Which Dem contender for 2008 prez nom most likely to get us OUT of Iraq?

[npincus]

a.k.a. offer an "exit strategy" and fight for it?

I ask because this is my main criteria for supporting any Democrat nominee. I would even consider supporting a Dem who voted for the war resolution (though I have said in the past I would not) as long as they renounce their endorsement of the war and embrace a policy to get out effective as soon as they become president. Granted, an "exit strategy" may take months to achieve, but it's design and implementation should be of the highest priority, and should begin immediately. If even it starts as diplomacy first with troop removal to follow.

So, WHO do you think among the likely or possible contenders is the most likely to make this happen?

Who? Who? Who?

[Cocoa]

1. Feingold comes to mind

and it looks more and more like he's running.

[venable]

69. Because he voted for war resolution, it must be Edwards

The one candidate (I hope he will be a candidate) that can bring hesitant voters with him in an "I've seen the light" kind of transformation - John Edwards is the one who would have the credibility to say, "I did everything I could to believe this Administration, just as you, the majority of voter's did. Now I must say to you, we were wrong. Let us, together, right this ship."

He has the credibility to lead, not in spite of his war vote, but because of his war vote.

And he has the intelligence to frame the argument in a way that garners wide public support, even amongst the most entrenched hawks.

[Donna Zen]

79. Sorry,

Do voters want someone so easily deceived? And by the way, as you know, Edwards was the only member of the Senate Intelligence committee to vote "yea."

Just saying.......

[fujiyama]

87. Do you mean the only Dem

in the intel committee? All repukes, with the exception of Chafee voted for the resolution.

I thought Feinstein was also on the intel committee? I might be mistaken. Do you have a list of the senators on the intel committee at that time?

[venable]

97. Edwards political authority

Not so 'easily' deceived. Tenet told him, straight up, there are WMD. Should he have dismissed this assurance from the then-highly-regarded CIA head? Certainly in retrospect he should have. At the time, though, he voted to begin a process that was later aborted by the WH.

My point is that Edwards' path on this subject mirrors that of the electorate. He can, if he will, step forward and say that hindsight has very painfully showed us the awful truth about this administration, and that we - those Dems and voters who believed - must now lead the US out of the quagmire.

[NCarolinawoman]

122. Edwards served on the same Intelligence Committee as Senator Bob Graham.

Senator Graham wrote a book on how the intelligence that was presented could not be believed.

Edwards's own Congressman, Brad Miller, did not vote for the war because he said the evidence was not convincing.

John Edwards supported the war long after it was revealed that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

His vote was either very poor judgment or a cynical strategy to prove how tough he was. Unfortunately, there were others with Presidential ambitions who voted the same way for the same reasons.

[venable]

126. he did not 'defend' the war long after

WMD evidence went south. He didn't oppose it, either. He did, I admit, skirt the WMD question by saying, when asked about the war, "It's a good thing Saddam is gone." I think we would agree that doesn't cut to the heart of the matter, ie the lies about WMD, Al Qaeda, etc. I do believe that what he meant to do was to say to those families who lost sons and daughters and fathers and mothers that their loss was not for naught. Enough cruelty has resulted from the war that this no longer pertains, so he has stepped forward against both the war, and his vote.

Let's not forget that he, along with Kucinich, was adamant - far more than Kerry or others - against the additional $180B that w wanted. He voted against that, even though it was politically dangerous, ie he voted for the war resolution, but against additional funds when troops were on the ground. He paid for this vote, he knew he would pay for the vote, but he did it because he knew it was right.

[G_j]

106. one of the earliest and most outspoken Democratic hawks on Iraq

as a resident of NC and one who actively opposed invading Iraq, I have a negative impression of him. He essentially ignored us. I have stood outside his local office in vigil, filled out comment forms there, written him letters, called his local and DC offices. We felt like we were invisible to him.
It is hard for to get past that. Many peace activists in NC share these feelings and you would probably be hard pressed to find a single one who would support him.
-------
And his statements were more bellicose and hawkish than most other Ds.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
-- Senator John Edwards (D-North Carolina)
October 10, 2002
---------------
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/396vvexd.asp

Although Democrats, including Kerry, had long paid lip service to a policy of regime change in Iraq, Edwards was one of the earliest and most outspoken Democratic hawks on Iraq following the September 11 attacks. On February 24, 2002, he described Saddam Hussein's regime as an "imminent threat" in an interview on CNN. "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

Later that year, on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Edwards said that the "time has come for decisive action" on Iraq-a statement still posted on his Senate (website?)
by an Iraq with weapons of mass destruction and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein." And what if the U.N. Security Council were to refuse support for such decisive action? "Then we must act with as many allies as possible to ensure Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security Council resolutions." Edwards continued: "The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror."

These words are striking not only because they echo the central arguments the Bush administration made in support of ousting Saddam, but because they came one month beforeCongress voted to authorize the war. Edwards, who today suggests that the Iraq War was "needless," warned in ominous language about the Iraqi threat in an October 10, 2002 floor speech: "I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action."

Edwards continued: "Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility." The war, he said, would not undermine U.S. efforts to get Osama bin Laden. "I believe this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."
<snip>

[venable]

120. your recollection is right, and supports my argument

First let me point out that Edwards has said, publically, that the war was a mistake, and that his vote was a mistake.

Refreshing candor, IMO.

And what you assemble here to show Edwards' hawkishness is precisely what I mean about Edwards being the one with the credibility with the electorate to lead us out of this morass.

What he said at the time happens to coincide with the understanding of vast majority of the nation (not you, and not me, but the vast majority believing the mushroom cloud imagery propagated by the Rove/Cheney/Perle machine.

Please do not forget that Tenet said to Edwards, point blank, the nuke threat is real. What is he to do with this kind of statement.

He now knows, and ADMITS, that it was a mistake. The nation, once believed, and now knows it was a mistake. Perfect situation for him to step forward and say, "Now that we know this catastrophe should never have happened, we must make things right, and we must do it now and intelligently and aggressively."

[G_j]

123. If you could provide

a link or something where Edwards has said he made a mistake, I would be appreciative. I have heard others say this about him also but I have not actually seen the quotes.

I don't share your view of Edwards as a candidate, however we do need
examples of 'leaders' who are big enough to admit when they were wrong. I hope others can learn from such examples.

peace

[venable]

124. fair enough

he said it as recently as today, and I apologize that I'll have to find the link.
But I will.

[ClassWarrior]

2. It doesn't matter if we don't win 2006. Focus please.

NGU.

[npincus]

6. it's never too early to put a wannabe's feet to the fire

and to use another cliche: the bed they are making now will be the one they will have to lie in later. It's time to get the "players" in our party to assert themselves as leaders and define their ideas/plans on the most important issues of our time.

BTW, I feel optimistic about 2006. Now.

[confludemocrat]

8. Right, it's not too late for bigname Demos to "get right" about Iraq

if not, 2006 will look like 2002 and 2004.

[ClassWarrior]

10. It's important to put our own reps' feet to the fire, no matter what...

...their ambitions. But it's counterproductive to worry about 2008 now. A lot can happen between now and then.

NGU.

[npincus]

18. I agrree with the first part

but don't think it's counter-productive at all for high profile Dems to speak about on how America should proceed in Iraq going forward whether it's to "stay the course" (ugh) or get out.

I don't think putting rep's feet to the fire for 2006 and high-profile nomination seekers for 2008 are mutually exclusive. I am afraid it is becoming a fixed impression in the general public that GOP has bad idea and Dems have no ideas- unfortunately, many vote for the devil they know.

[ClassWarrior]

25. That's not what you said in the first place.

You asked specifically about who'd be a good candidate on the Iraq issue in 2008. But we need to remind people that 2006 is just as important an election - if not more so. Otherwise we'll get typical off-year apathy. THAT'S what makes talking 2008 counterproductive.

And as I said, it's ALWAYS a good idea to put our elected officials' feet to the fire on the issue of war. Please don't try to twist my words.

NGU.

[democrank]

3. Clark.

General Wesley Clark. He has been against this war from the beginning and would use his vast knowledge of international and military affairs to craft an exit.

[belle]

9. Maybe Clark, yeah. At least he has the cred and the chops.

I just wish there were a way to make this bunch of lying fuckheads clean up their own mess before they leave.

[ClassWarrior]

11. Actually, it's looking more and more like Wes is a "stay the course" guy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2160023&mesg_id=2160023

NGU.

[Donna Zen]

15. As you know

...or maybe you don't, Clark is loud and clear on "change the course." Now of course he doesn't advocate for a plan, which he has presented. He also has demanded that bush present a plan, something I agree with.

Feingold, to the best of my knowledge, has said we get out in 18 months with "some" plan. But to date, Feingold has not presented a plan.

Change vs stay? That doesn't sound remotely the same to me. It may be a difference of news filter, mine doesn't have an anti-Clark or anti-Feingold setting. I'm actually listening.

[mike_c]

21. "change the course" is a rhetorical smokescreen....

It accepts the mission objectives, just proposes new ways to achieve them. I reject the objectives. Abandon the course.

[karynnj]

17. As a person, who is not a Clark supporter - this was the Democratic

maessage and he may have made an effort to keep things vague to attempt to reflect the whole spectrum of opinion.

[mike_c]

20. this "craft an exit" crap is such a hoot....

Exit plan:

1) leave the infrastructure behind-- load all coalition troops into vehicles;

2) troops north and west of Baghdad, withdraw to Baghdad (northernmost and westernmost troops first) for ongoing airlift to forward U.S. bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Germany, Turkey, etc.-- disable and abandon vehicles at the airport if airlifting them out slows the withdrawal of troops (that will aid the disposal of munitions, too);

3) troops north of an-Najaf do the same as #2;

4) forces south of an-Najaf drive to the Kuwait border and return to forward bases in Kuwait;

5) Fly troops from forward bases to the U.S. as quickly as possible.

Steps 1-4 could be completed within 30 days. It's called an orderly retreat. Armies have been doing it for centuries. Step 5 would likely take a little longer, but at least they'd be out of Iraq.

Any other "exit plan" unnecessarily prolongs the madness, buys into the neocon objectives of regional hegemony, etc. Get. Them. Out. Now.

on edit-- this presumes the Saudis would not allow withdrawal staging from Saudi Arabia, but they quite likely would. Look at a map-- most U.S. forces in southwestern Iraq are within a couple of days drive of the Saudi border, which provides an alternate route back to Kuwait.

[sandnsea]

66. You don't care about the Iraqi's

This is as uncaring and Americacentric as the right wing who wants to blow them all up with a nuke. Fuck the Iraqi's, as long as OUR troops aren't dead!! At least be honest about it.

If we can get out and leave stability behind, we ought to do it. It is just the decent and moral thing to do.

[mike_c]

68. the longer we stay, the worse it will get for the Iraqis...

...and ultimately, for the entire ME.

Look, if America had never invaded, 100,000 Iraqis would still be alive, the power would be on, water available, and so on.

If after invading, America withdrew as soon as the Iraqi army was defeated, tens of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, and Saddam Hussein would have quickly restored civil order and essential services, as he did following the first Gulf War. There would be no Iraqi insurgency. Iraq was no threat to anyone anyway.

If America had withdrawn from Iraq at the time of the CPA "handover" many thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, and the insurgency would never have organized beyond sporadic resistance. Falluja and Tal-Afar would never have been subjected to genocidal "cleansing." Many Iraqis might be genuinely grateful for the removal of Saddam Hussein, particularly the Shi'a.

America has not withdrawn yet, and Iraq is effectively destroyed as a nation. It's people have been reduced from one of the best educated, secular, and urbane societies in the middle east to that of refugees in their own nation, eeking out an existence in the rubble without even basic services across much of the country. Iraq is spiralling into tribal and sectarian civil war.

This is what the occupation has wrought. Every day of occupation since the invasion, Iraq has moved further from "stability" and deeper into barbarism. The occupation is responsible for this, and yet you still think that if it continues, the lot of Iraqis will improve?

A withdrawal of American forces now won't result in an immediate improvement of conditions for Iraqis-- in fact, the short term violence will likely increase, perhaps catastrophically. That's the hysteresis of violent occupation, and it is inevitable, whether we go now or stay longer. But if we stay longer the outcome will be even worse-- the trajectory I described above has been relentless. Why would you think that it will change now, or in the near future? In a generation maybe, but America cannot sustain an occupation that long.

[sandnsea]

74. Guess what, we did invade

So what iffing about what would have happened if we hadn't is pointless. Two years ago, people around here were supporting Sadr. Now they're in an uproar because the Constitution creates an Islamic state, which is exactly what Sadr wanted. At the same time, they deny that there is any possibility whatsoever that a portion of the fighting is due to that same rejection of the kind of Islamic state Sadr and others want to create. The US troops are simply not causing ALL the violence in Iraq. I would venture over 50% of it is these groups promoting their own interests by using the troop presence to their benefit. Troops or no troops, Iraq would be in turmoil today. And invasion or no invasion, a portion of Iraq would still be without power, food, medicine and would be subject to torture. To deny that is to be just as pig-headed as the Bushbots.

But the point is, if you can support an immediate withdrawal with no care as to what would happen to those left behind, then don't use the Iraqi deaths as an excuse to withdraw. The violence isn't going to stop if we withdraw, anybody who is being honest with themselves about what's happening there knows that. The only reason to deny it is if one has a political agenda that is more important to them than the lives of the Iraqis.

[mike_c]

76. did you read beyond the first line of my response...?

I wasn't indulging in fantasy about what might have happened if we hadn't invaded-- I was suggesting that there has been a consistent correlation between the length of U.S. occupation and the deterioration of conditions for Iraqis, number of Iraqis violently murdered, loss of social and political stability, etc. A trend. A trajectory. No progress toward any good outcome has been made. Quite the opposite-- the longer the occupation continues, the worse conditions become. Unless you think that will change, that the occupation will begin to produce stability and peace, it's hard to imagine what there is to gain, for Iraqis or for Americans, by staying.

Note too that the Iraqis-- all segments of Iraqi society (except the interim gov't, of course)-- oppose continuing the U.S. occupation by a large majority. THEY want us to leave. Since it's their future you want to protect, don't you think we should respect their wishes in regard to it?

[sandnsea]

81. That isn't true

I just had this argument the other day, ONE poll has slightly more Iraqis calling for us to leave immediately. The rest want us to either stay until there is complete stability, or until the election process is complete. People on the left have been saying the Iraqi's want us to leave since the day we got there, the polls have been all over the map on the matter. Now that's the truth, although like I said, Iraq quit being about the truth decades ago. Nobody tells the truth about Iraq, not the left, not the right. It's all about winning a political ideological battle and the Iraqi's are caught in the middle of it.

It is much like saying the conditions in Iraq only get worse. Certainly that is true for some, those who were accustomed to the best of conditions under Saddam. But ask the poor in Saddam City whether things are better. You might be surprised to know many of them do have it better, because conditions for them were horrific under Saddam. But you don't look at that because it doesn't fit in with your political agenda.

I am sick of this shit. I am sick of the distortions from all sides. I'm sick of people who are trying to promote a way to get out called "stay the course" warmongers. I'm sick of people who say they're for getting "out now", turn around and say that's not exactly what they mean, of course it has to be a measured withdrawal. Of course we need the UN or the Arab states to help with security. Of course there has to be elections and an Iraq security force. That's what "out now" really means, doncha know.

Sick to fucking death of the bullshit.

[1932]

82. 80% want us to leave according to the most reliable poll.

Check out David Ender talking about the polls in Iraq on FAIR's CounterSpin:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2672

Here's his blog:

http://www.gnn.tv/users/user.php?id=4376

[sandnsea]

83. Oh really?

And why is this the "most reliable" poll? Because it fits with your political ideology?

It's been a mixed bag, from the gate.

http://www.comw.org/pda/0501br17append.html

And I could put up the poll that shows 70% of Iraqi's think things are headed in the right direction in Iraq, but I don't like propaganda, as I've already said.

[1932]

84. I'll let you answer that question for yourself after you listen to mp3

Oh, what the hell. I'll tell you now.

Because the firm conducting the poll is run by an Iraqi who was actually a stastician before the invasion. He's a pro. He also goes into many of the areas where other polling firms don't go, and he doesn't use only the phone, unlike some other polls.

