True Majority &Congress.org each sent e-mail about Kerry's Amendment

[_dynamicdems]

From True Majority, this e-mail supporting Senator Kerry's amendment:

Dear XXXX,

Tell your representative to stand up in Congress and demand a plan for withdrawing American troops from Iraq.

After months of pressure from TrueMajority and a lot of other groups, Congress is really feeling the pressure to talk about Iraq. The House leadership had promised a debate to begin this week, but now it's become clear their real plan is to dance around the issue again. You have an opportunity to remind them that we want our leaders to face the war head-on.

John Kerry just introduced a surprise Senate amendment to get our soldiers out of Iraq, but the House is ducking the issue. Don't let them. When the House attempts its charade this week, insist that your representative speak out for a real Iraq withdrawal plan.

If you're a TrueMajority member, click "Reply" and "Send" to send a message to your representative. If you were forwarded this message or would like to edit the letter (below), visit the following site:
http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/iraqvote

From Congress.org, mention of Kerry's amendment in their newsletter:

"Additionally, the Senate will vote on an amendment by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) to withdraw all troops from Iraq before the end of the year. The House will vote on a resolution related to the war in Iraq as well. Share your views on the issue with Congress and President Bush."

[ProSense]

1. Excellent! Thanks!

Please post in GD.

[_dynamicdems]

3. Okay, will do. Please throw a bucket of water on me if I go up in flames.

I've been busy posting around the net, so I just got back here, but I'll go post this in DU.

:scared: :D

[ProSense]

4. OK! Thanks! n/t

[Mass]

2. Excellent - Too bad that they cannot convince the other dems

in the Senate. It seems that Reid and Levin are preparing an amendment for the end of 2007.

In any case, it is already a victory for those who wanted a withdrawal plan to be discussed. I doubt that without Kerry and Feingold, they would even be offering something for 2007. It is more likely that it would be some vague language. It seems that the amendment the Democratic leadership consider is at least asking for some withdrawal in 2006 (though it is not exactly a gutsy movement, as it is probable that * will do just that).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199360,00.html

Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin say they want most troops out by year's end. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, say that deadline should be the end of 2007.

For liberal activists, getting the troops out by the end of this year is the more attractive option, but the 2007 date is considered by several lawmakers the more reasonable and responsible alternative that keeps the pressure on the White House on withdrawals.

In the Kerry amendment, the U.S. Senate would call for some U.S. troops to stay in Iraq, but only those "critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces." It would also call for "an over-the-horizon" troop presence to "prosecute the War on Terror and protect regional security interests."


According to the amendment being circulated by Levin, troops would be redeployed from Iraq to the Middle East region by the end of 2007. The amendment is to the Defense Authorization bill currently being considered on the Senate floor.

One senior aide to Reid said the language will "more tightly define" a phrase in the Iraq resolution passed last year that calls for 2006 to be a "year of significant transition in Iraq." In that vein, the amendment being considered in closed door meetings calls for the Bush administration to start to redeploy troops by the end of 2006.

...

Does anybody know who will vote for a Kerry resolution (or a Feingold one)? Have they been able to convince more than 4 or 5 people?

[sandnsea]

5. Bill Clinton said we can't leave

They're helping the Bushies frame this as 'leaving tomorrow' - and then saying we can't do that or the Iraq govt will fall apart. So we've still got no unity on this war. I don't know if the Clintons really believe the US is omnipotent and can do anything, or whether they're playing war party so Hillary will look tough to the centrists. Either way, it's flat out idiotic. There is no way that country can stand on its own until our troops are significantly reduced. We're a hindrance to their independence as long as we're there.

[karynnj]

6. I agree that is stupid

What annoys me is that the Clintons and Reid etc are considered the leaders of the party. Kerry won the right to be considered a leader by easily winning the nomination and on Iraq he is likely closer to where most Democratic voters are.

[fedupinBushcountry]

9. I'm thinking

that they know Kerry is getting strong support in his stance and that hurts you know who. They are playing politics with this and that is stupid and dangerous, they are all about power and frankly I'm sick of the kiss up Clinton talk. Its about time they quit playing politics and really support our troops and get them out of harms way.

Clinton nor Biden have never been to war and I'm tired of their hawkish mentality. :mad:

[karynnj]

10. Or you don't have to be Republican to be a chicken hawk.

[wisteria]

7. Well, David Gergen just recommend Bill Clinton as the spokes

person for the Dem's on Iraq on CNN. He thinks he is the best person to go against Rove this fall and take on Rove on Iraq.He thinks he is tough enough and strong enough to do this. It was suggested that Dean should be doing this and Gergen said that Dean is good with the left, but not with the middle and with others,saying he didn't think he was the right person to reach the people. Personally, I smell a rat and I think this is a move by the DLC to gain control of the party fully again. This explains discarding Kerry's plan as cut and run and using excuses that really have not be though out to justify staying longer in Iraq. I don't know how you feel about Clinton, but I think he needs to step aside and let others lead the party now. He had his time. I am beginning to feel that Kerry is onto something and he is being squeezed out. Damn them.

[karynnj]

8. That's been happening since Nov 3, 2004

The stronger it becomes the more I begin to thing that the Clintons may have preferred a Bush win - the mess - then the coronation and restoration. This started with the media speaking of Bush's huge victory. The question is how can Kerry possibly reach enough people.

[wisteria]

12. He is reaching out in his speeches.

However, he needs backing in order to give legitimacy to his positions. I think by not supporting him, they are trying to isolate him. Credible people like Hart and Hayden who support him need to become very outspoken and visible along with Kerry. He needs do further reaching out by e-mail, mail, personal appearances and TV time. And we need to become a force too. Writing and complaining about inaccuracies, defending his position etc. It will not be easy, but I see this as a fight to return control of our party to the people. I consider Senator Kerry to be very courageous for taking this fight on.

[sandnsea]

16. Remember "everybody makes mistakes", back in 2003

I knew we were in serious trouble with Bill Clinton right then and there. We had the "voted for the war" frame that let Bush off the hook. Then we had Clinton saying crap like this on national tv, and he's still doing it.

"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," Clinton said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think."


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

[wisteria]

21. I think we can all relate to making mistakes, but as you point out,

it is this unwillingness to hold Bush accountable for this war mess that has me puzzled. This was not a minor mistake. This was a massive political, militarily, and foreign policy blunder- undertaken on purpose.
What is Clinton actually up to I have to wonder?

[karynnj]

22. I suspect that it is because there were things not handled

well in Iraq in the Clinton years. Clinton seems to have ignored Iraq, letting the sanctions continue for all 8 years. The progressive affect of those sanctions was a disaster. He also likely hyped some of the intelligence himself to get the resolution in the late 90s of US policy being in favor of regime change - though we overtly did nothing. He also knew the true intelligence as of Jan 2000 and he did nothing to suggest that Bush was lying.

None of this makes him anywhere near as quilty as Bush, but he may well have been one of "the Democrats ... I trusted who lied"

[sandnsea]

23. In that link..

that interview, he said he knew that the intelligence showed that Iraq hadn't disposed of all their weapons when he left office. So it isn't even that he didn't challenge Bush's lies, he fed into them. I really think it's because of that tough on defense thing that the Frum people think is the only reason Democrats can't win. But you can't manufacture toughness or just support wars without any real cause or belief, people see right through that. It's interesting that Wolfowitz's influence in the 90's Iraq policy is over-looked. He's the one that pushed regime change overthrow strategies and the like. A common sense strategy would have gone the peacekeeping, nation building route in the north and south of Iraq; but it's the same neocons who opposed nation building that made the smart Iraq strategy impossible to implement. Real toughness on defense would have stood up to them and that's what the Frum types don't get.

[Mass]

11. I have the feeling this will not go to a vote.

I had hoped that Reid would let it go to a vote as he did for the filibuster, but from all I read, I think this will not happen. They will do what they did last year, offer something a lot more vague instead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/washington/14dems.html

A vote on a Kerry-style amendment could create a hard choice for Democrats in the Senate: antagonize the party's antiwar base or provide fodder for Republican attacks. Senate Democratic leaders, not surprisingly, were seeking a less stark alternative to put before their members — including a possible call for a "responsible redeployment" of American troops starting this year.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/13/iraq.politics/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee said Tuesday he favors a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq beginning by the end of 2006 and finishing by the end of 2007.
...
For Democrats, appearing divided on Iraq could carry a political cost. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has been meeting behind closed doors with key Democratic senators to come up with legislation on which they can agree.
...
Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, told the same gathering that he will offer an amendment this week to set a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"I believe we need a hard and fast deadline, not an open-ended commitment of U.S. forces, so that we shift responsibility and demand responsibility from the Iraqis themselves," Kerry said.

[wisteria]

13. "Responsible Redeployment", What are they trying to imply here?

Kerry's plan is not responsible? Whether we leave at the end of this year on by 2007 through phased withdraw, it will not change the fact that Kerry's amendment calls for consultation and interaction with the Iraq's and even a summit.And,in the end, the Iraq's will have to learn to stand on their own in 2006 or 2007. This sounds responsible to me. The major difference I see is more of our soldiers being killed or maned.

[sandnsea]

14. If we'd passed something in Dec 2005

We'd be bringing troops home and they wouldn't be paying the price for Bush's refusal to denounce permanent occupation. I don't know why any Democrats continue to believe a word this administration says.

[wisteria]

15. I don't know, but I have a hunch it could be that they are out of touch

with the public and are afraid to take a stand that could jeopardize their cushier seats.

[sandnsea]

17. Even Carl Levin??

He's the one that gets me. I can't figure out why he keeps backing off on the war.

[ProSense]

18. I guess

another several thousand lives for their ignorant postering is fine.

[karynnj]

20. What gets me is that I think the support to get out is there

Last week, I was speaking to my dad, who voted for Bush. He had supported the war as necessary, seeing WWII as the the analogous situation. (He was about a year too young for WWII himself). He was telling me about talking to the grandson of a very close family friend who just returned from Iraq. My dad's view was that we had to get out of there, it's a civil war. (He still feels "sorry" for Bush, because some of the people who supported it when it started are against him now. I did mention that Bush lied and the bigger problem is that his current actions are not in line with a goal of getting out.)

I would assume that someone from that generation who bought the war in the first place for all the fake patriotic reasons and 911 that the Bush people pushed would be among the hardest to win over and if he's typical that group may be turning.

Kerry's comments on the Vietnam politicians who continued the war to save face should shame these people. The facts are pretty clear in both cases. Even saying wait till Novemeber makes no sense in this case. I actually have more respect for Lieberman, who sincerely believes in this than the Bidens and Bill Clintons clearly playing politics with this.

[TayTay]

24. Karynnj, you are spot on

We heard from a pollster today (zzzzzzz) and he unveiled a lot of statistics (zzzzzzzz) that say that we are at a tipping point. This is very unpopular war and Democrats can only gain by speaking their minds clearly on this.

I have talked statistics with you and no (zzzzzzzz.) This guy from Democracy Corp was a little, ahm, dry. He out-wonked me. Alas and alack, I knew this day would come.

[_dynamicdems]

19. That's so true. Nobody wanted to listed then.

I don't understand the Dems on this. Is it me or is Reid being a little too careful?