Helen Thomas - "Democrats Must Stand for Something"

[Catchawave]

WASHINGTON -- John Edwards, the former Democratic nominee for vice president, has made a courageous admission: “I was wrong,” he said, and made “a mistake” in voting for the war in Iraq when he was a senator from North Carolina .

<snip>

Now let’s hear it from those other Democrats and possibly brave Republicans who are willing to admit that they, too, had been misled into war.

That may be asking too much of members of the Democratic Leadership Council, who often toss in their political lot with the Republicans. It’s hard to distinguish some of them from the GOP these days when it comes to the Iraq war.

Several DLC members appear to have presidential ambitions, including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York , John Kerry of Massachusetts and Evan Bayh of Indiana . And it’s apparently politically dangerous for them to stick their necks out and admit they were bamboozled by the Bush administration. Remember when Michigan’s Gov. George Romney remarked in 1968 that the Johnson administration had “brainwashed” him into supporting the Vietnam War? That finished his presidential ambitions.

<snip>

She goes after the the republicans and Bush too at:

http://www.fcnp.com/538/thomas.htm

[bvar22]

1. I agree, and recommend.

I wish I could vote for Helen Thomas for President.

Some Democrats were NOT "bamboozled" by bush* and his Merry Band of Psychopaths. Those Democrats need to be remembered and rewarded for their Wisdom and Integrity.

[Cha]

2. So they're taking their cue

from george romney in 1968? That's just dumb.

[karynnj]

3. I respect Helen Thomas as a great reporter,

but she is clearly wrong on Kerry's position - he very clearly said he should not have voted for the IWR over 3 weeks ago in his Georgetown speech, on the Senate floor and in several interviews. Additionally, Kerry was never for the war. He spoke out against it before it began and called for regime change here when Bush attacked.

Edwards did say he was wrong and should be commended for it - but he was actually still in favor of the war (not the vote, but the war itself) even in Oct, 2003 (Hardball interview that day). He also was open to war for reasons other than WMD or a genuine threat. The question he should be asked is under what conditions he would take the country to war if president and to explain this change from 2003.

It sounds like he has put a lot of thought into what happened that pulled us into Iraq. I hope that he will speak out on this as one who had (for a brief time) been pulled into the group of people willing to attack even if the threat was a possible, long term threat. Edwards is extremely articulate and intelligent - he should articulate what his current position is and spell out the fallacies of the spreading democracy ideas. Those ideas have some surface appeal, Edwards could be good at pointing out the problems.

[Skwmom]

10. Why should anyone be commended for going on record against the war ONLY

AFTER polls support that position. If the American public still thought the war was a great idea, Edwards would be out there cheer-leading with the rest of the self-serving political schmucks.

[karynnj]

14. I'm not a huge Edwards,fan, but I do think it's possible that he has

really thought this out and is now not only against having invaded Iraq but against the ideas that led us there - perticularly the idea that we have the right to attack a country because we feel it could lead to a chain reaction to re-make the middle east (Caveat: I do NOT know if Edwards bought on to this), he might be one voice that can speak againt these arrogant ideas.

In his Matthews interview last week, last week, Kerry after listing examples where the Bush administration distorted intelligence on WMD, was asked why he thought they wanted to go to war. Kerry's answer mentioned Wolfowitz, Feith, the DSM (by description, not acronym) and how they wanted to remake the middle east. These are the things discussed daily here, but other than this - none of the mainstream politicians are speaking of this.

Edwards was known for his power of persuasion as a lawyer. It would be great if he saw that it's not just Iraq, but the larger question of America's proper role in the world. At minimum, though that will be a question I would want answered by all likely candidates.

[Skwmom]

19. So his having thought this out just coincides with public opinion turning

against the war. Rockefeller came out against the war a year and a half ago. As far as pre-emptive strikes this is something Edwards should have thought about BEFORE he voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

[karynnj]

24. I agree, but if he has seriously re-thought the situation

do you think that he could be useful in waking up America as to what the government's goals are? I also think that as a member of the intelligence committee, his position and that of Bayh and Rockefeller are particularly misfortunate because if all the Democrats on the intelligence committee indicated they didn't see the need based on what they knew (which was more than the rest of the Senate) it might have swayed others.

But in some ways, I think Helen Thomas and the Democrats miss a bigger point - which is that FAR more information was known in March than in Oct. Who in the press and in the government spoke out in March when contrary to all Bush's public promises he stopped the inspecters and invaded? The press did a lousy job in pressuring Bush to keep his promises.

[Skwmom]

35. No I don't. His change in position is so politically transparent

that it gives support to the Republicans trying to brand the Democrats as nothing but a bunch of poll taking politicians.

[Catchawave]

46. So politically, he shot himself in the foot ?

Guess he won't be running in 2008 :(

[depakid]

15. Too bad Kerry wouldn't make that comment when it counted

Instead, he acted just as Helen Thomas described back that day in late August 2004- and among a few other stupid mistakes he made that month (like emulating Dukakis) it cost him the election- and the rest of us the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary for the rest of our adult lives (for starters).

[ProSense]

17. The Democrats never voted for war. Kerry was and still is

a vocal critic of the war:

Kerry Statement on Iraq and the Bush Administration’s Failed Foreign Policy

Thursday, July 10, 2003

In a press conference earlier today, Senator John Kerry delivered the following statement regarding Iraq and the Bush Administration’s failed foreign policy: Remarks of Senator John F. Kerry on Iraq July 10, 2003

It’s been days since the President was flown to an aircraft carrier to announce that hostilities in Iraq had ended. Now, clearly, it’s time for the President to step forward and tell the truth that the war is continuing and so are the casualties.

To tell the truth that our forces face an ongoing challenge simply to protect themselves. We need to look at this from the perspective of those in the field—who are taking fire every day; who do not know friend from foe; who have no idea when they will come home. It is time for the President to tell the truth that we lack sufficient forces to do the job of reconstruction in Iraq and meet the President's goal of withdrawing in a reasonable period.

To tell the truth that America should not go it alone—that international support to share the burden is as critical now as it should have been in the months leading up to the war. We now know that the State of the Union message, well after the vote on the Iraq resolution, contained information that was wrong—and at least some in the Administration knew it.

But just because a mistake was made, does not mean we should compound it by making further mistakes. International support and alliances are not weakness, but strengths. Diplomacy, cooperation, multilateralism, making friends in the world is not weakness as this administration would have some believe.

America is now viewed widely as an occupying power. We face a resistance movement that is capable of gaining greater strength by the day. And our service men and women remain vulnerable because they are too few to succeed in a peacekeeping mission for which they are neither trained nor equipped.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/press/record.cfm?id=206011&&

[Skwmom]

21. You mean Kerry - knowing what I know today I would have voted the same

way. Give me a break. This is bad as those who blindly support Bush.

[ProSense]

23. Where does it say that? Bush supporters deny facts like this one

Kerry says Bush misled Americans on war
- RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer
Wednesday, June 18, 2003

(06-18) 18:05 PDT LEBANON, N.H. (AP) --

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Wednesday that President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence.

"He misled every one of us," Kerry said. "That's one reason why I'm running to be president of the United States."

Kerry said Bush made his case for war based on at least two pieces of U.S. intelligence that now appear to be wrong -- that Iraq sought nuclear material from Africa and that Saddam's regime had aerial weapons capable of attacking the United States with biological material.

Still, Kerry said it is too early to conclude whether or not war with Iraq was justified. There needs to be a congressional investigation into U.S. intelligence on Iraq, he said.

"I will not let him off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America's credibility and credibility to me because if he lied he lied to me personally," he said.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/06/18/national2008EDT0805.DTL

[karynnj]

26. Kerry did not say that

he answered a question where he very likely did not hear (or did not process) the "knowing what you know today". His answer was almost verbatim the answer he gave to the question a million times. There were several statements before and after that one where he said he would not have gone to war.

It sounds like the whole GC event was a fiasco. Every candidate ever has stated things wrong at some point - having hundreds of questions thrown at you in a day, travelling constantly, and living on little sleep will get to anyone. This is a question that I have heard far more regularly after the election to beat Kerry with. As to votes, I doubt it had much impact at all - knowing what you know about the 2 candidates which would be more likely to take the country to war? Anyone who was anti-war, most likely voted for Kerry.

[depakid]

22. That's NOT how it played out

Kerry blew it big time when he had the chance, for the same reasons that Helen Thomas laid out:

In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War
Challenged by President, Democrat Spells Out Stance

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., Aug. 9 -- Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.

<snip>

"I believe if you do the statesmanship properly, I believe if you do the kind of alliance-building that is available to us, that it is appropriate to have a goal of reducing our troops" by August 2005, Kerry told reporters during a news briefing from the edge of the Grand Canyon.

Since last month's Democratic National Convention, the senator from Massachusetts has been under mounting pressure to provide a clearer explanation of his views on the war, including why he voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the invasion yet opposed funding for it. On Friday, Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there.

In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

I remember that like it was yesterday. All the while he was getting swiftboated too- and doing absolutely nothing about it.

[karynnj]

27. The title itself is wrong in this article

If you look at the Kerry quote, he is not saying we should go to war. Looking at Kerry's statements before and afterward, the Globe's explanation that due to a hearing loss (from VN) and the wind in the GC, he missed the phrase about knowing what you know. Why: the answer is close to verbatim to his constant answer for the question without the phrase and is contrary to many of his statements when the phrase is added in - starting with his floor speech.

[depakid]

29. Of course it is- it's the Post!

the point is that Kerry should have known full well that the Post (Pravda) would jump all over that- and just like the rest of the MSM did. What the hell did he expect?

The guy had the chance to make a clear, decisive and unequivocal statement- and he wouldn't. Bush all but begged him to.

Moreover, he could have called Bush out as a liar and intensified the debate- maybe even caused Georgie boy to lose his temper- but all he did was make himself look like a waffler (or "nuanced"). As much as anything else he did- that cost him the election.

Not the move one would expect from a former prosecuter.

[karynnj]

32. Having seen polling data I think you're wrong

The war was still above 50%. There was also a very weird twist - if Saddam was added to the question - the people in favor of the war increased. From the numbers, even if you assume Kerry got all the anti-war vote - he had to have won some pro-war votes. Bush begging for it makes me think that they were trying to put Kerry in a place he didn't want to be in.

This whole event got remarkably little attention at the time. I seriously believe there was more after the election.Kerry never ever said he was for the war - headline to the contrary. He denounced the war before it started - based on the inspectors reports that there were no weapons. New information - not available in Oct 2002. The reason the MSM let it drop so quickly is likely because the Republicans wanted to paint Kerry as a peacenik just as he was in VN.

I doubt there were any anti-war people who voted Bush over Kerry and there were very few 3rd party votes. There were plenty of clear cut statements after that one that would have made an anti-war person more comfortable.

[depakid]

33. I don't know where you were

But I watched the entire thing- I saw the clips (yes, he heard the whole question) and it was played over and over- and talked about ad inifinitum by every commentator and his aunt on every show of consequence.

It made Kerry look like a fool- and had his handlers back peddling, explaining and re-explaining for over a week.

The damage it did had much less to do with whether it would have pleased one side or another (or God forbid, the fickle ephemoral "middle). It was the process and the appearance- much more than the substance (although the substance sure took a MAJOR issue right off of the table).

And the only reason that it "disappeard" from the coverage was because the swifty's were out in force- all over the news- while Kerry was doing his "high road" Dukakis style thing.

[ProSense]

34. You know what's ironic

A lot of people seem to want the Democrats to go media hopping apologizing and crying "Oh I was so wrong" for something that's a non issue. They didn't vote for the war, so they don't have to apologize for it. To do so would be utterly foolish. Regretting a vote for the resolution is not admitting that you voted for a war Bush started. The thing to work on is holding Bush accountable for misleading the nation.

I seriously doubt that the election hinged on the moment you cited. I can cite three moments when Bush made himself look like a perfect fool with the whole world watching: debates one, two and three. His pathetic performance didn't stop people from casting a vote for him. So I doubt the moment you cited had anything to do with returning Bush to the WH.

Kerry and a lot of other intelligent people, including all the other Democratic candidates, were laying out the case in opposition to Bush and presenting an alternative vision to his deceptive and flawed vision for almost two years. Just because some people refuse to heed the truth doesn't mean the Democrats ended up less intelligent than when they started. All it means is that, well, these people were Bush supporters.

[depakid]

43. You're projecting

If you accept the social science literature, you'll see that most people don't make political (or economic) decisions based on rationality- and many are either ill equipped intellectually or are too uniformed- or misinformed about the background and detail on issues to expect them to sift through "nuanced" responses.

This is a major problem for Dems- and intelligent people in general. They think that if they lay out a rational case, people will listen and understand like they would- but that's just not how it works in real life.

Many on the left also fail to appreciate that- however unfair, it's perfectly alright (in the media's eyes) for Bush to make these sorts of gaffes- but Kerry could not- and he knew (or should have known) that was the case. Again- that's the reality- those are currently the rules of the game.

A "No" to the question, followed by a forceful response aimed squarely at Bush both on a rational and emotional level was both the right and the practical thing to do. Any media consultant worth his salt would have told him that- and maybe some did- but like Dukakis, he wouldn't listen. Hard to know, even in hindsight.

As to consequences- after that statement, it was all downhill for the next 6 weeks. Go back & look at the polling data yourself- The guy THREW AWAY the election in August (although the Mr. nice guy, no Bush bashing convention in July didn't help us very much either).

[ProSense]

44. So you're saying

people expected Bush to make gaffes so that's why they voted for him?

Even the intelligent (misled) ones?

Your statement only proves that Bush supporters are blind. Nobody with any sense (except for a few who believed the media hype about Bush's leadership) would have voted for Bush over Kerry.

For those who chose not to listen and understand, reality now gives them Bush.

You are incorrect, Kerry's support grew right up to the election. By Nov. 1, many were predicting a victory for Kerry.

[karynnj]

37. you saw that he "heard"? Do you have special powers?

There is nothing in his answer that makes that clear or certain. There is no candidate that could have spoken as often as Kerry did who at some point, wouldn't have misheard or missaid something. I do think that if there were doubts in August, Kerry's performance in the debates certainly would have answered them. In fact, if the Bin Laden tape wouldn't have "surfaced" in the last week, this would not even be discussed.

Look at the errors that hurt others in the primary.

[bvar22]

39. I remember it too.

That was the day Kerry lost the election.

[ProSense]

40. Was that the day

you stopped supporting him?

[bvar22]

42. No, campaigned and supported throughout the election,

but with a broken heart.

[AuntiBush]

4. Luv Ms. Helen Thomas, but...

Our Democrats have been "stifled" for so long, thanks to the MSN support of the GOP (talking-heads/faux news/faux reporters)...

On the other hand, if I could vote tomorrow it would still be for Kerry/Edwards "or" Gore/Edwards. Highly admire all three.

No way on Hillary.

[ProSense]

5. As long as they don't stand for the Republicans' BS that's fine with me

But since Helen sticks it to everybody, here is where the Democrats stand, not unified yet, but very similar.

On Iraq, a collection here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5443422


Rest of the agenda:

http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html


Senate
http://democrats.senate.gov/issues.html

http://democrats.senate.gov/senators.html (find out about local issues at each members website)


House
http://democraticleader.house.gov/issues /

http://democrats.house.gov/about/member_pages.cfm (find out about local issues at each members website)


Check out the members campaign sites too, even the aspiring members sites feature an issues page.

[Catchawave]

6. Great links

Thanks :hi:

Has anyone thought to put these in the Research Forum ? I would volunteer, but I'm still all thumbs over there :silly:

[ProSense]

8. Thanks.

I'm still trying to find my way around DU.

:hi:

[Catchawave]

11. Here ya go....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=358

Your links would fit in nicely in the Iraq topic ! Play with the site, there's even a practice thread :)

[glitch]

47. Well done. Democrats have been stating where they stand all along.

It's remarkable the memes that get parroted, even by the professionals. I love the net - refutation in an instant. But I imagine she's generalizing about the DLC and what they say on the teevee, when allowed.
That's where you get the mush.

[MichiganVote]

7. I won't be satisfied until I hear it from ALL those who voted,

not just the Democrats. There will be no adequate governance when only a portion of those who created this mess acknowledge their dishonesty with the American people.

[Skwmom]

9. Courageous? Rockefeller was courageous when in JULY 2004 he

admitted he was wrong. There is NOTHING courageous about saying your wrong AFTER the polls support your statement. I read that he ignored Alex Pelosi when she overheard him wanting to take a poll to determine his position.

[robbedvoter]

12. Harked did the same - I think a bit before. I agree.

[mzmolly]

13. Helen's great, but she missed Kerry's similar apology. She's

also missed many other Dems who've said much the same thing. Perhaps she would like to hear "I should never have voted for this war?"

She is right to admonish Hillary Clinton however. HC's Iraq statements are frankly nauseating.

[Skwmom]

20. She should commend Rockefeller. He said he was wrong about voting

for the Iraq War Resolution before it became popular to do so.

[karynnj]

28. Remember that Rockeller as Chairman of the Intelligence

committee at that point was one of 8 members of Congress who saw far more material than others. As such he had more responsibility in asking questions and trying to get the truth.

Also, until it beccame popular, he didn't push for the WMD part2 reoport. He didn't sign Kerry letter - Senator Corzine was the only one to do so on the Intelligence Committee (although later Senator Feinstein requested the same thing) He waited until the indictments made it an issue and Reid took th eSenate into closed session.

I actually welcome "latecomers" to the right position in both of these things.

[Skwmom]

36. Edwards was a MEMBER of the Intelligence Committee. I wasn't

happy about Rockefeller's vote but I'm much more willing to cut Rockefeller some slack and give him the benefit of the doubt when he goes on record admitting he was wrong BEFORE the polls support such a stance.

[karynnj]

41. As chairman, Rockefeller was one of 4 people from the Senate

who got the most information. (I'm not sure who the other Democrat was - Roberts was one of the Republicans) The committee members got the next most, the rest of the Senate less.

What I think is more important is that Rockefeller is now pushing for the part 2 report. As the Ranking member, I did fault him for not pushing for the report they committed to doing on his own and that he didn't sign Kerry's letter that tried to use the DSM as a reason that Part 2 needed to be done. (Kerry gets little credit here for pushing this when it was risky to do so - and only 9 others signed on.)

[mzmolly]

30. I agree. She is also taking Republican bait with statements like

"Democrats must stand for something." I still adore the lady though. ;)

[gordianot]

16. Bush's greatest weakness is his inability to admit errors.

Democrats take heed.

[globalvillage]

18. Geez Helen,

Sen Kerry has been saying it since 2003.

My regret is that this President proved he not only didn’t know how to do it right, but was prepared to go back on his promises, be deceptive, and mislead the nation. I regret that he did that, and I regret that I put any trust in him at all. I shouldn’t have, obviously.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122203A.shtml

Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

"I will not let off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America's credibility and credibility to me, because if he lied, he lied to me personally. I believe I can hold President Bush accountable if they have misled us," Mr. Kerry said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030623-122726...

The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not...

I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can’t rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, ‘enough blame to go around,’ and I accept my share of the responsibility.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2005_10...

[blm]

49. Big problem for the left is bad reporting from leftleaning journalists and

inept pundits weak on history and facts who get all the airtime.

[eallen]

25. Whether we should have invaded Iraq is a dead issue.

You cannot change the past.