At least that's how I remember the story.

Let me know when you've finished listening.

[sandnsea]

85. You didn't read anything I said

I don't give two rats ass who did this fucking poll. My entire point is that half the problem in Iraq is their own political operatives manipulating the people for their own ends. What the hell would I care about an unknown Iraqi's poll? You don't know who this is, why do you just gobble it up as truth because it says what you want to hear?

Reality check. Bush is not going to leave Iraq. The only hope for our troops and the Iraqi people is an alternative solution that will work, that will leave Iraq stable so we can bring our troops home. That's the exit strategy. It is not warmongering. It is not stay the course. It's reality. And it isn't any goddamned different than what 99% of the "out now" people want either.

I am fed up with the politicization by people who pretend they're more compassionate than the right when the truth is they would rather see Iraq obliterated than the occupation end up a success. It's disgusting and I'm tired of pretending it isn't true.

People want this war to end, they need to start dealing with the truth, ALL the truth, not just the bits and pieces that feed their own agenda.

[1932]

86. The only thing I'm talking about is polling.

If 80% of Iraqis don't want the US there according to a reliable poll, it's probably worth incorporating that fact into your thinking.

You're right. I didn't read anything else you wrote. But I'm not talking about anything else you wrote. Have your debate about those other issues with someone else. I just wanted to expose DU readers to the Enders interview, and your post opened the door by mentioning polling...

As for Bush not leaving Iraq, Nixon left Vietnam, and congress controls the purse strings. Public sentiment can change politics. All of the house and a third of the Senate is elected every two years.

By the way, "leaving Iraq stable" -- where's the example of this happening following an illegal invasion anywhere else? The Philippines? Is Panama an example?

I just don't see it happening.

[sandnsea]

89. You want to wait ten years?

Sorry, Nixon and Vietnam is a ridiculous argument if we can adopt language and a strategy that will allow us to get out in a year. Panama and the Philippines have been relatively stable, although not perfectly as most countries aren't. As is Hawaii, bunch of Pacific Islands, some Caribbean Islands, S Korea. The Balkans will be stable within ten years. The history of the world is filled with invasions and periods of stabilitiy. It's not my preference, but it is reality.

You want to put up your poll, that's fine. Not a problem. I never brought up polls in the first place though, so I don't know why you would have responded to me with it.

[1932]

91. You said this:

"ONE poll has slightly more Iraqis calling for us to leave immediately. The rest want us to either stay until there is complete stability."

I was responding to that.

Why is Nixon a ridiculous example? Do you think the Republicans wanted to leave Vietnam without making a "success" of it? Wesley Clark's books (both of them) argue that it was a lack of political will that caused the US to abandon Vietnam. He thinks we could have made a success of Vietnam had the politicians not given up. Through a different lense (ie): it was politicians responding to democratic will that brought an end to that imperial endeavour (which was doomed to fail from the outset -- it's unfortunate that they didn't consult informed popular opinion during the LBJ administration).

Hawaii notwithstanding, no country we have invaded and occupied and either subverted or manufactured a "democracy" in order to ensure profits for American companies is doing well.

The Phillipines is still a mess, by the way, and I don't think you can dismiss the role played by the US by saying that it's in the same boat as many other countries (that we're exploiting). From the BBC:

In 1986, President Ferdinand Marcos stepped down after mass demonstrations accompanied allegations of electoral manipulation.

In January 2001 President Joseph Estrada relinquished power following months of protests. Mr Estrada has been charged with plundering the economy for his own benefit - a crime punishable by death.

A separatist conflict on Mindanao, in the southern Philippines, has claimed more than 120,000 lives over three decades. Sporadic violence has continued despite a ceasefire and peace talks.

Other Muslim separatists, the Abu Sayyaf group on Jolo, have a history of violence towards hostages, and the government has declared all-out war on the rebels.

Though it once boasted one of the region's best-performing economies, the Philippines is saddled with a huge national debt and poverty is widespread. The economy is heavily dependent on the money sent home by the millions of Filipinos working abroad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1262783.stm

As for Panama, 40% of the country lives in poverty and corruption and cronyism is widespread. For a country with such a valuable resource, it's ridiculous that so many of its citizens do so poorly.

[sandnsea]

93. And that...

was in response to somebody else's reference to polls. I didn't bring it up.

The Philippines is nowhere near as big a mess as Iraq is, and it never has been. I said other countries aren't perfect, that's a given. You don't have to list source after source to prove it. But they aren't all Vietnams and that's all I said.

As to Clark, I have this uncanny ability to hold two thoughts in my head at the same time. He's a bit deluded on his Vietnam and political will theory, but he's right on how to get out of Iraq. Not that hard, try it sometime.

[1932]

94. Why so nasty?

You commented on polls. I replied. I understand you don't care about polls, but the Enders information is still useful and informative.

My bet is that Iraq is going to end up like the Phillipines and not llike Hawaii, which isn't good, especially considering how much money and blood we're spending there.

[sandnsea]

95. Deception

It just has that affect on me.

As does manipulation, which is what you're attempting to do by indicating you were just posting some poll stuff. How'd you get to discussions about other countries if you were just posting poll stuff? :eyes:

We should hope Iraq turns out as well as the Philippines. Beats the hell out of Iran.

[1932]

99. Deception? Pointing out David Enders' comment about the Iraqi-run

poll is deception?

I'm trying to expand the base of information upon which people are making decisions.

Get a grip.

[sandnsea]

108. I didn't say that

And you know I didn't say that. Hope you get a thrill out of your immature little game. While people are dying. Kind of my point.

[1932]

116. Again, why so nasty towards me?

Before you said that it was because of deception and manipulation, but then you said that you didn't say that, and then you were nasty again.

[mike_c]

88. see lynn's post....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2159971#2160426

[sandnsea]

96. See #83

I posted a link to what is basically a recap of the polls she posted. Mixed bag, like I said. Only ONE has a clear majority of Iraqi's supporting immediate withdrawal. Most want the US to stay until the election process is complete and/or until there is stability. Regardless, my point is that the polls don't matter all that much unless you factor in the politicization that is going on in Iraq. Just like it goes on here. From all sides. The least we can do is get some measure of stability in place and that's what everybody should be pushing for. Imagine if 55% of Americans repeated ONE THING, where is the Iraqi security? That's it, that's all. Maybe then we'd make some real progress and could start bringing our troops home. What the hell is so warmongering about that?

http://www.comw.org/pda/0501br17append.html

[LynnTheDem]

104. Now that's quite a fib.

1. January 2005: 82 percent of Sunni Arabs and 69 percent of Shiites favor US withdrawal(Zogby)

I'd call that a clear majority. Wouldn't you?

2. 2005; Newsweek reports that "Every major poll shows an ever-larger majority of Iraqis want the Americans to leave."

That appears to be saying a clear majority. Doesn't it?

3. June 2004: 30 percent desire immediate withdrawal, 51 percent want withdrawal after a government is elected...

News flash! The govt is elected! 51% would be a clear majority!

4. June 2004: 53 percent say leave now or "within a few months" or "until an Interim Government is in place" or "in six months to a year";

Gee, another clear majority!

5. February 2004: 56.3 percent of Iraqis somewhat or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq. "Strongly oppose" versus "strongly support" is 2.5-to-1

Huh...a clear majority!

6. June 2004: 67 percent of Iraqis strongly or somewhat oppose the presence of Coalition troops

67%...hey that would be a clear majority!

7. June 2004: 58 percent of Iraqis somewhat or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq.

Wow I think 58% is also considered a clear majority.

8. 57% said the coalition should "leave immediately"...
Among respondents in Shi'ite and Sunni Arab areas-- that is, leaving out Kurdish respondents--the numbers favoring an immediate pullout were even higher: 61% to 30% among Shi'ites and 65% to 27% among Sunnis.

In Baghdad, where U.S. forces are concentrated, the numbers were highest of all: 75% favored an immediate pullout, with only 21% opposed.

Now that's all quite a clear majority, huh?

9. Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, which is partly funded by the State Department and has coordinated its work with the Coalition Provisional Authority, more than half of all Iraqis-- including the Kurds-- want an immediate withdrawal of US forces...

