Are Bush, Condi and Rummy beginning to hijack John Kerry's plan for Iraq?

[mzmolly]

Note the language in their recent statements and compare to Kerry's plan.

She (condi) told CNN that American leaders believed Iraqis were "carrying out more functions" that previously had been beyond their capability.

"The number of coalition forces is clearly going to come down, because Iraqis are making it possible to do those functions themselves," she said.

Although there has been speculation that the administration could reduce the U.S. contingent next year by tens of thousands of troops, President Bush has rejected timetables, saying that defining a schedule would hearten the insurgents and encourage them to wait out the American withdrawal.

Last weekend, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld again rebuffed questions about timetables, saying that moves to draw down personnel would be "conditions based." In other words, U.S. officials would send no signals until they were convinced that Iraqi troops who had been trained were prepared to shoulder more of the burden.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-rice23nov23,1,1751398.story

Notice how after Democrats gave them a plan for exit, they suddenly had one?

[shoelace414]

1. what conditions? give me something to measure!

[mzmolly]

7. I'm certain conditions mirror those dems have laid out. They are slowly

starting to toss out the language to make the Democratic Plan their own. ;) It's good for everyone as the tide is turning and the Bush admin has no choice but to ride the wave.

[Mass]

10. They are not riding the tide - They are campaigning and they know they

have to withdraw some troops (or at least propose to) in order to please people.

Please do not denature Kerry's plan or ANY democrat's plan by saying Bush is adopting it.

[mzmolly]

13. I believe they are adopting it and for political reasons.

This is the beginning of their doing so IMHO.

"Conditions based troop withdrawal" IS Kerry's plan.

I've softened the language of my OP based upon your concerns however, thank you.

[pinto]

17. Yeah, they're campaigning.Troop rotation will be "re-framed" as a draw down

the media will parrot the line and they will hope to co-opt the debate - not the plan - without addressing withdrawal in any real sense of the matter.

[mzmolly]

20. Could be?

I guess I took the bait.

:shrug:

[pinto]

30. In all honesty, your guess is as good as mine....

:shrug:

I know from their history, though, these guys will "rename" anything, anywhere at any time, for political advantage.

And if that doesn't work, rename it again.

How many "reasons" have we gotten for the Iraq invasion? 12? 23?

I like the heat of this debate, though. It's cutting close to their political home and may well hasten the end of our (overt) involvement in the Iraq fiasco and save some lives, all around.

(ed for spell)

[BlacknBlue in Red NC]

2. Reminds me of "Buy a dog, name it Clue, and then you'll have one."

[Mass]

3. Happy they are proposing something, but this is clearly not a plan

50,000 troops out at the end of 06 (most because of troop rotation) and nothing behind.

So they are trying to copy the Democrat's plan, but this is a pale copy of Kerry's plan. And their motive is too transparent (election, election).

[mzmolly]

12. They are inching in that direction. It is a pale copy, but I imagine they

are easing in so that they can attempt to appear credible.

[blm]

4. This could also be why the press wouldn't discuss Kerry's plan last month

BushInc didn't want the public to know the only doable withdrawal plan WAS Kerry's.

But, I doubt they could pull off Kerry's ENTIRE plan, because it requires good faith from the US which no one in the Bush administration has.

The only way they can pull it off is if Clinton intercedes for them.

I hope for the world's sake he does.

Here's further insight from last january's MTP:

Kerry on Iraq last January:

I think what Senator Kennedy is saying--and here I do agree with him--is that it is vital for
the United States to make it clear that we are not there with long-term goals and intentions of our presence in the region. I agree with Senator Kennedy that we have become the target and part of the problem today, if not the problem. Now, obviously, you've got to provide security and stability in order to be able to turn this over to the Iraqis and to be able to withdraw our troops, so I wouldn't do a specific timetable, but I certainly agree with him in principle that the goal must be to withdraw American troops.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the new government, as soon as it's possible, begins to negotiate some modality like that. And I wouldn't be surprised if they even asked us to leave in some way over a period of time. I wouldn't be surprised if the administration privately, behind closed doors, asked them to ask us to leave. I think there are plenty of ways to skin this cat. But the most important thing is that you've got to have stability.

What Iraq is after this is important to the world. It cannot be a haven for terrorism. It cannot be a completely failed state. Now, you'll notice the administration has backed off significantly of its own high goals of full democratization and so forth, and I don't think you're going to hear them pushing that. There are a lot of conservatives, neo-cons and others in Washington debating now sort of what the modality of withdrawal ought to be.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6886726 /

[Mass]

6. blm, this is NOT Kerry's plan. This is BS. Read it.

[blm]

9. heh...I was editting my post when you posted.

.

[mzmolly]

26. Amazing.

SEN. KERRY: "I think that over a period of time, this administration is going to face the reality of Iraq which is that a prolonged American presence in Iraq is neither affordable nor wise nor will it ultimately enhance our goals in the region, prolonged, but we're going to have to be there in the short term to do the training we've talked about."

I think what Kerry said above may finally be taking place?

[blm]

29. He wouldn't be surprised if we're ASKED TO LEAVE and wouldn't be surprised

if Bush ASKS THEM TO ASK US TO LEAVE.

And Kerry met with many in the Iraqi Parliament in early September when he started working on his withdrawal plan. He KNEW all this was coming. So did Murtha. They both met with Gen. Casey there, too, who submitted a withdrawal plan last Friday to the Pentagon.

Kerry, Murtha and Casey submitted withdrawal plans - one from the Senate, one from the House and one from the General on the ground.

It's so easy to see when you put it all together.

[mzmolly]

31. I'm so glad it's happening. In spite of the underhanded manner

it will be carried out. *wink wink* but they ASKED us to leave.

"Kerry, Murtha and Casey submitted withdrawal plans - one from the Senate, one from the House and one from the General on the ground."

So in a round about way, I was right to suggest they are hijacking the Kerry plan? ;)

Thanks for all the info BLM. Perhaps the holidays will be "happy" for the first time in a very LONG time after all?

:hi:

[emulatorloo]

35. I don't trust them to get anything right . . . they'll co-opt the language

and then screw it up.

[mzmolly]

This is true. I am still hoping for impeachment of the entire cabal.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

37. This is true. I am still hoping for impeachment of the entire cabal.

:hi:

[emulatorloo]

42. it could happen . . .

:toast:

:hi:

:kick:

[blm]

44. Yeah, if Clinton came in and administered the plan for them.

The world will take whatever reasonable concession it can get at this point.

[Cassandra]

5. Of course, that's why they were pushing Democrats...

to come up with a plan. Repukes needed one and it's the least we can do.

[MichiganVote]

8. its not as if the Bush admin. could plan anything themselves

[acmavm]

11. It's lose/lose for bush**. Does anyone seriously think that when we

leave the place isn't going to go up like a tinder box? And we have to leave because they hate us and we can never improve the situation. Then when we go people will start to reflect, as their unemployment runs out and they can't afford gas for the car or heat for their homes, how much was wasted for NOTHING but the greed of some power-hungry assholes.

[blm]

16. I hope he'd have the sense to ask Clinton to shephard the plan through.

I doubt his ego will let him do it, though, but the poll numbers may force him there.

[mzmolly]

22. I think your right.

I hadn't considered this perspective.

[izzie]

14. Well when Bush ran he stole every ones talking points.

Anything to get a vote and then he gov. as this, any thing for business bosses and stock market.

[ProSense]

15. This is not a plan. Let's summarize:

Rice says forces will clearly come down, Bush rejects timetable and US officials reiterate moves to draw down personnel would be "conditions based (wink, wink to fool the trrrist)."

[mzmolly]

18. True, it's not a plan. But the language is similar to the Kerry plan

and if my antenna are right this time, this administration is inching in the Kerry plan direction? Unless the WD of troops talk, is only because they intend to move these poor bloaks into Syria ?

[ProSense]

24. I wouldn't put it pass them. n/t

[ohtransplant]

19. Rummy; "moves to draw down personnel would be 'conditions based.'"

Yeah - The condition is that Amurkins are tired of being misled In addition Dems have real and constructive plans for withdrawal/redeployment.

History will show John Kerry's speech at Georgetown overcame the inertia of the existing quagmire and moved this discussion in a constructive direction.

* really has no choice but to attempt to co-opt the issue to save face. It won't work in the long run. It's sad in a way (not that sad). He's been marginalized with three years left in his pResidency.

edit: sp

[mzmolly]

21. That's what I'm thinking. Staying in Iraq as they planned to do, would be

political suicide. Though, some good points have been made in this thread about the possibility they are simply snowing us as well?

[blm]

23. Hey mzmolly, read January MTP transcript in post #4.

.

[ohtransplant]

25. I don't trust this band of thieves and thugs for a second

That's why anyone with real hope for this country must keep up the pressure in any and all venues - including the 2006 elections - which I think is the undercurrent to this whole thing..

That's the only thing that will drive them in the right direction.
It's the only thing that will secure the return of our service members.

[blm]

27. I hope for the world's sake they DO the right thing for a change.

.

[mzmolly]

28. Yes indeed.

Demanding we have representation in Washington is a must.

[dogman]

32. I attended a Clark function last May and he said the Republicans would

do this for the '06 elections.

[mzmolly]

33. He was right.

I hope it doesn't help them - UGH.

[blm]

45. What amazes me is how Dems are way more on the same page than media

will report. And it has to be intentional that they claim there is no unity in the Dem message.

The problem is that the only two Dem messages heard are either Clinton and Lieberman or the RW strawman of cut and run.

All of the thoughtfulness of Dems like Clark, Kerry, Murtha, et al. get ignored or mischaracterized, even by many on the left.

[emulatorloo]

34. Think Bush's Katrina Plan - Lib Dem New Deal Talk, same old Cronyism Crap

So yeah, they may adopt the language of Dem's plans to coopt them, but it is gonna be the same old crap -- permanent bases in iraq etc etc.

[mzmolly]

38. Likely true. They'll do just what they need to do in order to remain

politically viable.

What was I thinking?

[Neil Lisst]

36. They realize now they're totally screwed. Dems have outflanked them.

They have to withdraw, and now that they've made such a big deal, it will obviously be the pukes adopting a Dem plan.

By February, Bush will be using Kerry's talking points.

[mzmolly]

39. Yes he will.

Probably by December at that!

I only hope they actually do pull out.

[Neil Lisst]

43. It's like in 1972. We lost the election, but won the War issue.

Nixon (Bush) talked tough in '72, but he followed the will of the people in ramping down the war in 1972, and fading it out.

I wanted us out faster, but we only lost about 600 after the 72 election, and that was a victory in itself. I had a good friend killed in a rocket attack in August of '72, the last friend I had die there. His death made me more angry that the others, because I knew it was so wasted, so unnecessary. If we had gotten the hell out in early 72, he'd still be alive, and so would 1000 other US soldiers who died there.

I'm encouraged that we've turned the corner, and we're really going to be getting out next year. At least mostly.

[jillan]

40. I thought that too.

Can't blame them.

Like Kerry said, if they can't come up with an exit strategy, he would have to do it for them.

[welshTerrier2]

41. great credit should be given to the American people

bush's poll numbers are in the toilet and republicans are worried that if the war is still going on leading into next year's midterms, the Democrats are likely to make huge gains ...

several prominent Democrats have recently acknowledged that it will not be possible to prosecute the war without the support of the American people ...

the percentage of Americans calling for an end to the war ASAP has been steadily growing ... it's clear that the main driving force behind the WH policy shift is political ...

whatever the reason and whatever the cause, if the WH now is focussed on withdrawal that's good news ... let's hope that this latest revelation is more than just talk ... the American people need to keep the pressure on bush and the Congress to end the war ...