Considering the 93 to 6 Senate vote rejecting a call to “cut and run” by the end of 2006, John Kerry is looking pretty darn extreme.
This may be good for his standing with the far-left blogosphere (like BMG), but I bet he’s already sealed his own fate for a 2008 presidential run. Russ Feingold, too.
Their radical get-out-now! positions may tickle your fancy, but I doubt Democratic party elders will allow either to get anywhere close to the nomination.
Hillary’s looking pretty savvy.
Please share widely!
The vote is what it is. At the cost and bodycount rises, we will all see how the voters feel in 2008.
<
p>
“Cut and run” is a nice soundbite, a way of stating that opponents to the war are acting out of cowardice or lack of resolve. There are other reasons to withdraw our troops:
<
p>
1. We invaded Iraq to make sure Saddam could not threaten other nations with WMDs, or otherwise. In the words of the President: Mission Accomplished. Let’s turn this country over the people who own it, and leave.
<
p>
2. Some say we should stay until Iraq is a non-sectarian democracy. Is it a non-sectarian democracy today? If not, how, exactly, do we accomplish this by force of arms? They had an election, they have a government. They have an army. What, exactly, is the endpoint we are waiting for? What defines “victory”? I’m waiting to hear the endpoint that the President is looking for.
<
p>
3. Are we staying until we have ended the insurgency? I don’t believe that we can end the insurgency. Only the Iraqis can. It may take them a very long time.
<
p>
4. How long do you expect our troops to remain in Iraq? Two years? Ten? We put an air base in the Phillipines during
World War II, and stayed there over forty years. Is this what the President has in mind? Are we negotiating base agreements now? Are we negotiating rights for U.S. companies to run the Iraqi oil fields? What if the Iraqi government says “No, thank you.” Then what?
<
p>
If pulling out or troops in six months, or one year, or two years, is too quick, when should they come home? If the Dems look ridiculous, what exactly, is the plan put forward by the President?
<
p>
DaveS makes excellent points. Politics are fluid, and who knows what voter sentiment will be in 2008. Impossible to tell.
<
p>
No one knows . I don’t think anyone knows “when” to get of out Iraq — one year, 2, 5 … Bush leaves it opened ended because no one can predict when the mission will be finished.
<
p>
What is that mission, and when is it successful? DaveS, your questions are spot on, especially #2, though this has been answered by the president: when there’s a stable, elected, self-supporting government, and when that government can provide credible security from the terrorists.
<
p>
Perhaps this isn’t specific enough for the president’s critics, but I think it is acceptable to the majority of people. It isn’t science, it’s an art, and there will be lots of debate when the time comes to consider whether the mission indeed has been fulfilled.
<
p>
When that happens, who can say? But those are the basic conditions of our withdrawal as stated by Bush. Fair enough.
<
p>
But it’s all fuzzy and uncertain because … and that’s just the way it is. Demanding “immediate withdrawal” is one policy position. “Stay as long as it takes” is another.
<
p>
We didn’t know, after WWII, when we’d depart our occupation of Germany, but we stayed well past when the Basic Law and Constitution were in place which. The Allies formally ceased occupation in 1956 (repeat — formal occupation,) well after Konrad Adenauer was elected Chancellor in 1949.
<
p>
Hey, we didn’t tell Adenauer “hurry up we’re leaving on Thursday” because it wasn’t the right thing to do. We stay until security, political and economic conditions permitted our departure. History note … VE Day was May 8, 1945, the “Basic Law” was passed in May 1949, and the US Army formally abandoned its political function in West Germany only in 1956. History here.
<
p>
And, ahem…we still have troops, equipment and bases in Germany. I suspect this will be the Iraqi model.
<
p>
As for Greg’s criticsm I’m out of touch with the American people, the historical sentiment, viturally constant over time since 2003, has been around split 50%/50% between “stay as long as it takes,” and “leave immediately.” I believe Greg’s mistaken job approval or progress-in-Iraq polls with stay-or-leave sentiment.
<
p>
Furthermore, if we wanted to leave by the end of 2006, Greg, we’d have to start that logistically complicated withdrawal today. Even accepting your semantic critique, since the withdrawal question in framed is in years, not months, yes, I do equate “now” with the end of 2006.
<
p>
If you actually looked at the surveys I cited, you would find that what you wrote is false.
You my friend are out of touch with the sentiments of the American people.
<
p>
But before I get to that, an obviously false equivocation in your post: “end of 2006” and “get-out-now”. They voted for the former not the latter, and your attempt to equate the two tells me you’re not even trying to be serious here.
<
p>
As for this “radical” position you speak of that would our troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, it just so happens to be the position of majority the American public, the Iraqi public, a super majority of the troops themselves, and of course the rest of the world. It’s you, Hillary, and those 94 members of the US Senate that so radically deviate from what the American public clearly wants. That’s exactly why someone like Russ Feingold is going to be a major in contender in 2008 — because unlike so many others, he actually agrees with the American public on this issue.
<
p>
So stop recycling bullshit Republican talking points. You sound as if you’re straight out of the school of insulated Washington consultants — the same people that “consulted” Democrats into losing the House, the Senate, and the presidency, while true progressives like Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, and Brian Schweitzer continue to get elected.
<
p>
The AP reported today that there have been 2,500 US deaths in Iraq. If you knew one of them, you might feel differently.
Bullshit Republican talking points win elections .
They can win elections for Republicans not Democrats. If you want evidence, look no further than the Democrats loss of the House, Senate, and Presidency by moving to the right and cowing to Republican talking points. For Democrats, the populist/progressive tactic has a proven track record of winning elections.
From the American Propsepct artilce you cite: “A recent straw poll of 1,900 Daily Kos readers found 85 percent supported Hackett…” Kos readers? Polling Kos readers doesn’t reflect reality.
<
p>
Besides, didn’t I see a photo of a bunch of them in DC wearing — not kidding — tin foil hats? Then it is true!
<
p>
Ummm … Hackett lost, which made me look again at the article’s masthead. Dated October 7, 2005.
<
p>
The composition of the US Senate, House, state legislatures and governorships refutes convincingly your claim that “the populist/progressive tactic has a proven track record of winning elections.”
<
p>
Please submit a list of progressives in the US Senate or House of Reps. It’ll be a lot quicker than my submiting the list of those who aren’t.
Seriously, are you joking? None of the polls I pointed to in this comment were polls of Kos readers. The American Prospect article I linked to cited the poll of Kos readers to demonstrate Hackett’s support among the netroots, not to show public support of Hackett. You would have found that out if you actually read the Prospect article.
<
p>
How does Hackett’s loss in the primary affect my argument in any way? He lost to Sherrod Brown, one of the “true progressives” I cited in <a href="my first comment, an arguably even more progressive Democrat than Hackett. Moreover, Brown is poised to win the Senate seat against Republican incumbent DeWine in the swing state of Ohio . . . more evidence that the populist/progressive angle is a winning one for Democrats.
If you want a list of more progressives in the Senate and House, the American Prospect article mentions a number of them. You would have known that if you actually read the article before typing.
Sherrod Brown is leading DeWine in the latest SurveyUSA poll. Brown is a solid progressive candidate. Hackett was a darling of the blogosphere, no question, but Brown is definitely a more seasoned candidate and is in a great position to win.
in VA show how the “conservative centrist” Democrat is not doing so well(losing for a better word) and for the piece de resistance look no further than how well Lamont is doing vs. Lieberman
<
p>
Hell, even Kansas Democrats are recruiting/welcoming former Republicans to run as Democrats because the Republican Party so nutty and too conservative
Kerry recent jump from “stay the course but do it better” to “get out as soon as possible” is the most utter unbelievable move he’s done, and really seems to fulfil the “flip-flop” accusations.
<
p>
Feingold isn’t hurt because he’s been utterly consistent on this since before the war. I’m still not sure if it’s the right route: I’m of those who were absolutely opposed to invasion beforehand, but once we were there and had messed things up, there was a responsibility to stabilize things instead of abandoning Iraq. I think an international peace-keeping force would have been much better than the same army who invaded, but after years and years of continuing to alienate the rest of the world, we’re pretty much stuck with it for a while. Pressure for withdrawal is good if it balances out the right wing “stay the course” into a sane approach, but Kerry should leave it tothose like Feingold who can say it without looking ridiculous.
<
p>
<
p>
Ha! Hillary’s almost managing to look more ridiculous than Kerry by sticking to the same wishy-washy joke of a position he tried in 2004.