And ANOTHER clear majority!

10. 55% of Iraqis say they would feel safer if Coalition forces departed right away.

Guess what! A clear majority!

Want more?

[sandnsea]

107. Reading comprehension

Wow. We're talking about immediate withdrawal vs. withdrawal over some period of time. None of the polls have a majority supporting immediate withdrawal. While in February 51% said they wanted withdrawal when a government was in place, in June, when the government was in place, the majority still didn't say "leave now". They said "within a few months" or "until an Interim Government is in place" or "in six months to a year". You're the one who is fibbing. Just like the first Zogby poll did when it lumped everybody together, the separate numbers are the same as the rest of the polls. Obviously the majority want the troops to leave, nobody wants to live in a country occupied by a military. They'd say the same thing if it were Arab troops or UN troops. Yes, they'd want those troops to leave too. That's very different than saying that they think the troops are causing all the problems or that the violence would end if the troops left. Since I don't believe you're stupid, I have to conclude you're intentionally manipulating the facts to support your political agenda. I find that repulsive.

[LynnTheDem]

109. Yes you do have a problem with reading comp

Quote: None of the polls have a majority supporting immediate withdrawal.

Now that's just not true, is it;

Poll-February 2004 my dear. It's now October 2005.

Poll-June 2004 my dear. It's now October 2005.

Poll-March-April 2004: 57 percent, "leave immediately";

Poll-January 2005: 82 percent of Sunni Arabs and 69 percent of Shiites favor US withdrawal. “Only the Kurds seem to favor a continued U.S. presence, and are likely to outright reject violent resistance,” Zogby added.

Poll-57% said the coalition should "leave immediately"

Among respondents in Shi'ite and Sunni Arab areas-- that is, leaving out Kurdish respondents--the numbers favoring an immediate pullout were even higher: 61% to 30% among Shi'ites and 65% to 27% among Sunnis.

In Baghdad, where U.S. forces are concentrated, the numbers were highest of all: 75% favored an immediate pullout, with only 21% opposed.

Poll-more than half of all Iraqis-- including the Kurds-- want an immediate withdrawal of US forces...

Please do try to improve your reading comprehension, wontcha? ;)

[sandnsea]

113. As I said above

ONE poll. I should not have said "none". But do you want me to go back and get the August 2005 poll that says the exact opposite? The point is that we have a responsibility, and it is even under the Geneva Conventions, to not leave any of these people open to a slaughter. If you care about the deaths of Iraqis', then I don't see how you can advocate a strategy that would cause even more death.

Keep in mind, I never thought we should be doing any of this search and destroy and military missions at all. I think we should pull out of the cities altogether and let a natural police force rise up. I think people like Clark and Kerry believe much the same, we need a different strategy so that we can get out. And I believe the Iraqi people want that strategy to lead to a successful government and security. I think when you take all the polls, combined, it's pretty clear.

Finally, I've had enough "out now" people tell me that they're really supporting a strategic withdrawal over the course of a year or so, that I find the whole anti-war movement a joke. I do not understand what kinds of contortions one has to go through to verbalize "out now", and then introduce a bill in Congress that calls for security, governance and reconstruction. It makes no damned sense to me. How can you attack somebody for being honest about an exit strategy when you're pretending you're for something different, but you're not? That's a generic "you", not a "you" you. It pisses me the hell off.

[LynnTheDem]

115. Good grief. I gave you FOUR.

FOUR. 4. Number after 3.

Poll-March-April 2004: 57 percent, "leave immediately";

Poll-January 2005: 82 percent of Sunni Arabs and 69 percent of Shiites favor US withdrawal. “Only the Kurds seem to favor a continued U.S. presence, and are likely to outright reject violent resistance,” Zogby added.

Poll-57% said the coalition should "leave immediately"

Among respondents in Shi'ite and Sunni Arab areas-- that is, leaving out Kurdish respondents--the numbers favoring an immediate pullout were even higher: 61% to 30% among Shi'ites and 65% to 27% among Sunnis.

In Baghdad, where U.S. forces are concentrated, the numbers were highest of all: 75% favored an immediate pullout, with only 21% opposed.

Poll-more than half of all Iraqis-- including the Kurds-- want an immediate withdrawal of US forces...

FOUR.

Hey you are so right, FUCK the Iraqis! Let's STAY in Iraq and CONTINUE to SLAUGHTER them, RAPE them, MURDER them, STEAL from them, TORTURE them, WAR-PROFITEER....RAH RAH RAH!

Good fucking grief.

EOM with you, buh bye.

[sandnsea]

117. NO, you manipulated THREE

And compiled "leaving someday" into immediate withdrawal. I've looked at the individual polls, as taken. They don't say what you say they say.

Let's leave Iraq and let them slaughter, rape and murder each other. Rah Rah Rah.

Good fucking grief is right.

[LynnTheDem]

121. rotfl! "manipulated"...by QUOTING directly from the polls!

WOW what a neat trick!

:rofl:

You're hilarious. ;)

[Donna Zen]

70. There are many DUers who don't care how many die.

They have convinced themselves that the Iraq that existed under Saddam, who really was a dictator, will thrive once we're gone. Forget Vietnam and think Yugoslavia after Tito. All of the bottled up frustrations of decades are about to pour down on Iraq, the spoils of war. I'm currently reading "Night Draws Near" which is the reporting of the actual lives of the people who have suffered because of this war. The new "moral authority" here believes that all of those people will be just fine, and if not, so what. They have no clue.

Actually, the poster actually posted a plan instead of some raucus ego rant in bold capital letters. I thanked them for that.

[mike_c]

72. I'm not under any illusions about what will happen if we leave....

See my response immediately above yours. I just think continuing the occupation is morally indefensible, and that it will only make matters worse. WE have placed Iraqis in the jeopardy they're in now, but continuing the same process that created this situation will not fix it. It will only make it worse. My corollary to the pottery barn rule: once it's broken, repeated smashing won't fix it.

[LynnTheDem]

105. There are many DUers who don't care what the IRAQIS want.

There are many DUers with a huge White Man's Burden complex.

[sandnsea]

111. No, some people just don't manipulate the facts

First of all, aren't you the one screaming about them creating an Islamic state? From the polls I read, that's what they want. So who are you to have a fit about it?

Second, the polls say the people want the US troops until there's a stable government. The polls on immediate withdrawal are in the 30% range and have been consistently.

Third, don't pretend to care about the deaths of the Iraqis if you support a strategy that would knowingly leave people open to a slaughter. The callous disregard is stunning to me. It's against the Geneva Conventions too, in case you weren't aware.

Fourth, two years ago Sadr was a hero and his followers were justified in fighting the US occupation. Now you're outraged that Islamic fundamentalism is taking over?? And now the Sunnis are justified in fighting the US occupation. If you don't see the absurdity in those conflicting positions, and the politicization by those groups, then you're just being intentionally obtuse. Because again, I don't believe you're stupid.

I don't believe it helps us get out of Iraq by distorting the facts or grabbing at anything to justify attacking Bush on the war. The Iraq's WANT a government in place and stability, FIRST, then the troops to leave. That is what they WANT. We may not be able to give that to them, but setting out a course that will actually provide security and some form of government is NOT warmongering or "stay the course". Manipulating the facts to say it is, is NOT forcing Bush to change course and is NOT moving us closer to the day we can pull the troops out.

[LynnTheDem]

112. You are...

1. Wrong. Because if you'd read my posts you'd know the #1 thing posted on all of them is the fact that MOST IRAQIS have not even read the "constitution" they voted on.

2. Wrong. The average is well into the 60%, as the polls I've posted many times very clearly show.

3. Wrong. And again what an incredibly ignorant remark. Most experts say you are wrong. I say you are wrong. But feel free to continue spewing the usual conquering invader bullshit.

4. Wrong. ALL Iraqis are justified in fighting US and coalition troops,a nd I have never called lunatic Sadr a ":hero". Nice try at "manipulating facts". ;)

Huh. You're just wrong. :)

[sandnsea]

114. Well that was informative

Cute over substance while people die. Over and over and over again.

[Cults4Bush]

118. How about you don't pretend to support Cindy Sheehan with her

quote on your sig line, then?

Hypocrisy cuts both ways and often when we vent we become that which we are venting against. Your posts on this thread almost seem to be a series of that. Your righteous indignation rings hollow when cast about with such broad brushes.

Comparatively speaking (posts on this thread wise) your ego seems to be completely out of bounds here. You think you have the answers by calling bullshit on anyone who disagrees with you, automatically labeling them warmongers and out nowers and how bad bad bad they are for engaging in furtherence of their agendas which is exactly what you are doing. Which would be presumptive and manipulative of you, something you seem to be railing against all over the place on this thread.

You launched attacks against large numbers of DU'ers, what's worse is the relentless attacks you launched against the peace movement which you supoosedly at one time supported. You seem to be a poster concerned with cold and concrete facts. That is a childish dream and naive at best when regarding something of this magnitude. You should know better by now that you have to filter the left side as well as the right side. Thats a fact you have ignored... as well as probably a few others seeing as you are human just like the rest of us.

The accusations you hurtled indiscriminately like "you dont care about Iraqis" and other hyperbole laden vitriol do nothing for any arguments you may make. Thus you lose a mind that you are attempting to change. How good is that for what you are trying to get across? How much more you must like to vent than save the Iraqi peoples. At least that is how it appears when you go apeshit on the people who depsite your utter contempt for something or another they may say are your best hope as an individual for getting this cluster fuck over and done with.

[Donna Zen]

67. Great...

We have lots of "stuff" there, I take it you will just leave all of the communications equipment etc. behind. I can't do the numbers but I think that as long as we leave lots of stuff for the black markets weapons dealers, the plan might work.

Do we know anyone who has the exact logistics on this, or is that your specialty? I'm not being snarky, that's a serous question.

[mike_c]

71. no, I'm a biologist....

But I firmly believe that the occupation of Iraq is an ongoing crime, and why should criminals get to choose the time and manner of their withdrawal for their greatest convenience. Blow the gear up if it can't be extracted quickly. But the crime must stop, and saving the military hardware shouldn't be an exceptable excuse for continuing it.

[sandnsea]

75. That's a political argument

Not a humanitarian argument. True concern for the people in that country requires a humanitarian solution. Leaving them to suffer under whatever violent aftermath that would ensue on our withdrawal is not a peace loving response in my book.

[mike_c]

77. continuing the occupation, against their expressed wishes...

...is not a humanitarian solution either. The occupation has killed tens of thousands, and continues killing them daily. The Iraqis have overwhelmingly polled in opposition to the occupation. Giving them self determination and stopping a brutal occupation seems more humanitarian than the alternative of being worse than Saddam but not nearly as effective-- under the occupation, their lives just get worse and worse, the violence grows out of control, and so on. Where's the humanitarianism in that?

[cwydro]

53. yeah, that is what

I'm thinking too. He is the only one who could probably swing the disgruntled rightie voters.

[IndianaGreen]

57. I don't feel sorry for the "disgruntled rightie voters"

The only reason many of them are angry at Bush is because of high gas prices. We have nothing in common with them. The more you try to attract those people, the more likely you are to lose your base.

[cwydro]

58. hey, I don't feel sorry for them either

just thinking every vote counts. We have to win this time. I see your point though...

[jonnyblitz]

103. I really don't think it is Clark. nt

[confludemocrat]

4. Gore

not Feingold, he's a bullshitter.

[Cocoa]

12. Feingold deserves better than that

I like Gore also, by the way.

[stray cat]

13. Can you give examples - Feingold is one of most straight-forward

I always know where Feingold stands and his reasons for it whether I agree or not. He has never sold out to anyone. He is a politician in the best sense of the word and has never been a partisan hack.

[confludemocrat]

19. I don't see him as straightforward I see him as schooled by Kerrys errors

in a way that has him making the message enough different to sound like he has a fundamentally different view when he really doesn't.

from last week http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/10/10/feingold/

"I would then say to the president that I believe the Iraq war was a divergence from the real issue. Unfortunately, in many ways, it has played into the hands of those who attacked us on 9/11. I witnessed the connection that has grown between Osama bin Laden, al-Zarqawi and now Iraqis who have been radicalized because of our invasion of Iraq. So I would urge him to think in terms of a strategy where we finish the military mission]. I would ask him to put forward a plan to identify what that mission is, what the benchmarks are that need to be achieved and when they can be achieved, and that he publicly announce a target withdrawal date, so that the American people, the Iraqi people and the world can see that this is in no way intended to be a permanent American occupation."

he didn't have to tacitly endorse a "military mission", sounding like Kerry--but he did
He could have discussed the need to end an illegal unjust immoral war in the way that was palatable to so-called moderates i.e., "crafted his message" but he didn't.

he is maybe better than Kerry, but his mesage on Iraq is fundamentally the same as Kerry's except he has not advocated sending more troops

[sybylla]

26. As a Wisconsinite who's voted for Feingold three times

I want to assure you that the last I would ever call Feingold is a Kerry Democrat.

Kerry wasn't my guy. Kerry will never by my guy. But if Feingold wants a chance at the presidency, every free moment I have I will donate to the Feingold campaign.

This man is smart, he doesn't take any shit from pukes, and he's feet to the fire honest 24/7.

He was the first and until recently the only Dem stepping forward putting pressure on the administration to get out. He voted against going into Iraq. WTF more do you want?

[mike_c]

29. I want him to stop calling for 15 mos more engagement with...

...the meat grinder in Iraq, that's what.

[ClassWarrior]

30. Nice frame job. He's the only Sen. calling for an exit strategy, and...

...you cleverly name it "more engagement." Frank Luntz would be proud.

NGU.

[mike_c]

31. what would you call it? He's saying "The war in Iraq is a disaster..."

"...let's continue it for 15 more months." That's how long until his Dec.31 2006 withdrawal date. That's not a frame job-- that's Feingold's "exit plan." Can you see anything in there about getting out of Iraq as quickly as possible? Feingold admits the war is a disaster-- why does he call for continuing it until Dec. 2006? If it's a disaster, why not withdraw immediately? We need leaders with the courage to call this pig a pig, and demand an end to it now, not 15 months from now. How many more lives would that 15 mos sacrifice to political expediency?

[ClassWarrior]

32. You tell me.

Why does he call for that? Feingold is one elected official who's never afraid to give his rationale for doing what he does - like it or not. If you don't know what that is in this case, then you haven't done your research.

NGU.

[mike_c]

33. I know why he's doing it-- the same reason that Kerry refused...

...to take a stance against the war ever. He's looking toward the future of his own presidential ambitions and doing the political calculus. "Let's see, how can I oppose the war in Iraq without offending the folks who still think it's worth fighting, or who believed the lies at the beginning, or who don't want to face the thought of all those lives squandered for nothing?" Answer: acknowledge that the war is a complete cock-up, but urge resolve and patience for 15 more months. That's just politics as usual, IMO. Meanwhile the death, destruction, and waste continue to accelerate.

[ClassWarrior]

35. In other words, why do the research when it's less work just to...

...jump to one's own conclusion?

NGU.

[mike_c]

43. 'bro, my conclusion is based on my research...

...which I'll be the first to admit is imperfect. I'm a scientist, not a pundit. However, if you have some additional information to contribute, please do so. I'm actually quite interested in why you apparently see some logic in Feingold's position. Insulting me serves little purpose, and it certainly won't change my mind, but a cogent argument might.

[ClassWarrior]

56. Why are you so afraid to go to Russ' site and learn the answer...

...to your own question directly from the source?? Huh? I mean, if you're really as concerned about this as you claim to be, why don't you bring the answer back here and refute it for us point-by-point rather than throwing around a lot of meaningless fluff and speculation about his motives? What are you afraid of finding?

NGU.

[mike_c]

61. OK-- I don't understand why you're pursuing this so vehemently...

...but here you go. I've gone to the trouble to perform this exercise at your request, so please do me the courtesy of reading it and commenting without rancor.

