Iraq phased withdrawal plan from Senate Dems this week (not Kerry's)

[beachmom]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060618/pl_nm/iraq_congress_usa_dc_2

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats plan to offer a resolution in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday seeking a timetable for a phased withdrawal from Iraq, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said on Sunday.

snip

Last week the Senate voted 93-6 to put aside an amendment from Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate, to withdraw U.S. forces by the end of this year.

Kerry was angry that Republicans put to a vote his amendment, which was still being crafted and would work with colleagues this week on his amendment plans, said his spokeswoman, April Boyd.

"John Kerry has been calling for a clear deadline for withdrawal and will not take the heat off the Iraqi leaders to do their job and stand up for their own country," she said.

The Iraqis are also anxious for the American forces to leave but not prematurely. "The debate that we watched recently in Congress demonstrated that the legislature, also, is mindful of the dangers of setting a fixed timetable for an early or premature withdrawal," Iraq Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said on CNN.

Okay, so it seems that Kerry's amendment is dead, but they're going to offer a more watered down version. Am I reading this correctly?

Also, I am highly disturbed by the Iraq Foreign Minister's remarks. It shows me that we don't have a functioning independent government in Iraq. Instead, we have a bunch of Iraqi politicians chit chatting in the Green Zone under U.S. protection while militias, tribal leaders, insurgents, criminals, and terrorists run the country. From what I heard, the Iraqi leaders begged Bush for U.S. troops not to leave. Bush told the press this, spinning his own policy, not realizing that sharing this information conveys that we have a COMPLETELY impotent government there.

[Mass]

1. Kerry will be offering his amendment as well (according to BG and others..

It will receive a handful of votes (and that certainly was not a surprise to him).

Reid, Levin, and Feinstein are offering a version that is more or less equivalent to what was offered last year (a phased withdrawal without any date or numbers), so that everybody can be happy.

The second point is exactly Kerry's point. As long as the Iraqi govt will know the US will stay, they will not do anything. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party at this point lacks the leadership to push this issue, even if most Dems agree.

[karynnj]

12. So the Reid, Levin. Feinstein bill is

just so Democrats have something they can point to as having voted to have an exit plan. What I wonder is whether the Democrats who will vote for this nothing bill really think staying is right or they think it is right politically.

[TayTay]

13. They are testing the waters to see what happens

This will also put the Repubs on the record for this fall. The Repubs are the ones who will not even be able to commit to the idea of withdrawal.

[globalvillage]

2. I don't think the Kerry amendment is dead

Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, will press ahead this week with his separate amendment to pull virtually all US troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, said his spokeswoman, April Boyd.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/19/democrats_set_to_call_for_phased_pullout/?page=2

[beachmom]

3. Oh. Okay -- thanks, guys. I thought this amendment would be

offered INSTEAD OF Kerry's amendment. Thanks for the clarification.

I have a feeling these Iraqi politicians can't stand Kerry -- they're mad at him for pointing out that they're incompetent idiots -- allowing 6 MONTHS to go by before forming a government, allowing the country to descend into civil war, and thousands of Iraqis to die. Carter's former sec. of state (sp? -- Brazinsky) said that any Iraqi government that refuses to ask the Americans to leave are merely puppets and will leave WHEN the Americans leave. What we should be looking for is a leader who talks tough, including setting up a timetable for withdrawal of foreign troops. It doesn't have to be Kerry's timetable, but it should be a timetable. The fact that this Iraq government, with their wishy washy statement of "not too premature of a withdrawal", have shown their true colors.

As an aside -- remember how Maliki said they're going to do this BIG security sweep of Baghdad with 75,000 American troops and Iraqi police/forces? Well, guess how many Americans/Iraqis are in Baghdad right now? 75,000. It's a sham. A very bad sign of things to come. Still, some of the Iraqi bloggers are hoping that Maliki will turn things around; for their sake, I hope he does.

[blm]

4. The Iraqi pols who spoke under no pressure from WH sided more with Kerry.

.There was a thread on it at the end of last week.

[wisteria]

7. I saw that.

it seems the administration has roped them all in and they are all now singing the same tune. Frankly, I think something else is going on and this administration is again misleading us or they are playing politics with soldiers lives, which wouldn't surprise me at all.

[europegirl4jfk]

10. If this document is real, the Iraqi government is now irrelevant

And Kerry was right to criticize them. Did you see the Baghdad US Embassy memo that the Washington Post obtained?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/iraqdocs_061606.pdf

"Personal safety depends on good relations with the 'neighborhood' governments, who barricade streets and ward off outsiders. The central government, our staff says, is not relevant; even local mukhtars have been displaced or coopted by militias. People no longer trust most neighbors."

"More recently, we have begun shredding documents printed out that show local staff surnames. In March, a few staff members approached us to ask what provisions would we make for them if we evacuate."

[TayTay]

11. That is unbelievable.

I just read the State Dept memo. It is just unconscionable that the Rethugs can have the debate they did on Iraq with this information coming in to them. They know that the policy in Iraq is screwed and they know that the situation is not going to get better.

This makes me weep for my country and the moral blindness of the people who lead it. If it wasn't for the few courageous people who are out there still trying to change the direction of the the Iraq policy, I would just give up.

[beachmom]

14. I read that yesterday, and passed it on to Andrew Sullivan

I think it's important to engage the hawks who ARE willing to look at the facts, but may come to different conclusions than us. I will continue to pass information like this on.

Hi EuropeGirl!! Hope all is well in France!!

[beachmom]

18. Giving credit where credit is due -- Sully just posted the story

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/06/the_iraq_realit.html

The Iraq Reality
19 Jun 2006 11:58 am

The Washington Post found a "sensitive" cable from the U.S. ambassador's office in Baghdad, issued just after the president's visit last week. It is signed "Khalilzad" (all such cables routinely are) - but was buried in the B-section. It portrays a society in sectarian and security meltdown - with growing Islamist influences. Iraqi employees at the embassy bear witness to theocratic crackdowns worse than exist in neighboring Iran in some areas. In 115 degree heat, much of Baghdad gets one hour of electricity for every four hours without it. I don't think this can be attributed to MSM bias. It's the U.S. embassy's own private assessment. Download the PDF file here and read it.

I'm not sure if he got the story from my e-mail, or just came upon it at the WP. Notice how he has to pre-emptively defend the story from his right wing readers by saying this is NOT "MSM bias". Also, notice how this story was buried in the B section of the paper. Sounds like it WAS MSM bias; in favor of hiding the truth, and thereby protecting the president from the charade he continues to act in.

Edited to add: oh, the B section may be referring to Khalilzad's report, NOT the WP report. I have no idea where that story ended up.

[TayTay]

5. The ball is being moved forward, that is a good thing.

Sometimes you can't get exactly what you want. However, you can influence the overall outcome of the game. Kerry may not get his amendment through. However, without the pressure that he and Jack Murtha are putting on the national Dems, we would not have this competing withdrawal amendment.

The press won't report on this because it is simpler to just think of everything in terms of absolute outcomes. But what Sen. Kerry and Cong. Murtha have done by stating a goal of a timed withdrawal is force Democrats to confront Iraq, confront the failed policies over there and confront what the base of the Party wants. This is, as I often say, not nothing.

I am not surprised that a competing and less forceful amendment is being presented. Ask yourself why the idea of withdrawal is coming up at all for the Dems, which would not even consider discussing this option as recently as seven months ago.

There are hidden winners in everything. And again, the ball has been advanced on the playing field. That didn't happen all by itself.

[wisteria]

8. I absolutely agree! You and I know as well as the others in this

forum, that Kerry and Murtha are responsible for this movement in the right direction. They are the true leaders- not the others forced to come up with a plan. I a way, the other dem's are not much better than the Iraqis, unwilling to move on something unless under pressure.

Besides, when negotiating,it is a know fact that you ask for the most, knowing you will be compromising and settling for something less.

[Inuca]

9. Agree

Kerry & Murtha & Feingold acted as catalysts. We'll see what will happne tomorrow....

[ProSense]

16. Exactly!

Kerry and Murtha forced the debate! I salute them!

[ProSense]

17. Remember Biden's speech

Assuming we succeed in preventing a civil war, perhaps 20,000 to 40,000 Americans will stay for some time after that to continue training and equipping the Iraqis to keep Iraq’s neighbors honest and to form a rapid reaction force to prevent jihadists from establishing a permanent base in Iraq.

Snip...

The President has to be realistic about the mission and forget his grandiose goals. Iraq will not become a model democracy anytime soon.

Instead, we need to refocus our mission on preserving America’s fundamental interests in Iraq.

There are two of them: We must ensure Iraq does not become what it wasn’t before the war: a haven for terrorists. And we must do what we can to prevent a full-blown civil war that turns into a regional war.


http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=249188&

Assuming?

[wisteria]

6. Feinstein seems to suggest a timetable on "Late edition" yesterday.

I thought this sounded like good news. That the dem's had come up with a compromise plan-together. I believe I read that Kerry and Feingold had stated they would not except anything without a time line it it. Now, it seems this is the same old plan in the works for a while. See partial transcript and link to show below.

Also, I remember reading comments from the Iraq VP, a Sunni, who said he asked Bush for a timetable saying Iraqi's wanted the Americans out. (I have goggled, but can no longer find the article from MSNBC). This article seemed to contradict all the other comments suggesting the Iraq's want us there for as long as it takes with no timetable. Personally, I think the new PM of Iraq is now getting his cues from the Administration. Bush is pushing the idea that we have to stay and assist them for as long as it takes for other reasons other than being responsible for seeing Iraq through this difficult period. I haven't exactly put my finger on the motive yet, but I would wager money, it isn't as simple as having to stay the course.
Anyway, here is the comments from Feinstein made on Wolfie's show.

BLITZER: You have written a piece in one of the San Francisco papers, today, suggesting it's time, after three years plus, for the United States to begin a phased withdrawal, including a timetable. I want you to explain why you disagree with the president.

FEINSTEIN: Well, three years and three months into the war, with all of the losses, the insurgency, the burgeoning civil war that's taking place -- what was it, seven bombings in Baghdad yesterday -- an open-ended time commitment is no longer sustainable.

I don't think it's sustainable from the military point of view in terms of troops commitments.

I don't think it's sustainable in terms of what Americans think about the war. A timetable, some goals, some discussion with the Congress by the administration. The president might not have wanted to have done that early on, but three years and three months and a bogging down, I think, suggests that the time has come for some discussion as to where we go from here.

Now, last year, in a resolution for the defense authorization bill, we passed an amendment which said that 2006, the Iraqi government, its permanent government, will be standing up, that that would be the year for a phased redeployment of troops. And it's June, and nothing has happened.

BLITZER: All right. Well, let me let...

FEINSTEIN: So, Tuesday will be a day when we will debate this on the floor. Senator Levin, Senator Reid and I will have a resolution which we hope will capture the votes of a number of Democrats. I can't speak for everybody, but it will say the time has come for phased redeployment. And I think that's correct. I think...

BLITZER: All right.

FEINSTEIN: All right. You want me to stop.

BLITZER: I know. I want to let Senator Roberts weigh in. Is there anything that she said you would disagree with?

ROBERTS: Well, yes. I have not had an opportunity to read the article, and I must say that I value Dianne's friendship and her work on the committee. She is an outstanding member of the committee. But why would you give the opportunity for the terrorists to simply rejoice and simply wait us out. If you get a timetable, you know, that's one thing. I think every American wants to see the day that our troops come home at the earliest possible time. But we may have turned the corner in terms of our intelligence capability. It was that that led us to the killing of al Zarqawi.

And when you're seeing the Iraqis starting to step away from fear and starting to really cooperate like they have, when you see a new president really setting priorities on the electrical grid and water and better life for the people of Baghdad, and when you see progress, at least to some extent, I don't think now is the time to set a timetable. And if you set a timetable, what does that say in terms of American resolve? Over there it's a battle of wills. Here it's a battle of wills, and it's a battle of wills in the Congress as to whether we're going to be resolved to at least have some stability or not.

BLITZER: Let me let Senator Feinstein respond to that. The argument you just heard, Senator Feinstein, if you give a timetable, what stops the terrorists from simply waiting out the U.S. departure and then trying to take over the country?

FEINSTEIN: Well, last weekend on your show, Wolf, the Iraqi national security minister essentially set a timetable. He said that he believed we could be down to under 100,000 troops by the end of this year and virtually everyone out by end of '07 or into '08. Now that was at least from the Iraqi perspective. This is the national security minister. He is new. I assume he knew what he was saying. He's suggesting a timetable.

I don't know why we are so afraid to stand up and say, look, we want to see an end to this thing. We want to transition the mission. We want to have logistics and training. We need to redeploy our people. Afghanistan has major problems. Other areas have problems. It seems to me that the time has come. Three years and three months into a mission that was supposed to take 30 or 40 days. That isn't cutting and running.

BLITZER: I'm going to pick up on that right after a quick break. Senators, stand by. Senator Feinstein's referring to our interview last week with Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, when he did suggest that there could be under 100,000 coalition forces by the end of this year and almost all of them out by the end of next year or into 2008, as the senator accurately reported.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/18/le.01.html

[kerrygoddess]

15. DiFi has been on this since JK's October speech

Her view is a bit different from JK's but close. There's a half decent concensus it seems with the Dems that we need to get out - so they are doing what they always do - offering up a few amendments in effort to get one that sticks.