Is Feinstein calling for withdrawal from Iraq?

or is she hinting that troops should be repositioned somewhere like, say, Iran?

In her statement on the SOTU yesterday:



I've often been critical of Feinstein as being one of the closet Democratic hawks whose husband benefits from defense contracts, but if she is really calling for withdrawal from Iraq it would be nice if she could clarify or expand on her position and propose a plan.

Nothing was so frustrating when Murtha came out, and just like the filibuster we presented our party as a bunch of divided clowns

the time Murtha came out with his. Withdrawal isn't new for her.

Right after murtha stuck his neck out, Kerry comes out and indicates he doesn't agree with the way Murtha wants to do it. Can't they iron out the differences between themselves before they go public, and look like a bunch of disorganized people?

Before Murtha "stuck his neck out", Kennedy and a few congressman (McGovern (MA) had called for withdrawal, then Feingold called for a flexible target for withdrawal and Kerry gave a detailed plan that would quickly put Americans in the rear (not doing policing or search and destroy) and would bring the soldiers home in a year to 15 months. Murtha called for a redeployment out of Ieaq (but still in teh area in 6 months.

Kerry defended Murtha from the Republican attacks, lavishly praised him and his background. When asked if he agreed, his answer was something on the lines of "respectfully, no. I think the plan I laid out is better." Murtha didn't come to Kerry so they could negotiate a combined position - I have heard Murtha today and a few earlier times, repeating Kerry's mantra "that there is no military solution to the war, there has to be a political solution." Why is it Brave for Murtha to come out with a plan, but not Kerry? Why should Kerry say he and Murtha agree when they don't.


Today on Hardball, after saying Hillary, Bill and other Democrats who had yet to come out against the war needed to think hard about their positions (might be off), He later talked about John Kerry having made a strong statement. Teresa Heinz Kerry wrote a beautiful op-ed deploring the swiftboating of Murtha. (Teresa, who still is a resident of PA, supposedly has known Murtha for years, long before she married John.)

And had submitted his plan more formally to the Senate two days before Murtha came out.

So, why is Kerry the bad guy in this? He defended Murtha mightily at a time when he had already been scheduled to discuss HIS PLAN and only disagreed with Murtha HOW to withdraw from Iraq - that's it. IMO, your charge against him on this is based on a poor read of what actually occurred.

Did you have ill words for all the Dems who didn't speak out for Kerry's more detailed withdrawal plan when he first came out with it? Even Tom Hayden said he had to hand it to Kerry for coming up with a DOABLE plan.

So....again...it BOTHERED you that Kerry came up with a plan to withdraw from Iraq that he had been working on for two months with commanders on the ground there and with members of Iraq's parliament not loyal to BushInc and he dared to stand behind his plan after he submitted it - even while he defended Murtha's character and record?

Please explain.

These issues must be faced, whether they like it or not. Just because something is too "political" and could backfire doesn't mean that it's bad for the country.

For chrissake, let us unite around Murtha and demand an end to this madness.

UNITE DAMMIT!

And maybe running scared of Cindy ;)

Nice for some to catch up with the fact that there was no discernable difference between Murtha and the other Disengagement Democrats. Including some of the Disengagement Democrats. It would be awesome if they've all figured that out, finally.

And I do think it's pressure from her constituents (including me). If she keeps this up, I might not even feel dirty next time I have to vote for her. (Which means we must keep this up!)

progressive. Feinstein was always a CONSERVATIVE even when she was Mayor of San Francisco, a position she did not initially get elected to.

I'll vote for the most progressive candidate during the primaries, but if she's chosen as the Democratic nominee, I will have to vote for her.

I didn't want her as my mayor either, but one can hardly fault her for how she landed the job.

they want to know what the military benchmarks are and a timetable to achieve them, but there are no proposed details involving withdrawal by a certain date. Murtha didn't even sign this particular letter.

No, I don't suppose Murtha did sign a senate letter. Murtha doesn't have a date certain either, but rather a vague proposal to disengage on an unknown timetable. What to do if things start getting worse, instead of better, he doesn't say. So neither of them has laid out every detail. Regardless, Bush is the CiC and the change has to come from him in the end anyway. The goal of Murtha and the Senate is to get the point across that our presence is creating violence, not stopping it. Beginning to disengage is the answer and almost all Democrats agree on that. I will never understand why it's more important to some people to create phony divisions instead of starting from the places we agree on.

and offered real support to his plan. There's no "phony" division, just lack of clarity and question of motives.

Why should they support a plan if they didn't think it met all the necessary criteria? Just because people think it's a get out now plan doesn't mean it is or that it will work; or that someone who points that out has ulterior motives. Again, they all agree that our presence is hindering progress, I don't know why we can't all start from there and work towards a disengagement plan that will work.

instead of trying to second guess what plan the CiC should establish, then every Democratic Leader should get together and point out precisely what the problem is: our presence in Iraq is creating a worse problem the longer we stay there, and the money being spent and the lives lost are also creating enormous problems. Getting 40 senators together and drafting a weak letter is obviously having little effect. They need to be giving out statements on a regular basis, if the MSM won't carry it then they need to go to blogs like Kerry and Kennedy recently started doing. They need to represent their constituents for a change.

Weren't those recent comments from DiFi?? I could swear I heard Kerry talking about Iraq this morning, and Murtha on Hardball. They probably would say even more on Iraq if it didn't end up with Democrats looking like they are in disarray on the most important issue facing the country.

but all I posted about was an email I received from DiFi, because I'm on her email list. That's preaching to the choir unless you're willing to make it more public.

Also, and more importantly, they need to agree on a STRONG (not weak and indecipherable) statement that they all can agree upon.

n/t

It sounds like she imagines a civil war can still be avoided. A common Beltway delusion.

About the 'terrorist state' bit, the Iranians are not going to let the Sunnis win a civil war.

alas