The NYT resorts to Dems have no plan

[ProSense]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2760631&mesg_id=2760631

[Mass]

1. What do you expect from them?

The amusing thing is that they are basically calling for a conference, which is what the Democrats (and a few Republicans like Hagel) are calling for, and which is integrated in the Kerry/Feingold resolution.

May be they should read more about these resolutions, because:

1/ Democrats are not calling for withdrawal point-blank. (I wished they would).

2/ Democrats are asking for an international conference that would deal with the issues.

[globalvillage]

2. And what is the writer's plan?

The only responsible way out of Iraq involves all the things President Bush refused to consider on the way in. That means enlisting help from some of the same Arab neighbors and European allies whose opinions and suggestions were scornfully ignored before the invasion.

Why...why, it's BRILLIANT!!! Absolutely, totally, un-fucking-believably innovative! What a great, no, what an INCREDIBLE idea that no one has ever, ever proposed, ever!
How is it that NO ONE thought of this?


(b) IRAQ SUMMIT.—The President should work with leaders of the Government of Iraq to convene a summit as soon as possible that includes these leaders, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that engenders the support of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds by ensuring the equitable distribution of oil revenues, disbanding the militias, strengthening internal security, reviving reconstruction efforts and fulfilling related international economic aid commitments, securing Iraq’s borders, and providing for a sustainable federalist structure in Iraq.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2006_0620.html

[ProSense]

3. This is interesting!

He also criticized Mr. Lamont for being less than clear on which plan for withdrawal from Iraq he supported — the “phased withdrawal” offered by Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, or the set withdrawal date advocated by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin. At different times Mr. Lamont has signaled support for both, which Mr. Davis decried as inconsistent.

Tom Swan, Mr. Lamont’s campaign manager, said today that Mr. Lamont supported the Kerry amendment. However, Mr. Swan added, the candidate would support other proposals “in order to unify the Democrats; he’s not going to make that decision alone,” a reference to determining how and when to withdraw troops from Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/nyregion/06cnd-campaign.html?ref=nyregion

[globalvillage]

4. I really don't like this.

From the same article...

Mr. Lieberman began the day with stops in churches in Stamford and Bridgeport, where he appeared with Eleanor Holmes Norton, a congresswoman from Washington, D.C., and Mayor Corey Booker of Newark, N.J.

At each church, the preacher invoked faith to say that Mr. Lieberman would be re-elected Tuesday, and Mr. Lieberman happily concurred. At the Congregation of the Community Tabernacle of Deliverance in Stamford, one preacher spoke of the biblical character of Joseph, who he said “refused to sell out to the haters.” A few moments later, Mr. Lieberman added:

“Joseph had faith that God will take care of the haters and I have a certain faith that this Tuesday God will take care of the voters.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/nyregion/06cnd-campaign.html?ref=nyregion

Preachers should not endorse a candidate in church.
And who are the 'haters'?

On edit, I'm pretty certain God won't "take care of the voters" on Tuesday, whatever that's supposed to mean. What in the hell is that supposed to mean? Sounds like something bush* would say. Or like God's some kind of Holy hit man.
Maybe, Joe, you'll find out on Tuesday that God doesn't particularly care for being used to further your political career. Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass? Of course, I think it will be the CT voters, not God, who send you packing.

[ProSense]

5. Agree! This link was posted

at Atrios:

Sadly, my opponent has done his best to distort my record, spending at least $4 million of his own money to mislead people into thinking that I am someone I am not. Not unlike what happened to Max Cleland four years ago.

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/08/liebermans-last-stand.html

What a Jerk!

[globalvillage]

6. I'm surprised Max is with him.

and a little disappointed.

:-(

[Mass]

7. Unfortunately, the more I listen to Lamont, the more he seems like an

opportunist. A few weeks ago, he said he would not have voted for Kerry-Feingold, but today, he said he would have.

It is really too bad they could not find somebody better to oppose Lieberman.

[Democrafty]

8. Who is "they"? n/t

[Mass]

9. CT Democrats.

I am spending the summer at the border of MA and CT, so I get to hear local CT TV and radios and hear him a lot.

The truth is that I do not like what I hear (particularly when he is the one doing the speaking). He is certainly better than Lieberman on some critical issues, but this is the only reason I would support him.

[globalvillage]

10. I'm pretty certain Sen Kerry would have found it easier

to get Lamont's support than Lieberman's. I know Lamont is anti-war, and he's been saying he supports a strong Dem concensus on withdrawl. Now that he's saying he'd support Kerry/Feingold, all the better.
I'm going to give Lamont the benefit of the doubt. Anyone's better than Leiberman with all his bush worship. Yuck.

[Mass]

12. He is definitively better. No question about that.

[ProSense]

11. I really think the Repubs

are trying to usurp the Democrats' position, specifically Kerry's, on Iraq.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2760631&mesg_id=2761064

[Mass]

13. Hagel has always had more or less the same position than Kerry on Iraq.

(or rather than people like Biden or Obama). This is not phony or anything. He has sometimes been more vocal than Kerry criticizing Bush on Iraq.

Now, it is possible that we begin to see some Reps trying to coopt some of the themes the dems have used.

I think we can expect to see a lot of Dems trying to copy Kerry/Feingold without ackowledging that. Sad but true.

[ProSense]

14. Hagel has been talking this way since before the 2004 election

and voting exactly the opposite despite it. I watched him denouncing the war in almost every television appearance leading up to the election, then suddenly switching back to defending Bush. He is a McCain. By saying the right things, they get people to agree with them and overlook genuine support. When they disengage (revert back to their rubberstamp ways) people are left confused. I will never trust him.

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. No, he's just another McCain who talks out of both sides of his mouth

It's ludicrous to suggest that he comes close to having the same position as Kerry on Iraq. Did he vote for Kerry/Feingold? Of course not. He didn't even vote for the wimpy cop-out Levin/Reid. Hagel is just trying to be the McCain of 2008 and distance himself from Bush by going on TV and condemning him, but he can always be relied on to vote the GOP line. If he "had the same position as Kerry on Iraq" don't you think he might have put his money where his mouth is and voted for Kerry/Feingold, instead of paying cheap lip service on TV?

[TayTay]

16. That would be very rich indeed

Perhaps we can get all the newly converted Doves in the Repub Party and fly them to Davos where they can decide what to do. I, for one, would love to see twerpy little JEffy Session trying to defend himself against a charge of flip-flopping on this issue.

Remember, they are all accountable for the whole of what they have said. All of it, from 2001 onward. Make that stick.