Let me preface this by saying that I think Russ Feingold is one of the better Democratic senators, and that I think he would make a fine president in most respects. I agree with MANY of his positions on many issues, and of all the dem senators, he and Barbara Boxer come closest to my ideals. However, this thread was initiated by my comment that I wish he'd stop calling for continuing the war against Iraq for 15 more months. This is a crucial time in American history and I believe we need leadership with the courage to be completely honest about the choices we face and why we face them, and I think Feingold's position is not sufficiently forthright. Here are his comments regarding the proposed exit date as posted on his web site:

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/05/08/2005823.html

We must lance this growing threat in Iraq before more terrorists arrive, more Americans are killed, and more people are trained to go to London or Madrid, or New York or Los Angeles, in order to attack us.

(snip)

...I suggested last week, let’s talk about trying to finish this thing by December 31st, 2006. When I say finish I mean finish the military mission, finish the ground aspect of it. Obviously we would continue to help with many other aspects on the future of Iraq; it would be a flexible target date. Troop draw down could begin with deference to the military and the President, they should decide the timing and the order of when those troops should come home it’s not something that should be micromanaged by Congress and maybe somebody has a better idea of what the date should be, but I do firmly believe that we ought to have some sort of a public goal to get this thing done. After we leave with a military mission we would continue with military cooperation with the Iraqi government, of course to oppose the terrorist networks in Iraq, as we do in so many countries around the world, we need to do more of that.

OK, the first statement accepts the general premise that the U.S. has some duty to "lance" the insurgency in Iraq because it is the work of "arriving terrorists." If you believe that, then we can probably both save our breath right now, because we're not going to find much common ground. I believe that it is precisely our "lancing" that is generating the insurgency and any broader threat to Americans it might impose.

The second statement gives his date of 15 mos into the future for ending the "ground aspect" of the military mission. I'll say a bit more about the "military mission" in a moment, but let me first acknowledge that a significant proportion of the rest of this speech is devoted to describing why the war against Iraq is not going well, and why a pullout would be in our and the Iraqis interests. Yet if that's the case now, why linger for 15 more months, and even hold out the possibility of staying longer at the President's discretion? He goes on to talk about continued involvement fighting "the terrorist networks in Iraq," but that's a red herring at best and an endorsement of Bush's lies at worst. Even today Iraq offers little in terms of a "terrorist network," at least in the sense of international terrorism, and its internal strife is the direct result of the U.S. invasion and occupation, so if one were pressed to identify the major cause of terrorism in Iraq, which is overwhelmingly a part of the civil war Iraq is spiraling toward, it is the American presence.

I recognize that removing that presence isn't going to stop the civil strife-- look into the concept of hysteresis for an explanation-- but remaining for many more months will exacerbate the situation. In any event, the essential question remains-- if things are so bad, and they aren't going to get better, why continue the occupation until the end of 2006? Why not end it as soon as an orderly retreat can be accomplished, in one or two months?

And what of the "military mission?" What, precisely is the military mission that Feingold speaks of? Overthrowing Saddam Hussein? That was done two years ago. Capturing Hussein? Done. Dismantling a dangerous WMD program that was a threat to the world? Right. Establishing a new government? Done twice, going on a third time, although never done well, and this is arguably not an achievable military goal. Destroying Iraq's civil infrastructure. Done. Destroying Iraq's armed forces? Done. Rebuild Iraq's armed forces? This was certainly not part of the original military mission, and there is little indication that this is achievable by December of 2006. Destroy the insurgency? That's certainly not achievable by the end of 2006, if ever. The insurgency strengthens every day the U.S. remains. The point is that the ONLY justification Feingold gives for continuing the occupation until December 2006 is to "finish the military mission," but that mission is on the one hand nebulous and ill-defined, and on the other no more achievable by next December than it is by this December. So why stay the additional months? Why be the cause of further death and destruction between now and December 2006?

We must speak often, we must speak well, and we must speak with passion about American lives and about protecting our nation from the fanatical persons and organizations that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001 and continue to attack us. When we talk of it we should not speak defensively or grudgingly but as proud Americans who continue to be outraged that our nation was attacked so viciously on 9/11. So four years after 9/11, and almost three years after the authorization of the Iraq war by the Congress, it’s time to speak broadly, and with imagination, about a better vision of our national security.

(snip)

But for me, since 9/11, I have believed that the threat of fundamentalists and jihadist based terrorism and the related networks and organizations is the most immediate threat to our nation, including our stability, our economy, and our confidence, including the lives of our children and our families.

Why must EVERY politician make rhetorical pilgrimage to ground zero in every damned speech, and especially in a speech about the war in Iraq? This accomplishes little more that reinforcing the meme that Iraq was somehow involved, and the the war against Iraq is somehow justified by the 9/11 attacks. I'm disappointed to hear this coming from Feingold.

But I'm even more disappointed to hear him repeat the RW talking point that jihadist terrorism is "the most immediate threat to our nation," especially since this statement follows a paragraph in which he listed numerous other threats that are far more grievous. If Feingold really believes this then he has drank too much Kool-Aid, and if he doesn't then he's just invoking the RW's favorite bogey man. Islamic jihadists have actually carried out attacks in America exactly twice--the WTC bombing in 1993 and the 9/11 attacks. It is true that American foreign policy, ESPECIALLY the occupation of Iraq, has focused the attention of jihadists upon future attacks on American soil, but that is hardly the most immediate threat to American stability or the lives of "our children and families." Our children and families are at greater risk from lightning strikes than of being killed by jihadists. Hunger, poverty, a burgeoning police state, disease, social injustice, environmental degradation-- all of these are greater threats to Americans than jihadists, and we have a great deal more control over eliminating them.

I'll stop here, but I'd like to return to my prefacing remarks. I LIKE Russ Feingold, but I won't support his presidential candidacy until he stops mincing around the truth about Iraq. I agree that he should be credited with being willing to go even this far, when most other dems are actively carrying water for the BFEE war criminals, but it isn't far enough to constitute courageous leadership in difficult times, IMO.

I also recognize that there was much to like in the speech I quoted from above, and that the remarks I quoted were removed from that generally favorable context. I did NOT change their meaning by doing so-- recall that the point of this was to illustrate my earlier points about Feingold's "exit date" using his own comments, taken from his own web site, as per your request.

[confludemocrat]

63. Superb post, thanks for doing us all a service and Feingold people may

end up liking this because they can now ask their man to clarify his position as you have asked, and hopefully they are of a mind to get a clear and forthright reading on what he is really saying. He cannot escape dealing with questions like this and so you are doing him and us a service by raising these questions now.

[ClassWarrior]

73. Excellent. Thank you. And I agree with you.

I'm just sick of people skewering our best allies in Congress with all kinds of knee-jerk "they're all playing politics" bitterness, and not a speck of fact-based perspective.

Our peace group's delegation to Feingold's office told him essentially what you said in this last post. We started by passing along our thanks for all he's done. But we made the point that it should only be a beginning. That he can do - and must do - so much better. I think our approach was appreciated and respected.

As for the resolution itself, it's the best we've got from the Senate so far - and I'll take my victories as they come. Even Russ himself calls it merely a starting point for discussion. So does Tom Hayden. And he's no slouch when it comes to the antiwar movement:

http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=213

Let's help Russ get there, not shoot him for not going fast enough.

NGU.

[mike_c]

78. thank you-- I appreciate your comments....

eom

[Cocoa]

36. and Kucinich's is Oct 1, 2006

so why do you support Dennis?

Recently, Kucinich introduced bipartisan legislation, H. J. Res. 55, calling on the President to present a plan to withdraw the troops by the end of the year, and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq on or before October 1, 2006.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=29589

[mike_c]

38. good point-- I support IMMEDIATE, UNCONDITIONAL...

...withdrawal from Iraq. Not in Oct. 2006, not in Dec. 2006. During his 2004 campaign Kucinich called for withdrawal as soon as possible, and I was confident that he would do so if elected. I do not support a "deadline" 12 mos from now. I want leadership with the courage to stop proposing continuation of the occupation of Iraq under any guise.

Is that clear enough? We can play verbal games all day long about "exit plans" and shifting political positions, but my position has never changed. I will not support any candidate who does not have the courage to face the reality of what America has done in Iraq and who does not call for an immediate cessation of the war. If Kucinich fails to do that, I will not support his candidacy. If Feingold sticks to his withdraw in 15 mos position-- and by the way, what happens if we're still in Iraq on January 1 2007-- will Feingold then switch to calling for immediate withdrawal, or will he simply advance his "exit date" into the future?-- but in any event, I will not support Feingold if he doesn't call for immediate withdrawal.

[IndianaGreen]

41. Kucinich wants immediate withdrawal, but he has worked in coalition

by sponsoring H.J. Res. 55, a bipartisan bill, that sets a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq. Prior to that, Kucinich was one of the sponsors and supporters of the Woolsey Amendment that called for a US withdrawal.

None of the other 2004 Democratic candidates, and none of the current crop of the presidential wannabees (except for the Feingold proposal), can match Kucinich's record against the war.

[Cocoa]

44. HJ Res. 55 calls for withdrawal to BEGIN no later than Oct 1

and does not mandate when ALL TROOPS must be out.

Feingold is calling for ALL TROOPS TO BE OUT by Dec. 31.

I support both of them, by the way. I think people's arguments against Feingold's position are lacking, is what I'm saying.

[IndianaGreen]

45. Feingold voted to put Roberts on the Supreme Court

while Kucinich's proposal is bipartisan.

[Cocoa]

48. that's quite a non-sequitur

all I can say is, touche :toast:

[IndianaGreen]

50. Listen Cocoa, Feingold and Kucinich both pass the smell test

Both of them opposed PATRIOT and IWR. Neither of them is tainted with the appeasement that permeates the other Democrats suffering of presidential ambition. Even Feingold's vote for Roberts, a mistake IMHO, is typical of the maverick that Feingold is.

I will happily and enthusiastically support Feingold if he were to become the Democratic nominee. I cannot honestly say the same thing if someone like Hillary, Biden, or Lieberman were to win the nomination.

[Cocoa]

27. what is Gore's exit strategy?

and does it satisfy the criteria you hold against Feingold's?

i.e., is your criticism of Feingold's exit strategy fair?

[confludemocrat]

47. wait, wait. He's not even running. and BTW, what is Feingold's exit strat-

egy? He has only asked Bush for one.

[Cocoa]

49. if Gore's not running

then why, in answer to "which 2008 contender can get us out if Iraq," did you answer "Gore."

Regarding Feingold's exit strategy, where have you been?

[confludemocrat]

51. He is a contender, is he not? But he's not yet running like your guy Fein-

gold. And where have I been? Here, like you. And I see no exit strategy from him, and I doubt you have either or you would have set me straight, right?

[Cocoa]

52. here's Feingold's statement

and let's not have any parsing of "exit strategy" like we've parsed "he's not running" vs. "he's a contender." Remember, you called Feingold a bullshitter.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/05/08/iraqwithdraw.html

[confludemocrat]

54. Nice try! As if those two things couldn't be exclusive &was such a mental

stretch that someone is in reality a contender but hadn't decided to run. Just because you haven't signed for a title fight doesn't mean you aren't a contender. And the reference to the web post is not impressive. It's warmed-over, reworked Kerry BS: "complete the mission". The war is illegal, criminal and a disgrace. Support his war position and failure to get right with the reality of this for what reason? So he can preserve his political capital to vote against someone like John Roberts? Or maybe that's not the best example with which to ask that question.

[Cocoa]

55. ok

thanks for sharing your thoughts on what a "bullshitter" Feingold is.

[ClassWarrior]

28. From a commentary on Feingold's Iraq resolution by Tom Hayden...

Feingold’s effort is a work in progress. But already he has ended the silence of the Senate and aligned himself with the grass roots majority. Beyond his Iraq initiative, Feingold represents an attractive, progressive profile in courage on other issues. He consistently opposes his colleagues on trade agreements that lack enforceable worker and environmental protections. He was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. He championed the ban on soft money contributions. He has opposed the death penalty for many years. He fights to reclaim the label “patriot” from the right-wing. He comes from a state with a long history of populism, labor struggles, and isolationism capable of producing both reactionary and progressive populists. He has the qualities of a new Paul Wellstone.

http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=213

And if you don't know who Tom Hayden is, I'll thank you not to question Feingold's Progressive bona fides.

By the way, unless you live in CA or WI, NEITHER of YOUR senators has yet signed Feingold's Iraq resolution.

NGU.

[confludemocrat]

46. Thanks but I knew all that already, it's his war position that is murky a

la Kerry. Please tell me about his labor record. None of this current crop of Demos has done anything to assure the right to organize that I am aware of.

Isn't that sad that he was the only one to vote against the patriot act? Even Wellstone voted for it. Isn't that a sad statement about the Democratic Party?

Isn't it not very promising that he was so silent for so long on the war?

And yes, I have two of the worst senators in the nation. You got me there.

[ClassWarrior]

59. Not as murky as your posts - that's for sure.

What does his position on the war have to do with your lack of knowledge about his labor record??

:silly:

NGU.

[confludemocrat]

62. Well fill me in n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

80. Feingold is sounding better and better.

Definitely my number two choice after Wes Clark. And no, he doesn't sound the least bit like Kerry on that one. He does sound like a realist who knows that we stepped into something when we invaded Iraq and that we now have some sort of obligation to get out in such a way as to do the minimal amount of damage to the region.

I would not lump someone who voted against IWR and the Patriot act together with someone who did. I see a fundamental difference there.

[mike_c]

5. right now I don't think any of them have the courage....

But I'm with you. This is my number one issue that trumps all others. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has utterly destroyed any semblence of legality or morality in American foreign policy. No one is fit to lead America out of this darkness if they lack the courage to repudiate the war and it's objectives, demand an immediate withdrawal, and call for an investigation of the circumstances that led to it.

[rhett o rick]

100. Well said, I agree completely. nt

[electron_blue]

7. Look hard to find out who has nothing to gain from corporate contracts

in Iraq.

Even better, revise campaign donation rules completely and I bet almost anyone who runs in 2008 will be able to do it.

[karynnj]

14. Very hard to tell - the answer may be the more liberal side of the party

is coalesing around at least the same set of goals. Each of Kerry's plans have been straight forward and led to getting out. Carl Levin, used almost the sames words Kerry used this summer in his most recent op-ed. I believe Kennedy is also talking the same way. I hope that Levin, who is well respected and not a Presidential candidate, is trying to articulate a view that (with variations) could represent most of the party and act as a counter to the Republicans, who are stuck with Bush's position.

I really think that this Clark address was vaguer and less vigerous in pushing the issue than he really feels because it was the Democratic party response - so it had to be to also cover the group of people in the party who are willing to do more in Iraq. So I see him not far from the Senators mentioned before.

As to who could end the war faster, my answer is whichever one is elected. Knowing that that is not the real question, I think that Kerry's plans have been the clearest and he never backed away from anything for fear of being attacked. Feingold seems less decisive and although he talks of setting a target date, I don't see a coherent plan. Clark has plans and certainly has the contacts in the millitary. So, I would guess Kerry with Clark as a second choice.

[Gloria]

90. Re: Clark Dem address--Clark was very vigorous in presenting The BASIC

questions that Bush has failed to answer and needs to answer. This is a ratcheting up of the situation and Dems need to pick up and start asking these questions over and over again.

I go with Clark, who is also going after Bushco on FAUX. That's good practice.

[IndianaGreen]

16. Dennis Kucinich

He is not part of the Beltway in-crowd and he has voted against PATRIOT, IWR, NAFTA, CAFTA, and has consistently called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Kucinich has also worked in coalition with others to bring the war to an end by introducing H.J. Res. 55:

Bring Our Troops Home- H.J. Res. 55

Congressman Kucinich worked closely with Republicans Walter Jones and Ron Paul, and with fellow Democrat Neil Abercrombie, to craft the first bipartisan bill to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home.

The bill would require the President to initiate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq no later than October 2006. This would be 10 months after Iraq completes the final phase of establishing a democratic constitutional government, and giving ample time for training Iraqi security forces to assume the responsibility of defending the country.

Congressman Kucinich has been a leader of the opposition to the war in Iraq. He was the driving force behind Democratic opposition to authorize the invasion of Iraq. But in crafting the bill to end the war, he worked with a Republican and an original supporter of the war. Congressman Jones, from North Carolina, voted to support an invasion of Iraq. Over time, he grew to believe that the war was not justified and the toll was intolerable.

