Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lieberman attacked Lamont and withdrawal Dems - Kerry answers Lieberman

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 01:23 PM
Original message
Lieberman attacked Lamont and withdrawal Dems - Kerry answers Lieberman
Senator John Kerry on Connecticut's Iraq Debate

"Iraq has been a national security disaster and a terrible set-back in the war on terror. As Robert Kennedy said of Vietnam, there is enough blame to go around. We must all accept our responsibility to change course. We don't need misleading speeches. We don't need slogans. We need leaders who will tell it straight and stand up to this administration and say it's time to change course. Ned Lamont is providing that kind of leadership.

Senator Lieberman and I disagree deeply and profoundly on Iraq. No matter how much Senator Lieberman pretends otherwise, as we were debating a Senate resolution to change course on Iraq, our intelligence agencies were telling this Administration that America is less safe and more endangered by terrorists because of the failed stay-the-course policies in Iraq. There's just no excuse for continuing the old line that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror when in fact we know Iraq is a recruiting poster for terrorists while the real war on terror in Afghanistan spirals downwards.

The maxim that we'll stand down as Iraqis stand up is a myth. We need a deadline for the redeployment of American troops to force Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. Aimless talk of stay the course is making things worse. Every time the Administration says we'll stay as long as it takes is an excuse for Iraqis to take as long as they want. We are stuck in a growing civil war that sets us back in the war on terror. It does a disservice to our troops to stick with a broken policy over and over again and expect different results. We need leadership with the courage to change course."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. I find it funny Republicans abandoned Schlesinger
Edited on Tue Sep-26-06 01:29 PM by Selatius
Lamont should attack Schlesinger on his position on gay marriage, abortion, and other social wedge issues to highlight the differences between Lieberman and Schlesinger.

By raising Schlesinger's profile on social wedge issues, it may actually draw away more socially conservative voters to Schlesinger and away from Lieberman.

They are called "wedge issues" for a reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluerum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. When is Lieberman going to start his new career selling seeds by
mail order?

I thought the people of Connecticut kicked his ass out? Has he no respect for the wishes of the people he purports to serve?

How dare he foist himself upon the people who have spoken through a democratic process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. He's now attacking ALL the Dems pushing for withdrawal, too.
So, I'm glad Kerry is tagteaming him along with Lamont.

Pretty dumb of Lieberman to do that, since Kerry has always outdebated Lieberman over the years - you'd think he would know better by now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katinmn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. what is Kerry's most recent Iraq withdrawal date?
i'm familiar with the Kerry-Feingold bill that called for withdrawal by July, 2007 ... a friend recently told me Kerry is now saying withdrawal "12 months from now" ... is this correct?

what is Kerry's most recently recommended date for withdrawal?

if you have a link to his most recent position, that would be great ... thanks ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. July
Edited on Tue Sep-26-06 02:25 PM by TayTay
He mentioned it several times in the last few weeks.

It was the end of this year, but the Senate would only let the withdrawal Amendment on the floor in June it it made it a year out.

No change in date forthcoming because no withdrawal plan can be debated in the time remaining in this term of the 109th (Weasel) Congress. Sigh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. The logistics alone force a year drawdown, so any date certain can only be
Edited on Tue Sep-26-06 04:42 PM by blm
attained through an actual startup of withdrawal.

Sad state for this country, as Bush is too stubborn to admit Iraq is now in civil war.

I hope Kerry keeps pressuring Warner on a new resolution dealing with civil war reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Kerry's April proposal envisioned roughly 7 months
Edited on Tue Sep-26-06 05:14 PM by welshTerrier2
isn't that correct?

in Kerry's "briefly held" April posture, he stated that, should the Iraqis not form "an effective unity government", US troops should be withdrawn from Iraq by 12/31/06 ... that would equate to a withdrawal timetable of roughly 7 months represented from the start date of May 22 running through 12/31/06 ...

Kerry also stated, at that time: "If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all." Does he view the current government as having met that test? Does he believe the Iraqis either have or are willing to build an effective unity government? The current government has little or no clout beyond Baghdad ... that's hardly effective ... Al Sadr controls roughly 30% of the seats in parliament ... that's hardly unity ... and the Kurds are off doing their own thing as well ...

if Kerry is seeking political compromise among the idiots in the Senate, fine ... i just wish he wouldn't make statements and then not follow-up on the themes he raised ... Kerry said: "The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave." ... but yet, somehow, he still is proposing ideas as if we have a choice ... or does he not believe the civil war has worsened since he made his remarks?

again, if he's peddling political compromise, fine ... but that shouldn't preclude him from adhering to the statements he made in April ... the bottom line is that Iraq is in a civil war; it's creating more anti-US sentiment everyday we remain; more than 87% of the Iraqi people want us out immediately; and there is just no hope for progress remaining ... and there's certainly NOT an effective unity government ...

finally, in response to your statement: I hope Kerry keeps pressuring Warner on a new resolution dealing with civil war reality., here we are in total agreement ...

do the Senate Dems actually believe their own rhetoric regarding Iraq or can I be somehow comforted in the knowledge that it's all just a political show? i hate to think they're as misguided as the majority of them appear to be ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Of course, but logistics are logistics, and everyone knows that it takes
at least 6months for ANY pullout under optimal conditions, so expecting it to take a year is just being realistic.

One of the benefits to the withdrawal debate last July was Kerry's lengthy exchange with Warner on the senate floor where he talked Warner into agreeing that a new resolution would be in order to deal with the reality of civil war - and Warner agreed PUBLICALLY then that the IWR certainly did not cover a mission that included civil war.

Listen, at least Kerry is trying every angle and maneuver out there - and it's not like he's getting much support when big name Dems are all saying withdrawal is wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. this WP article is posted on the DLC homepage
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052101182.html

of its more notable horrors is the following: "Though you'd never know it from surfing the Internet, there exists in the Democratic Party a substantial body of politicians and policymakers who believe the U.S. mission in Iraq must be sustained until it succeeds; who want to intensify American attempts to spread democracy in the greater Middle East; and who think that the Army needs to be expanded to fight a long war against Islamic extremism."

it's nice to see the PNAC agenda is alive and well among some in the Democratic Party ... and people here are preaching unity? well, not for that agenda!!!!! sorry, count me out ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Here's an interesting exchange on withdrawal date from Imus' show this AM
Edited on Tue Sep-26-06 06:04 PM by blm
Sounds like Imus has come around to Kerry's plan for setting a date - that's not a small thing in media reality world, because then Imus harasses lawmakers to come around to his view.

heh - oh well - with corpmedia, you have to count your luck on one hand.

KERRY: Haven't decided yet, but, yes, I am thinking very seriously about it; talking to a lot of people as I go around the country, and I've been very encouraged by the responses.

Look, I know there's an initial -- you know, there's an initial, sort of, cynicism or skepticism, the sort of quick take, Hey, the guy ran, he lost, whatever. But I think that in the end we did a lot of things right. We made a few mistakes. We came very, very close against an incumbent president in a time of war. And I feel more experienced, more prepared, and I feel a greater urgency to the agenda I fought for.

So I'm not ready to make that decision, but I've had a good reaction.

IMUS: I just can't understand why do you want to go through that again.

KERRY: Because the issues are so critical, Don. And if you'll -- I mean, just look at something like Iraq. I mean, Iraq is falling apart around these guys. We've got young kids going over there putting their lives on the line for a policy that's bankrupt.

And I think you have to set a deadline. A deadline is the only way to get Iraqis to stand up for Iraq, to get them to go out and fight so that our troops aren't being blown up while they squabble and duck and delay. And I think it's wrong.

And now you have this national intelligence estimate -- you know, at the moment that I had my resolution on the floor of the Senate about setting a date, the administration was arguing at that very time, Well, we're going to be probably pulling troops out over the course of next year. Don't set a date. And they were saying then it's the center of the war on terror.

Now we know that at the very same moment they were saying that they were being told by their own intelligence people that, no, not only is it not the center, it is creating greater problems in the war on terror and it's creating terrorists.

I'm tired of being misled and lied to like the rest of the American people are tired of it, and we've got to get a policy that works.

IMUS: You know, when you first made that proposal about a date and were criticized for it -- a lot of people -- it's not important what I think, but we, obviously, were sitting here talking about it. And I was debating about whether I thought it was a good idea. Then I got to thinking about it. In almost every aspect of life -- I mean, if somebody in your staff, if you tell them to do something and you don't tell them when you want it, you'll never get it.

KERRY: I agree with that. And, look, a date is the key to getting Iraqis to stand up for themselves. Every time the president says, We'll stay as long as it takes, he empowers the Iraqis to say, We'll take as long as we want. And it's human nature.

If you don't give them -- if you don't leverage their willingness to stand up, if you don't set that kind of a goal, if you don't concentrate the focus of the government on a transition, if you don't say to the rest of the world and the region, Hey, the United States is actually going to start changing this dynamic -- we better get serious about being involved here.

And also, Don, the date is not just set in a vacuum. The date is linked to holding a summit, which I've been calling for for almost three years now -- that you have to have the proper diplomacy to resolve the differences between Shia and Sunni, if they're resolvable, or you may wind up having to go down a different kind of road.

But the point is you can't get anywhere, you can't get to where you have to go unless you resolve the political differences. Condoleezza Rice, General Casey, every observer has said you can't solve this militarily. It has to be solved through the politics and diplomacy. And yet there isn't any of that kind of major diplomacy.

And if you talk to the leaders around the region and those who are involved, they desperately want some kind of serious effort to resolve those differences and create a new security arrangement for the region.

IMUS: I can't see, though, when we set a date, they don't -- well, they do whatever they do and we leave and -- I don't see a good outcome. Do you?

KERRY: Well, I think it's going to be very, very difficult because the administration, by ignoring everybody's advice and turning their backs on all of the best intelligence and analyses beforehand, have unleashed pent up forces that were held down for hundreds of years. I mean, this struggle between Shia and Sunni is bigger than just Iraq. What you really have is a whole bunch of countries around there who are Sunni who have a stake in this outcome because they're fearful of the Shia linkage to Iran. And that's really the larger problem that has not been addressed by the administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. gotta go ...
want to follow-up on your reply but i'm off to a documentary on the Balfour Declaration at my local library ...

my main point in response to you: is "setting a date so the Iraqis accept responsibility" viable? will they say "gosh, the Americans are going to leave ... we better start taking charge"?

if Maliki could take charge, he would take charge ... the problem is that there are forces inside Iraq that are benefitting from continued instability ... i just don't see "Kerry's threat" as workable ... and in the meantime, more Americans are dying and the costs are spiraling out of control ... we just have to leave ... we'll either do it without incurring more deaths and more costs or we won't ... the ultimate effect on Iraq, either way, will be inconsequential ...

back later ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. thanks for the info!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. From September , 2006. It still states July 2007.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. thanks for the info!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. Decades of public service and JL hasn't retained an ounce of self respect.
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. or an ounce of sense - what made him believe he could win the
debate on Iraq withdrawal when he's debating it in Connecticut? He's not in Kansas, anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. Good for Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
18. Strong leadership from Kerry.
Keep it up, JK! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
20. Lieberman has sunk to Zell Miller levels
Kerry is right, we need leadership with the courage to change course and stop asking our troops to die for a mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
21. George McGovern wrote an excellent plan for exiting Iraq in Harper's
Magazine. He co-authored it with William R Polk. Titled 'The Way Out of War'. It's very detailed and it would be a great plan for the Dems to adopt. I only have the paper copy, no link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. It was a good read. McGovern's plan parallels Kerry/Feingold.
It was nice to see some Dems adding their voices when other big name Dems are discouraging any withdrawal plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. a key part of the McGovern plan ...
the McGovern plan included this critically important element: "offering to void all contracts for petroleum exploration, development, and marketing made during the American occupation."

i'm not aware of anything like that in the Kerry-Feingold bill ...

until the Democratic Party makes it eminently clear that they are warriors against imperialism, it's very hard to know where they stand on the issue ... Big Oil, in cahoots with the World Bank, has already raped Iraq ... the question that remains is whether we intend to let them get away with it ... it would be a great day to have Kerry and Feingold rally behind McGovern's focus on the abusive oil contracts ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I've heard Kerry talk about turning enterprise over to Iraqi companies.
I'll have to go over the rest tomorrow - it may have gotten downplayed during his compromise battles. I hope not, because I believe in that aspect as a strong signal that we have no intention of remaining, and I know he did, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. separating legislation from vision
i'd be interested in anything you can come up with on the subject ... the line i quoted from McGovern really jumped out at me when i read the write-up on his book ... it points right at the bad guys and goes straight to the heart of why we're in Iraq in the first place ... no dancing around ... no "we were mislead" by faulty intelligence ... no spreading democracy ... no supporting Al Qaeda ...

just void the damned contracts ... you bastards are walking away empty handed ... simple, direct, and it stabs the bad guys right in the heart ...

i would love to see McGovern's point added to any proposed legislation on Iraq ... absent that, it would be great to hear prominent Democrats at least focusing on the issue in their speeches ... legislation almost always must be at least partially watered down to build a consensus ... such is not the case, however, with public education and speechmaking ... will the Democrats ever have the courage to say that we've been an imperialist nation for far too long and it's hurting our standing in the world and it's also morally reprehensible? i'm not holding my breath ... i suppose that's a political faux pas ... it's also exactly what the American people need to hear ... now there's a conundrum ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC