Robert Kuttner op-ed in today's Globe

[whometense]

ARE THE liberals dividing the Democratic Party once more and weakening Democrats' credibility on defense? Or are they stepping into a leadership vacuum?

The Democrats' schisms over Iraq were on display at this week's Take Back America convention in Washington. Senator Hillary Clinton, whose speech to the gathering was mostly applauded, got scattered boos when she declared that it was not ``smart strategy" to ``set a date certain for troop withdrawal."

The hawkish Senator Clinton, one senior Democratic strategist observed, is prematurely positioning herself for the 2008 general election. First she has to win her own party's primaries. At the rate she's going, she is fast alienating the party's overwhelmingly antiwar base.

Senator John Kerry quickly differentiated his position from hers. Speaking shortly after Clinton, Kerry won cheers when he pledged to introduce a Senate resolution calling for withdrawal of most troops by the end of 2006 (though several in the audience could be heard muttering words to the effect of, ``Where was he when we needed him?")...

...After a US missile attack killed the Al Qaeda chief in Iraq, White House political adviser Karl Rove lost no time in declaring to a Republican meeting in Manchester, N.H., that if Democrats had had their way, Zarqawi would never have been killed.

In fact, if Democrats had been in charge, we never would have invaded Iraq, and Zarqawi and his fellow international terrorists would never have gone there. As Senator Russ Feingold reminded the Take Back America meeting, two months after 9/11, the Bush State Department's own website displayed a list of 45 countries where Al Qaeda was active. Iraq was not among them.

Feingold and Kerry both pointed out that the best way to strengthen the Iraqi government, and increase the chances for stability, is to remove the chief lightning rod that is stoking sectarian anger -- the American occupation. Even if US troops withdrew, leaving some of them on nearby carriers, strikes against remaining terrorist leaders, of the kind that killed Zarqawi, would still be possible.

[ProSense]

1. Excellent points!

Kerry is right: this is an immoral war! Feingold and Kerry should stressing these points. Americans must know that Zarqawi was unleashed as a result of Bush's invasion of Iraq.


CNN just released poll results that show a majority of Americans are not for timetable and believe the Iraqis can solved their own problems!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2683699&mesg_id=2683699

[karynnj]

2. It looks like they are FOR a timetable -

"Which comes closer to your view about U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawal by announcing that it will remove all of its troops from Iraq by a certain date. The U.S. should keep troops in Iraq as long as necessary without setting any timetable for withdrawal." Options rotated

6/14-15/06

Timetable 53%
No Timetable 41%
Unsure 6%

This is a HUGE turn even from a few weeks ago.