H.J. Res. 55 was introduced on June 15, 2005. In a sign of its significance, news of the bill’s introduction was carried prominently in the Washington Post, New York Times, and was a lead story on all the major television news networks. Kucinich, Jones, Abercrombie and Paul continue to work closely to enlist more supporters from both the Republican and Democratic parties.


Iraq

Congressman Kucinich has been at the forefront of the anti-war movement in Congress. In the 108th Congress, he voted against both Supplemental Appropriations Bills that would continue to fund a failed policy in Iraq. The Congressman believes that supporting additional funds for the war in Iraq will only serve to keep our troops inside Iraq indefinitely.

On November 6, 2004, on the eve of the Battle of Fallujah, Congressman Kucinich, along with Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), both co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus, sent a letter to President Bush requesting that the President reconsider the assault on Fallujah. The letter warned that House-to-house combat would exact heavy casualties upon both our troops and innocent civilians, and that the our national security implications needed to be thoughtfully considered as to the reaction of the world community to such an assault on a civilian population.

Congressman Kucinich believes that the war, and our continued occupation of the country, has become counterproductive and is bad for the security of America. It is making the world more dangerous for Americans because it is strengthening those who want to hurt us. Furthermore, Americans taxpayers should not be required to pay for the building of state-of-the-art infrastructure to furnish for Iraq what we do not have here.

In April 2004, Congressman sent a letter to Ambassador John Negroponte regarding the reports of espionage by the United States Government against members of the United Nations Security Council prior to its vote on a resolution on Iraq in October of 2002. The letter requested for Ambassador Negroponte to clarify his role in the case.

In February 2004, the Congressman initiated a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair that was signed by four of his colleagues, in support of Katharine Gun, a translator at the British Government Communications Headquarters who was being prosecuted for leaking a U.S. National Security Agency memo to a British newspaper. The memo detailed plans for the U.S. government to wiretap telephones and track emails of “swing vote” countries on the U. N. Security Council. Congressman Kucinich urged Prime Minister Blair to grant Ms. Gun all the protections that the British democracy accords whistleblowers.

In October 2003, Congressman Kucinich introduced a plan to bring U.S. troops home by the New Year.

On June 5, 2003, Congressman Kucinich introduced a resolution of inquiry, which would seek to acquire the precise evidence that the Administration used to substantiate their claims that Iraq had large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Nearly every Democrat voting was in favor of the Kucinich resolution, but unfortunately, the Republican majority on the International Relations Committee voted against it and it was defeated.

On February 5, 2003, Congressman Kucinich introduced H.R. 585, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a windfall profit tax on crude oil so that oil companies would not excessively profit from the war in Iraq. On February 13, 2003, Congressman joined a coalition of American soldiers and family members of American soldiers, and other Members of Congress, in filing a lawsuit to prevent President George W. Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld from waging war on Iraq, absent a clear declaration of war by the United States Congress. The case was heard in the Federal District Court in Boston and was later dismissed.

Before the war began, Congressman Kucinich led the effort against the war by creating a coalition of members of Congress in opposition to the authorization to use force against Iraq. Members sparked an essential democratic debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. Weekly meetings, press conferences, whipping and lobbying other members, garnered an anti-war sentiment in the House. Over two-thirds of the Democrats ended up voting against the war resolution in October 2002.

In August and September 2002, Congressman Kucinich held several press briefings airing various aspects of the conflict with Iraq that were not receiving due attention in the mainstream media. The briefings received nationwide media coverage and covered such aspects including the humanitarian toll on the Iraqi people, the vested corporate oil interests that may be coloring the Administration's actions, the economic burden that a war would place on the U. S., the consequences for Middle Eastern and international attitudes towards the United States, and the jeopardy of our status as a legitimate and just role model in international politics. Distinguished speakers included Scott Ritter, former senior UNSCOM inspector, Denis Halliday, former UN Humanitarian coordinator, and Ambassador Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.

In June 2002, Congressman Kucinich, along with 76 other signers, sent a letter to President Bush urging a Congressional authorization for war for use of force, prior to any U.S. military involvement. The Administration had been attempting to strip Congress of its Constitutional powers by denying its authority to declare war.

http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1563#bring

[mike_c]

23. yep-- DK has been right every step of the way....

eom

[Cocoa]

37. you think the war should go on 12 more months?

you objected above to Feingold's withdrawal date of Dec. 1, 2006...

Recently, Kucinich introduced bipartisan legislation, H. J. Res. 55, calling on the President to present a plan to withdraw the troops by the end of the year, and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq on or before October 1, 2006.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=29589

And you still haven't answered, what is Gore's plan? Right before calling Feingold a bullshitter, you said you like Gore on Iraq.

[mike_c]

39. nope-- see # 38....

on edit-- plus I think you have me confused with someone else. I did not post any response about Al Gore. :shrug:

[confludemocrat]

24. True. He should run again in 2008 'cause we'll still be there and

if Gore doesn't truly offer an alternative to the big name Democrats (Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Bayh, Feingold, Lieberman) regular line on Iraq then Kucinich gets my vote and that of many others I know. We won't buy the "but you must vote for the main line Democrat because if you don't we will lose Roe vs Wade (looks like we will before then anyway, since Demos should be attacking Miers, too, but are silent or defending her), we will lose Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Act, Affirmative Action", etc. We have basically lost those things anyway because Democrats are always cowed into accepting the Kerry's and the Liebermans or vote for the Feingolds or Leahys who vote for the John Roberts or Scalias. And Democrats wonder why they have steadily lost since 1994 even with a quasi-Republican in the WH for the first several years after that.

[napi21]

22. I don't think it matters. I think, as a stratagy to win again,

Shrub will pull the troops out, before the 08 election, just to help the Pubs!

[Robbins]

34. Feingold

maybe Clark,and Gore If he runs.

[nickshepDEM]

40. Easy, Feingold.

[IndianaGreen]

42. Feingold voted to put Roberts on the Supreme Court

Just what we needed, another Opus Dei judge!

[ClassWarrior]

60. See post #28...

NGU.

[confludemocrat]

65. Please deal with post # 61

those are valid concerns of someone who likes Feingold. I would like to like Feingold, too, but mostly want to trust him and he is on shaky ground on that score with more than a few people.

[sandnsea]

64. Feingold, Clark, Kerry, Gore

Not Hillary or Biden or Bayh or Warner or Vilsack, et al.

[LittleClarkie]

125. Right, not the hardcore DLCer

But yes, the ones you mentioned would work on getting us out, at various speeds mind you, but they would work to get us out.

[wisteria]

92. Kerry! n/t

[rhett o rick]

101. What, praytell, do you base that on? He supported the war. He has

never even properly refuted his support.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

98. Gore, Feingold, Boxer, Clark

All of them have been against the war from early on, with pragmatic but hard-nosed proposals to get us out of the Iraq quagmire. It's going to be painful to extricate ourselves no matter how we do it.

[rhett o rick]

102. None. The American corporations want us to stay. They "own" the

political system. It took 10 years of demonstrations, including Kent State deaths and buildings getting bombed before the corporations allowed us to withdraw from Vietnam. There is still lots of profits and profiteering yet to be had. Those politicians mentioned that would withdraw, will never get the corporate money to become legitimate candidates. It doesn't matter what the polls of the American people indicate, you need to poll the American corporations.

[Donna Zen]

127. I stood at Kent State

... and watching this go on I wonder what new tipping point we must reach.

I trust Clark to get us out for many reasons. He's smart, he hates this war, he loves this country, he has the trust of the middle eastern moderates, and damnit...he's not a politician.

We need someone who can go to Iraq, who can go to the Pentagon, and who isn't afraid of the big K street donors.

[ComerPerro]

110. No exit strategy proposed by any Dem will be deemed "good enough"

They will just say that Bush has already tried it, or that its too reckless (like the war wasn't?), or that it just simply won't work.

And by "they", I mean the GOP and the media.

[dolstein]

119. The candidate most likely to win is the one most likely to get us out

I wonder whether DU'ers will figure this out before the 2008 election.

[GetTheRightVote]

128. Gore was one of the few who came out against the war in Iraq

immediately, I would really like to see him run again.
We really need to draft him. I believe he would run if we asked him to stand by us and to take us back to our more principled/value driven way of life.

:kick: