Iraq a Tricky Issue for Ambitious Democrats
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 49 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry initially voted in favor of a
Republican-sponsored resolution calling on President Bush to explain his
strategy for success in Iraq. Minutes later, the Democrat changed his vote.



The scene underscores the risks facing every politician trying to determine
an appropriate and politically wise response to war that's become
increasingly unpopular with the public.

For those like Kerry eyeing a presidential run in 2008, the stakes are
particularly high. Any position they take is a gamble given the uncertain
terrain in Iraq and the United States in three years.

"If you stake out too specific of a position this early, you may have to
take that back, and you can only zig and zag so many times in American
politics," said Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University in
Rhode Island.

So potential presidential candidates have stark decisions to make:

_Do they stick with President Bush's stay-the-course strategy in a war that
many Americans believe is going south, and risk being dragged down as well?

_Do they present their own detailed plans to bring U.S. troops home - and
open themselves to criticism of "cutting and running?"

_Do they take the same stance they always have, and leave themselves
vulnerable to claims that they failed to respond to the changing situation?

Governors and others beyond Washington considering a White House run are
under less pressure to declare positions on the war because they don't have
to vote on it. Nevertheless, some have been vocal.

"I was wrong," former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said Nov. 13 in a column in
The Washington Post. "It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002." He
advocated a "gradual process" of pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq starting
early next year.

Another possible candidate, Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico,
said in a statement Tuesday: "It is now time for the military commanders to
design a phased, definitive withdrawal plan."

Other potential candidates outside of Congress have remained largely silent
on Iraq.

"Senators that are looking to run are walking a fine line between supporting
the troops and supporting their core constituents in the base of their own
party," said Scott Reed, a Republican who ran Bob Dole's presidential
campaign in 1996.

Senators vote several times a year on spending bills that pay for the war,
and sometimes on Iraq resolutions like the two the Senate considered last
week.

A Democratic measure, which the Senate rejected, called for a timetable for
withdrawing troops. A Republican alternative, which the Senate ultimately
passed, urged the Bush administration to explain "its strategy for the
successful completion of the mission in Iraq" but omitted a timetable.

Kerry, last year's Democratic presidential candidate who is said to be
considering another run, first voted for the GOP resolution. He then left
the chamber and was seen just steps off the Senate floor talking briefly to
his senior home state colleague, Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting
record), D-Mass. Kerry walked back into the chamber and changed his vote.

David Wade, a Kerry spokesman, said Republicans weakened the resolution
"late in the game," and "Sen. Kerry mistakenly believed strong language
demanding benchmarks and timetables was still intact. Our troops deserve
better than half measures, and that's why John Kerry voted against it."

Before the vote, the Senate debated the main difference between the two
measures - one called for a timetable and the other didn't. In his floor
statement, Kerry said he intended to vote against the GOP resolution partly
because it lacked a timetable.

Last month, Kerry called for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, starting
with 20,000 returning home after the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections. He is
one of several senators considering a presidential run who have recently
recommended changing Bush's Iraq policy.

The latest was Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., who
said Monday that "measurable progress" must be made on the political,
reconstruction and security fronts in the next six months. "What we need is
for the president to change course and do it now," Biden said.

Also Monday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said immediately
withdrawing from Iraq would be "a big mistake" and suggested that the United
States wait for Iraq's elections for an indication about how soon the Iraqis
can take over.

Other Democrats' positions have been more clear cut. Sen. Russ Feingold
(news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., has said the United States should set a
target date of Dec. 31, 2006, to complete the military mission in Iraq.

The two Republican senators who have taken arguably the most aggressive
positions on Iraq also weighed in recently.

"Trust and confidence in the United States has been seriously eroded," said
Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb. "The United States
should begin drawing down forces in Iraq next year."

Taking the opposite view, Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record),
R-Ariz., advocated a "clear and stay" strategy in which troops rid an area
of insurgents and then secure it. Though it would mean more troops and
money, it has "the best chance of success," he said.

Craig Smith, a Democrat who ran Sen. Joe Lieberman's presidential campaign
last year, said the war is clearly the No. 1 issue.

"But anybody who thinks staking out a position now is going to have much of
an impact in 2008, I think, is kidding themselves," Smith said. "Anybody who
proceeds to stake out a definite position now does so at their own peril."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Kerry...first voted for the GOP resolution. He then left the chamber and
was seen just steps off the Senate floor talking briefly to his senior home
state colleague, Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass.
Kerry walked back into the chamber and changed his vote."



I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...



Iraq a Tricky Issue for Ambitious Democrats
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 49 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry initially voted in favor of a
Republican-sponsored resolution calling on President Bush to explain his
strategy for success in Iraq. Minutes later, the Democrat changed his
vote.



The scene underscores the risks facing every politician trying to
determine
an appropriate and politically wise response to war that's become
increasingly unpopular with the public.

For those like Kerry eyeing a presidential run in 2008, the stakes are
particularly high. Any position they take is a gamble given the uncertain
terrain in Iraq and the United States in three years.

"If you stake out too specific of a position this early, you may have to
take that back, and you can only zig and zag so many times in American
politics," said Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University in
Rhode Island.

So potential presidential candidates have stark decisions to make:

_Do they stick with President Bush's stay-the-course strategy in a war
that
many Americans believe is going south, and risk being dragged down as
well?

_Do they present their own detailed plans to bring U.S. troops home - and
open themselves to criticism of "cutting and running?"

_Do they take the same stance they always have, and leave themselves
vulnerable to claims that they failed to respond to the changing
situation?

Governors and others beyond Washington considering a White House run are
under less pressure to declare positions on the war because they don't
have
to vote on it. Nevertheless, some have been vocal.

"I was wrong," former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said Nov. 13 in a column
in
The Washington Post. "It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002." He
advocated a "gradual process" of pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq starting
early next year.

Another possible candidate, Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico,
said in a statement Tuesday: "It is now time for the military commanders
to
design a phased, definitive withdrawal plan."

Other potential candidates outside of Congress have remained largely
silent
on Iraq.

"Senators that are looking to run are walking a fine line between
supporting
the troops and supporting their core constituents in the base of their own
party," said Scott Reed, a Republican who ran Bob Dole's presidential
campaign in 1996.

Senators vote several times a year on spending bills that pay for the war,
and sometimes on Iraq resolutions like the two the Senate considered last
week.

A Democratic measure, which the Senate rejected, called for a timetable
for
withdrawing troops. A Republican alternative, which the Senate ultimately
passed, urged the Bush administration to explain "its strategy for the
successful completion of the mission in Iraq" but omitted a timetable.

Kerry, last year's Democratic presidential candidate who is said to be
considering another run, first voted for the GOP resolution. He then left
the chamber and was seen just steps off the Senate floor talking briefly
to
his senior home state colleague, Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting
record), D-Mass. Kerry walked back into the chamber and changed his vote.

David Wade, a Kerry spokesman, said Republicans weakened the resolution
"late in the game," and "Sen. Kerry mistakenly believed strong language
demanding benchmarks and timetables was still intact. Our troops deserve
better than half measures, and that's why John Kerry voted against it."

Before the vote, the Senate debated the main difference between the two
measures - one called for a timetable and the other didn't. In his floor
statement, Kerry said he intended to vote against the GOP resolution
partly
because it lacked a timetable.

Last month, Kerry called for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, starting
with 20,000 returning home after the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections. He
is
one of several senators considering a presidential run who have recently
recommended changing Bush's Iraq policy.

The latest was Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., who
said Monday that "measurable progress" must be made on the political,
reconstruction and security fronts in the next six months. "What we need
is
for the president to change course and do it now," Biden said.

Also Monday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said immediately
withdrawing from Iraq would be "a big mistake" and suggested that the
United
States wait for Iraq's elections for an indication about how soon the
Iraqis
can take over.

Other Democrats' positions have been more clear cut. Sen. Russ Feingold
(news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., has said the United States should set
a
target date of Dec. 31, 2006, to complete the military mission in Iraq.

The two Republican senators who have taken arguably the most aggressive
positions on Iraq also weighed in recently.

"Trust and confidence in the United States has been seriously eroded,"
said
Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb. "The United States
should begin drawing down forces in Iraq next year."

Taking the opposite view, Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record),
R-Ariz., advocated a "clear and stay" strategy in which troops rid an area
of insurgents and then secure it. Though it would mean more troops and
money, it has "the best chance of success," he said.

Craig Smith, a Democrat who ran Sen. Joe Lieberman's presidential campaign
last year, said the war is clearly the No. 1 issue.

"But anybody who thinks staking out a position now is going to have much
of
an impact in 2008, I think, is kidding themselves," Smith said. "Anybody
who
proceeds to stake out a definite position now does so at their own peril."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

"Kerry...first voted for the GOP resolution. He then left the chamber and
was seen just steps off the Senate floor talking briefly to his senior
home
state colleague, Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass.
Kerry walked back into the chamber and changed his vote."



I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Then you have others like Daschle that try to rewrite history.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blo...evisionism.htm
l

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but Syria and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but Syria and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

There is always tomorrow. You have to have goals that are more than just
winning the next election.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but Syria and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

No it's not. The scope and size of any withdrawal has never been announced
by anyone holding the authority to decide such things.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but Syria
and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

No it's not. The scope and size of any withdrawal has never been
announced by anyone holding the authority to decide such things.



I see in the news today that the Iraqi army is being accused of abuses which
are reminiscent of Saddam's regime. If this continues, it could lead to a
parallel conflict which your president was too stupid to predict. That would
make us even more unwelcome than before. The decision to leave may not be a
nice, neat one made in a conference room.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for
further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but Syria
and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

No it's not. The scope and size of any withdrawal has never been
announced by anyone holding the authority to decide such things.



I see in the news today that the Iraqi army is being accused of abuses
which are reminiscent of Saddam's regime. If this continues, it could lead
to a parallel conflict which your president was too stupid to predict.

Any abuses by the current regime towards fellow Iraqis is irrelevant to the
ultimate plan of installing a US-friendly government that is willing to
allow US troops to establish bases around the perimeter of Iraq's borders.



That would make us even more unwelcome than before. The decision to leave
may not be a nice, neat one made in a conference room.

I don't think we'll ever leave.

"NOYB" wrote in message
news

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for
further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but Syria
and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

No it's not. The scope and size of any withdrawal has never been
announced by anyone holding the authority to decide such things.



I see in the news today that the Iraqi army is being accused of abuses
which are reminiscent of Saddam's regime. If this continues, it could
lead to a parallel conflict which your president was too stupid to
predict.

Any abuses by the current regime towards fellow Iraqis is irrelevant to
the ultimate plan of installing a US-friendly government that is willing
to allow US troops to establish bases around the perimeter of Iraq's
borders.

Huh? According to your president and his sitters, we already installed a
US-friendly government.



That would make us even more unwelcome than before. The decision to leave
may not be a nice, neat one made in a conference room.

I don't think we'll ever leave.



Well, just make sure your children have no excuse to avoid being shot at.
You wanted this war. Put your money where your mouth is.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
news

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for
further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but Syria
and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

No it's not. The scope and size of any withdrawal has never been
announced by anyone holding the authority to decide such things.



I see in the news today that the Iraqi army is being accused of abuses
which are reminiscent of Saddam's regime. If this continues, it could
lead to a parallel conflict which your president was too stupid to
predict.

Any abuses by the current regime towards fellow Iraqis is irrelevant to
the ultimate plan of installing a US-friendly government that is willing
to allow US troops to establish bases around the perimeter of Iraq's
borders.

Huh? According to your president and his sitters, we already installed a
US-friendly government.


No kidding. The plan is halfway complete. And you guys say that we're
making no progress in Iraq. ;-)



That would make us even more unwelcome than before. The decision to leave
may not be a nice, neat one made in a conference room.

I don't think we'll ever leave.



Well, just make sure your children have no excuse to avoid being shot at.
You wanted this war. Put your money where your mouth is.

Troops stationed in fortified bases around the perimeter of Iraq would be no
more at risk than the Marines at Guantanamo...or the forces that were
stationed in Europe during the Cold War.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
news

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:55:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I guess he got spanked by Uncle Ted, eh?

Maybe, but the debate has been engaged. You are also overlooking
something. The neo-con plan to have Iraq as a permanent base for
further
aggressions, is looking more, and more, unlikely. So sorry, but
Syria and
Iran are not on today's agenda.

No it's not. The scope and size of any withdrawal has never been
announced by anyone holding the authority to decide such things.



I see in the news today that the Iraqi army is being accused of abuses
which are reminiscent of Saddam's regime. If this continues, it could
lead to a parallel conflict which your president was too stupid to
predict.

Any abuses by the current regime towards fellow Iraqis is irrelevant to
the ultimate plan of installing a US-friendly government that is willing
to allow US troops to establish bases around the perimeter of Iraq's
borders.

Huh? According to your president and his sitters, we already installed a
US-friendly government.


No kidding. The plan is halfway complete. And you guys say that we're
making no progress in Iraq. ;-)



That would make us even more unwelcome than before. The decision to
leave may not be a nice, neat one made in a conference room.

I don't think we'll ever leave.



Well, just make sure your children have no excuse to avoid being shot at.
You wanted this war. Put your money where your mouth is.

Troops stationed in fortified bases around the perimeter of Iraq would be
no more at risk than the Marines at Guantanamo...or the forces that were
stationed in Europe during the Cold War.

Oh....OK. You think this war's gonna cool off soon.