments up - and dissing others at the same time.

they just hate to admit that the idea of withdrawal and no permanent bases was put out there by Kerry in 2004. Also, Murtha and Feingold have been advocating withdrawal for six and 11 months, respectively. Kerry's Oct., Nov. and current speeches on withdrawal set the stage for his two deadlines. As it's been said already, anyone who doesn't support these deadlines isn't really interested in getting out of Iraq now! Feingold has!