Democrats form unified front against administration's war strategy

BY JAMES KUHNHENN
Knight Ridder Newspapers

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/14871228.htm

{snips}

WASHINGTON - Wed, Jun. 21, 2006- At times passionate and at times partisan, Democrats and Republicans squared off Wednesday in an unprecedented Senate debate on the war in Iraq, as Democrats pressed the Bush administration to begin withdrawing U.S. troops by the end of this year.

Democrats squabbled among themselves about deadlines for withdrawal, but formed a unified front against the Bush administration's war strategy. Republicans assailed any talk of a pullout as a dangerous signal of weakness to terrorists and Iraqi insurgents that would forsake the thousands of American soldiers who've been wounded or killed.

Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran who was criticized during his 2004 presidential run for not disavowing his vote to authorize force in Iraq, said it was time for him to take a position.

"I believe young lives are being lost needlessly," he said. "I'm not going to stay here as a U.S. senator and add names to the Iraqi wall or whatever memorial we have because I didn't take a stand."

full article: http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/14871228.htm

Lieb started the rebuttal on the Republican side.

LIEberman is not a Democrat, or at least will have forfeited the right to call himself one if he won't pledge not to go independent against Lamont, should he win their primary. Already, I just assume Joenertia is with the goppers when I'm doing any nose-counting.

we'd have to call him "Zell".

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Guess that says a lot huh.

Btw: I'm aware of the source for your screen name from a video game. Interesting.

I'm not giving a DIME to Dems until they reach agreement on what to do about Iraq.

If they do not, they are spineless, gutless and do not deserve money or votes.

We have to take a STAND. For reasons of principle, and because if we don't, the Repubs will WIN once again on the national security issue.

I'm tired of being taken to the cleaners.

People have been calling for Democrats to grow a spine and stand up for the people the past 6 years. What makes anyone think they'll do it now?

can we really survive another 2 years with Bush going unchecked?

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

to the effort they're making today?

A realistic workable, supportable one. It's one thing to stand on the sidelines throwing fireballs of our idealism, but there are lives in the balance. ANY move towards bringing our troops home is better than the alternative. We can't go back and refight the election. Fact is, the strongest, most direct inituitive from the Senate intending to get us out of Iraq is the Kerry-Feingold amendment with its ambition of a date certain. Where is this coalition of purists who are in a position to effect ANYTHING against this republican majority? Where IS this coalition of absolutists who have managed to get themselves in a position to do anything but throw firebombs?

Something one might hear on Sunday talk Shows..Just what have the Republicans done over the last three years except give Bush the money and the green light to keep this senseless war going.. And just what could the Democrats have done earlier. The Democrats now have the public opinion on their side and that's a powerful tool to get this tmie table issue accomplished

Ever notice the media just doesn't say much about Afghanistan very often.Even though the Taliban is regrouping and actually becoming a strong force there since they have been ignored by the * administration.


"Wrong war,wrong place,wrong time"
John Kerry (during the 2004 campaign)
But the media didn't repeat that quote very often

Time to play "catch up" if you don't. Why are you here if you aren't for supporting the dems??? have you been out of country, or what?

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

The Fighting Dems are all calling for Redeployment here one

www.john06.com

We Veterans are standing behind him! Just Wish DCCC would he got Hastert now that he was caught in a land deal using tax payers money .After they know the Highway Bill was going to pass he dead meat now

There is no reason why Bush shouldn't come up with a detailed specific plan of how he intends to organize and deploy the new Iraqi army. There's no reason a plan shouldn't include dates objectives are expected to be met. Bush doesn't want to come up with a plan because he never wants to get out. If the Democrats are unified in demanding a plan, and can force Bush into submitting one, it will shorten the war. That's not soon enough, but its better than what is occuring now.

The Republicans are trying to identify Democrats with the least popular position on getting out. Democrats are trying to identify Republicans with the least popular position for staying in. If Democrats prevail, and retake a house of Congress, they'll be able to force Bush to submit a plan, and admit just how long he intends to keep us in Iraq.

I'm just not used to seeing "Democrats" and "unified front" in the same sentence.

Was it REALLY such a cleanly demarcated line? I'll bet Lieberman and Ben Nelson didn't have much to say.

:silly:

I didnt think they would have it in them. Im happy to be wrong.

It's about time they did it again.

Vote "Yes" to stay the course and continue the war.

Vote "No" to end the war and bring our troops home where they really can defend us.

It really doesn't matter what amendment you pick. Democrats are against the war and Republicans are for it. That's all that matters.

attacking the Dem's Plans and referring to them as cut and run or run and jog. I got news for the "many" Dem's(unnamed) that want to blame Kerry for taking a clear stand- GET OVER IT- ROVE WOULD HAVE THE REPUBS BASH YOU ANYWAY.I just can't believe they haven't learned anything since the last two elections. I would like to know if it was the DLC or the Repubs that put out this hit piece on Kerry. He tries to do what is right and he gets smeared.

What a sham. Kerry and Feingold have been strongly opposed by the party, which doesn't want a hard date for withdrawal. Levin offers nothing but the status quo; no wonder Hillary supports him.

For details, see today's NYT piece, "On Iraq, Kerry Again Leaves Democrats Fuming": http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/washington/21kerry.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The irony is that after foolishly vowing to be the soldier-president who would whip Iraq, Kerry is tiptoeing toward quasi-respectability on the war. His withdrawal plan involves unnecessarily protracted delay, but even its skimpy ideas are too much for the party.

In fact, neither Democratic leaders nor Republicans wish to end the war any time soon. Not for a second does the Bush-lite DLC intend to give up the bases if it slinks back into power.

This is a sham that won't fool the predominantly anti-war public. People are sick of Bush; but they are scarcely fonder of these wishy-washy Democrats.

Meanwhile, the troops bleed, Iraq bleeds, and there is no leadership in sight.

the deadline is felt to be poor judgement

but why is the rest not a change?

KENNEDY ON LEVIN IRAQ AMENDMENT
(Floor statement as prepared for delivery)




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Laura Capps / Melissa Wagoner (202) 224-2633
Mr. President, I strongly support the Levin, Biden, Reid amendment on Iraq.

There are important differences between our amendment and the Republican alternative.

Our amendment expresses the clear sense of the Senate that U.S. military forces should not stay in Iraq indefinitely. The Republican amendment ducks that issue and endorses President Bush's open-ended commitment of our forces, saying that our troops "should not stay in Iraq any longer than required."

Although many of us disagree with the President about the war, we all honor the service and sacrifice and heroism of our brave men and women in Iraq. More than 2,000 American soldiers have been killed in combat in Iraq, and more than 15,000 have been wounded. The youngest was 18. The oldest was 59. Nearly three quarters were under 30.

They're the best of America, and we're proud of each and every one. Our armed forces are serving courageously in Iraq under enormously difficult circumstances, and the policy of our government must be worthy of their sacrifice. Unfortunately, it is not, and the American people know it. An open-ended commitment in Iraq is not in America's interest, and it's not in Iraq's interest either. The goal of our military should be to establish a legitimate functioning government, not to dictate it. If we want the new Iraqi government to succeed, we need to give Iraq back to the Iraqi people. We need to let Iraq make its own political decisions, without American interference. We need to train the Iraqi security forces, but we also need to reduce our own military presence. There is widespread recognition that our overwhelming military presence is inflaming the insurgency.

After the election of a permanent Iraqi Government, we should begin a substantial and continuing drawdown of U.S. forces.

If additional forces are necessary during our drawdown or when our drawdown is completed, they should have the support of the Iraqi people and United Nations and come from the international community. American troops can participate, but unlike the current force, it should not consist mostly of Americans or be led by Americans. All nations of the world have an interest in Iraq's stability and territorial integrity.

Defenders of President Bush's failed "stay the course" policy pretend that alternatives like this are a "cut and run" strategy. They are not.

Last February, General Abizaid said, "What makes it hard for the United States is that an overbearing presence, or a larger than acceptable footprint in the region, works against you. . . . " No one has accused him of cut and run.

Last July, General George Casey, Commanding General of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq talked about "fairly substantial reductions" of troops in 2006. No one has accused him of cut and run.

Just last month, America's Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said, "It's possible that we could adjust our forces, downsizing them in the course of next year." No one has accused him of cut and run.

This month, Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of Defense in the Nixon Administration, wrote in the current issue of the journal Foreign Affairs: "Our presence is what feeds the insurgency," he writes, "and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency." No one has accused him of cut and run.

Former Secretary Colin Powell's Chief of Staff has called foreign policy in the Bush Administration "a cabal" between the Vice President and Secretary of Defense. He said they made decisions in secret about Iraq, and that we are now "paying the consequences. There was no plan for post-war Iraq, and we're now paying the consequences."

In the latest display of secrecy, the Administration negotiated a one-year extension of our UN mandate without informing the Congress. That resolution was approved last week.

It hardly means the Administration feels we can accomplish our military objectives by the end of 2006. The UN action was clearly an attempt by the Administration to avoid a debate at this time about the duration and goals and effectiveness of our strategy in Iraq.

As our Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, said, the United States sought to extend the mandate "far in advance of the Iraqi election," so it "didn't become an issue in the election."

Secretary Rice testified in the Foreign Relations Committee on October 19, and she briefed members in closed session. Surely she could have mentioned that discussions about the fate of 150,000 American servicemen and women were under way with the international community.

Our Ambassador to Iraq briefed members in closed session on November 2. Surely, he could have addressed this issue as well.

We need to have an open and honest debate about our future military presence in Iraq. An open-ended commitment of our military forces does not serve America's best interest, and it does not serve the Iraqis' interest either.

The Administration cannot run from this debate forever.

Now that the UN mandate has been extended, the President needs to tell the American people the extent to which the international community will participate in the military operations in Iraq.

Ambassador Bolton said, "We thought it was also important to show the continuing international commitment to progress in Iraq."

I agree. But the American people want to know that the troops of the international community will be a part of that commitment as well. The international community is now contributing only 22,000 troops. U.S. forces comprise nearly 90% of all forces on the ground, and are suffering more than 90% of all coalition casualties. Our current misguided policy has turned Iraq into a quagmire with no end in sight. It's urgent for the Administration to adopt an honest and effective plan to end the violence and stabilize Iraq, so that our soldiers can begin to come home with dignity and honor.

Our men and women serving in Iraq need more than happy talk about future progress from the President. They need more than a public relations campaign.

Last Friday, President Bush outlined a new bumper sticker slogan for his misguided policy in Iraq -- "Strategy for Victory." But it's still the same failed strategy. He should have called it "Strategy for Quagmire."

Our men and women in uniform deserve better -- much better from this President, and so does the nation.

I urge my colleagues to support the Levin, Biden, Reid amendment.

The WH distributed talking points were first up on the news on TV... And we know that's what's going to count.
"divided, divided, divided" was what the talking heads yammered at 5 & 11 in kitchens and dens nationwide.

And this is an infested thread...

This is how I feel about this Iraq disaster.

First, when we live, it will LOOK like the insurgency worked for the resistance. Great! We start bailing out and the things should come to a nice calm, as long as we can keep Bush Co out it.

But look at what time of the year it is, we start pulling out to soon and those Repukes will be right back up in it and it will be another 4 years of Repuke dumbassness...AS soon as those boys/girls start coming back those poll numbers will start going up and I bet you thats what is going to happen. Not all, but enough will be allowed back home to get back lost Repuke support. Also, they just called up 20K more troops too, so I bet they will be doing an exchange..Fresh for Exhausted.

I also wouldnt take my eye off of Iraq, I would maintain a nice visual from a distance for sometime.

Read an analysis that explains how Iraq may be the focal point of a Republican October surprise...here:

www.thoughttheater.com