It is an important issue that the White House twisted intelligence. But for one purpose only: to show the level of corruption in this president and his White House, and to perpetually tarnish all who are connected with it. Democratic Congressmen trying to figure out whether they would have voted differently, and 'fessing up that they were bamboozled, are playing a fool's role.

[bvar22]

38. True, we ARE in Iraq,

but examining "HOW" we got there in order to evaluate the Competence and Integrity of our represenatives is a SMART thing to do. Examining HOW Bad Things Happen is fundamental to the LEARNING process. How can incompetence and corruption be eliminated without a process of examination and accountability?
Otherwise....more of the same.

[Miss Chybil]

31. Truth. Justice. And the American Way.

That's what they need to stand for. Fuck the politics. We need some heros. Period.

[blm]

45. Helen has MISreported this and hopefully she'll correct herself soon.

Kerry submitted a withdrawal plan in Oct. and again as a Senate bill on Nov 10.

He went to Iraq in early Sept and consulted with commanders on the ground and many members of Iraq's parliament while working on his plan.

Helen and many other leftleaning journalists have been getting their information incorrect because they pay too much attention to what the corporate media reports as long as it will trash Democrats.

Flavia Colgan, Arianna Huffington have also misreported the timelines and even have claimed Kerry hasn't spoken up at all.

We have a terribly UNDERINFORMED LEFT MEDIA and that is why the RW media is able to dominate.

11/10/2005
Kerry Introduces Strategy for Success in Iraq Act in United States Senate

Plan Would Bring Home 20,000 Troops After Iraq Elections, Demands Benchmarks for Success

Washington, D.C. -- This afternoon, Senator John Kerry introduced in the Senate his plan to succeed in Iraq and bring the vast majority of our combat troops home in a reasonable timeframe tied to specific, responsible benchmarks to transfer responsibility to Iraqis – beginning with the draw down of 20,000 U.S. troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. These additional troops are in Iraq only for the purpose of providing security for the upcoming elections. If they remain in Iraq after that benchmark is achieved, it only exacerbates the sense of American occupation.

"We are entering a make-or-break six month period in Iraq. We need to be taking action now if we are ever going to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict," Kerry said. “We cannot pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay ‘as long as it takes. There is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives.”

Kerry's legislation, the Strategy for Success in Iraq Act, lays out a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home. Its goal is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing both a political settlement and the draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.

Kerry’s plan calls for:

• The U.S. to begin a phased draw down of American troops as a series of military and political benchmarks is met, starting with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as the first benchmark –the successful completion of the December elections – is met.

• The U.S. to immediately make clear that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely.

• The Administration to immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn -- ideally by the end of next year.

• The Bush administration to prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq’s borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq, especially from Syria.

• The Pentagon to alter the deployment of American troops, keeping Special Operations forces pursuing specific intelligence leads and putting the vast majority of U.S. troops in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face.

• The President to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them.

• The Bush administration to accept long standing offers by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more training.

• The administration to immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia to implement a strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise that includes mutual security guarantees among Iraqis.

• Iraq’s Sunni neighbors to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas to show them the benefits of participating in the political process. • The President to appoint a special envoy to bolster America’s diplomatic efforts.

• The U.S. to commit to a new regional security structure that includes improved security assistance programs and joint exercises.

• The U.S. to jumpstart our lagging reconstruction efforts by providing the necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces, expanding job creation programs for Iraqis, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries.

“We must send this critical signal to the Iraqi people - that we do not desire permanent occupation - and that Iraqis themselves must fight for Iraq. History shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency,” Kerry added.

Senior American commanders and officials have said the large U.S. military presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency. General George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, recently wrote, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency."

# # #

[Catchawave]

48. Kerry has a very good plan

But why was Murtha's so much more acknowledged in the MSM ?

Edwards' mea culpa ?

Perhaps Helen's article suggests all the Dems need to get on the same page and use the same talking points?

[karynnj]

50. Although I think a fair media would have given Kerry's more coverage than

it did, the significance with Murtha's was more who he was than it's actual content. He was significant because he was a conservative Congressional Democratic leader who was a highly decorated vet.

I think Kerry's plan was very good - but the nedia has been loath to admit it's existance let alone actually state what it is. Edwards' plan and retraction of his vote were three weeks after Kerry's - Kerry laid out his detailed plan and explained how he thought it would work at Georgetown and later in the Senate - Edwards wrote an op-ed. Edwards' plan, as stated there, was very sketchy - yet it got more attention than Kerry's.

I think this is politics - which given the seriousness of the subject is disgusting. Edwards' plan and his throw away "I was wrong" were given attention, because there are still media people who see him as a possible 2008 candidate, while they ignore the likely more painful admission from Kerry that he shares some responsibility and his seruious well-thoughout plan.

The important thing is his plan is out there. If Bush seriously wants to exit, his people will likely look at Kerry's plan and might take features they like, obviously without saying so. Or if the Kennedy wing of the party wants a plan - his would likely be the starting point. What Kerry did here wasn't politics, nor was what Murtha did.

[Catchawave]

51. Exactly....the media likes Edwards...

he's got "it" and the "Q" factor, Murtha was an anomaly, hence the 'man bites dog' coverage and Kerry is still "stuffy-boring" and a professional politician.

Kerry and the Dems need to create one voice, when taken separately, it just sounds too much like politics as usual, and the RW and "their" media take full advantage of all the flailing.

[Skwmom]

52. Yeah the media would LOVE to see Edwards as the nominee in 08 because

it would guarantee a Republican win. If Edwards ever becomes the voice of the Democratic Party, the Republicans will control for a generation. He is no RFK, JFK, or Carter no matter how much his paid PR people try to spin it.

[karynnj]

53. I never understood how the media portrayed Kerry who

has lived a fascinating life and is far more inspirational than Edwards could ever be as either stuffy or boring. I found Edwards too slick.

i think Kerry would make an incredible President.

[windbreeze]

54. How about Standing for the American People?

IF the Democrats are having such a hard time figuring out what they should stand for...something is wrong...
We have spent trillions in Afghanistan/Iraq, killing innocent people...we can spend millions in Aid for Africa, for Israel, etc. every year...but we bitch about taking care of our own...the people who worked all their lives here, and paid taxes, and are now old and perhaps sick...or how about our VETS???? the gov't uses them up, then refuses to acknowledge they suffer and need medical/mental help, or homes to live in..instead they are now the hollow eyed, pathetic shells of men you see standing on our street corners every damned day...they didn't used to be that way...once they were young men, loving life...until they returned from experiencing "war"...shameful, disgusting, disheartening....
How about a recently destroyed city, and it's displaced survivors...how about global warming??
Our livelyhoods have been sent to India/Pakistan/the Phillipines/Bangladesh and every other third world country, but...who cares if we have jobs?? Our Unions have been broken, corporations have been encouraged to look for cheap labor elsewhere, and to base their operations off shore so they don't have to pay taxes...so if anyone needs anything to stand for...all they have to do, is look closely at whats going on in this country....C'mon Dems....say you'll make an effort to be seen as THE party who puts America and it's well being first...

I urge you to jump in and say you'll be the party that believes we should take care of our own, that you'll work for the total good of the whole country, instead of just a select few of the elite and rich...a party who is willing to spend money to construct instead of destruct....

I have a friend, who hasn't had Chemo since May because THE current "party in power" cut funding for the Chemo clinics, when he just about had it licked...and now he's being left to suffer and die a cruel, painful death...his oncologist won't even answer his phone calls unless he has cash in hand...what I wonder, is how many times every day, this scene is being repeated across the country.....We need a party who cares for US...what we think, how we feel, how we suffer..and works to find ways to make it better for every one of us...
windbreeze

[dogday]

55. You would think they would be against this war

We went into this war with bad intelligence and therefore this war is a bad war. That simple, we were wrong to go in and we are wrong for staying. The sooner these politicians see that, the better. Kind of hard when they are getting funds from an organization that would like to see US troops stay in the Middle East....