Democrats Win Iraq Debate: Iraq Peace Plan echoes Kerry/Feingold

[beachmom]

Cross posted at DailyKos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/23/105332/802#c175

I woke up today to the best news to come out of Iraq since this war began. They have unveiled a Peace Plan that includes a timetable for withdrawal of American troops. The biggest winners for this plan are the Iraqi people and our troops who will be able to come home. However, as a partisan Democrat, I can't help but want to gloat how the Kerry/Feingold amendment, which Senator John Warner said was a concept whose time had not yet come, is most in line with what the Maliki government had in mind.

From the London Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2239088,00.html

The 28-point package for national reconciliation will offer Iraqi resistance groups inclusion in the political process and an amnesty for their prisoners if they renounce violence and lay down their arms, The Times can reveal.

The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces.

snip

The draft marks the first time the Iraqi Government has endorsed a fixed timeline for the withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq, a key demand of the Sunni insurgency.

"We must agree on a timed schedule to pull out the troops from Iraq, while at the same time building up the Iraqi forces that will guarantee Iraqi security and this must be supported by a United Nations Security Council decision," the document reads.

One insurgent group involved in the discussions told The Times that the timetable for withdrawing foreign troops was key. "We are not against the formation of the new Iraqi goverment, but with certain conditions, which are to put a timetable for the pullout of US Troops," Abu Fatma, from the Islamic National Front for Liberation of Iraq, said.

Says Pamela from The Democratic Daily:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3404

We hate to say we told you so, but, the Times of London reports, contrary to what Dick Cheney and the Republicans say, the Iraqi's really don't want us there (hat tip to Taylor Marsh)...

What is truly incredible is how this Iraq Peace Plan includes key components to the Kerry/Feingold amendment:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2006_0620.html

The Iraqis did indeed have a summit, will give the U.N. the central role to execute all aspects of the plan, and most importantly, makes a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops the key to get Sunni insurgents to lay down their weapons.

As John Kerry said on the Senate floor two nights ago, while having a brilliant, dramatic, and compelling debate with Senator Warner of Virginia (from Thomas):

Years later, we read in Robert McNamara's book how he knew, as Secretary of Defense, while he was sending troops over there, that we weren't going to be successful. Now, from 1968 until 1975, when we left in that dramatic helicopter moment off the embassy, almost half of the people who died were lost in that period of time--for a policy that our leaders knew wasn't working.

I am not going to be a Member of the Senate in good standing and in good conscience and support a policy in Iraq that I believe is going to add people to whatever Iraqi memorial will be created, at a time where I am convinced this isn't going to work for them and it is not going to work for the Iraqis. I believe we have a moral responsibility to those soldiers who died to do our best to get it right, and I just don't believe staying the course, more of the same, is getting it right.

Ladies and gentlemen: with this Peace Plan, the Iraqi government has more or less adopted the Democratic position on Iraq. The Kerry/Feingold amendment was more muscular than the Levin/Reed amendment. Nevertheless, both amendments changed the conversation from "Stay the Course" to troop withdrawals. The Iraqis agreed. Another thing John Kerry said two nights ago about the Iraqis is now true about the Republican shameless sloganeering:

What are they, cutting and running on themselves?

So NOW what are the Republicans and their MSM apologists going to say about the Democrats and the Iraqi Government Peace Plan? They'll no doubt act like it was their idea in the first place. WE MUST NOT LET THAT HAPPEN.  It was the DEMOCRATS who led on solving this problem, and nothing those liars will say will change this vital truth. Help to make sure that the message -- WE WERE RIGHT -- gets out there LOUD and CLEAR.

[blm]

1. You think Iraq is trying to tell the Republicans something???

Thanks for this great post.

[_dynamicdems]

2. Let's see....

The majority of American people want us out. Several of our generals have stated that our presence is fueling the insurgency. And the Iraqis don't want us there.

Why are we still there?

Talk about overstaying a welcome (not that we were welcome in the first place despite what Bushco said)!

[Imalittleteapot]

4. Always believe the opposite of what the GOP

says. They debated to benefit their little nitch in the world. Dems debated for the US, Iraq, soldiers and the world and most agree that the Dems won.

K&R :kick:

[blm]

8. That's an excellent point, teapot.

You could craft an entire essay around it.

[_dynamicdems]

12. True, lie is what they do best. They are professional liars. n/t

[beachmom]

7. If this peace plan sinks, or suddenly doesn't include troop

withdrawals, we will know for damn sure how evil */Cheney et al are. The Iraqis are giving us an out. And we BETTER take it.

[307 MMS]

3. Good info

Yup, much more than us, they've had/seen enough. The repukes want to hang on longer so they can continue to pump our tax dollars to the war profiteers and whatever else they can rape out of that country. All at the expense of our troops and the US and Iraqi families suffering from this abomination. Let's see how these imcompetent bastards try to spin this. since they own the message and the messengers, they sure will.

[blm]

6. This turn of events is getting NO ATTENTION from the Corpmedia.

.

[flpoljunkie]

27. And why do you suppose that is? Is the Bush administration working

furiously behind the scenes to stop it, and our media is complicit in holding back iin covering the story.

Just found this from Reuters on the NYT:

Iraq PM to Present Reconciliation Plan to Assembly

By REUTERS
Published: June 24, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Filed at 8:07 a.m. ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was expected to present a national reconciliation plan to parliament on Sunday aimed at defusing the Sunni insurgency and tackling sectarian violence, political sources said.

The plan, which could be Maliki's boldest political move yet, sets out to remove powerful militias from the streets, open a dialogue with rebels and review the status of purged members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party.

Political sources said a key element of the 28-point blueprint would be to draw rebel groups into the process of implementing hoped-for agreements on such questions as defining ''terrorism.''

One important question will be how far Maliki, a Shi'ite Islamist who took office on May 20, would be willing to go to bring Sunni Muslim insurgents to the negotiating table.

more...

[LittleClarkie]

5. THE IRAQIS WANT TO CUT AND RUN!!

COWARDS :sarcasm:

Bush has said that we'll only be there as long as they want us there. Can't WAIT to see what he says now.

Well, actually, I can, because it's probably gonna be bullshit.

I do hope it's visible bullshit though.

[ginnyinWI]

20. I hope and pray that it will be plain BS for all to see

There are a lot of repubs out there who are NOT stupid, and do indeed know which way the wind is blowing.

And as for that 15-20% of mouth-breathers--they're hopeless because they don't listen--but we won't need them to elect Dems anyway. ;)

[rodeodance]

9. well, well. lets see how the repugs spin this.

[blm]

11. The corporate media isn't even REPORTING this while waiting for WH spin

to tell them HOW to do it.

[Terran1212]

10. It doesn't matter what the Iraqistanis think to the Jingos

[lumpy]

13. Thanks and kick

hope?

[_dynamicdems]

14. I sent the London Times link to Ed Schultz and he was just talking about

the story on his show. He said that if this happens this weekend it will be a HUGE story. He also asked what has happened to our journalists that they got scooped on this.

I truly hope this breaks this weekend!

[blm]

15. Did he acknowledge that he was probably too harsh on Kerry-Feingold plan?

.

[_dynamicdems]

25. NO, he didn't. He mentioned Murtha when he talked about the Dems

being right about Iraq. He's still pissed at JK. I don't get it.

[blm]

28. I think Ed was TOLD it was a bad move by Kerry by the camps of "other"

Dems - if I had to guess I'd say Biden's and Warner's. They care about political positioning for 2008 than what's best to deal with Iraq TODAY.

[Disturbed]

16. The RW Media will have their spin ready by Monday.

As soon as they get their "talking points" from Rover, the RW Spin Machine will turn this to a negative onto the Dems and a positive for the Busholini Regime.

[DaveT]

17. The spin will be one thing, The policy will be the opposite.

The spin will be, "Thank God that the Congress did not undercut the negotiaions that make American withdrawal contingent upon the insurugency laying down their arms. If Kerry's cowardly motion had passed the insurgents would have had no incentive to lay down their arms. . . ."

The policy will be to undermine that key element of the "deal" -- making sure that the permanent bases stay permanent. There are an infinity of ways to torpedo a peace deal -- the easiest being to bomb the shit out of some Sunni towns to provoke retaliations which, in turn, justify further operations until the "deal" falls apart in an ocean of bloodshed.

This puts the Administration in the position of trying to make peace but seeing "the terrorists" renege on the deal because that's just the way they are.


This is a pretty slick little move, here.

[beachmom]

18. That's why I posted this story so we know the truth

I'm not as conspiratorial as you. I think what Bush will do is act like this was his idea all along. We can't let that happen. We know the order of events here. Take note and be ready to pounce.

[DaveT]

19. Point well taken about the danger of reading too much into

a story like this.

I base my suspicion on this:

The deal, which has been seen by The Times, aims to divide Iraqi insurgents from foreign fighters linked to al-Qaeda. It builds on months of secret talks involving Jalal al-Talabani, the Iraqi President, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador, and seven Sunni insurgent groups.

Of course Shrub, the invidual, has little or nothing to do with these machinations, but you don't have to stretch your imagination very far to surmise that the Novemeber elections are a major hurdle for the Administration. If this note is accurate, and I see no reason to doubt it, Khalilzad has been in on this effort for quite some time -- the obvious goal being a huge announcement of American troop reductions before Novemeber.

The announcement and a much ballyhooed "Welcome Home" party for a brigade or so of conquering heroes with Shrub dusting off his codpiece for another strut across the stage pretty well puts the Iraq issue to sleep.

Once the election is safely over, the deal will "evolve" or simply fall apart -- and the permanent bases and the Luxury Embassy program will roll along unimpeded.


I hope this is just paranoia.

Does anyone agree with me that it probably isn't paranoia but something fairly close to what will happen?

[beachmom]

22. But Khalilizad has won nothing but praise from other Dems

He's a true believer pro-democracy neo-con (you know -- flowering democracy all over the Middle East), and did a rather good job in Afghanistan as their ambassador (I think he was the one who got the tribes to agree on Karzai), which as you can see now is beginning to deteroriate in Khalilzad's absence. So since Khalilzad, unlike Bush/Cheney/Rove, actually has to live and stay and negotiate in Baghdad, I can't see him agreeing to a full scale charade. Look, I'm not being naive, but I just don't see him putting together a bullshit plan, when he has to see and talk to the Iraqis every day long after November elections.

But, alas, I could be wrong . . .

[DaveT]

23. He could be very sincere in HIS efforts

but he would not be the first negotiator to have the rug pulled out from under him by the front office.

Too early to make bets on any of this -- I'm just trying to look for the most likely GOP gaming.

Unlike the Reagan and Nixon admins (which were utterly ruthless and pretty damned cynical, to be sure)that were pushing their (arguably twisted) notion of the National Interest, I really believe that Cheney has NO regard for America's interest and has 100 percent focus on power for his inner circle of cronies within the USA. I think the best comparison for this group is Boss Tweed -- there is no easier or safer way to steal than by controlling the government.

Or another good comparison for The Iraq Concession is the "Esplanade" project on The Sopranos -- an open ended government "development" project that sluices money from the goverment directly to the gang.


The problem for Cheney and Rove is how to keep John Conyers from getting subpoena power -- the solution is to hoke up "victory" in Iraq.

[ProSense]

26. Excellent discussion! n/t

[blm]

21. You probably nailed it exactly right.

.

[jillan]

24. I'm just waiting for Bsh and Cheney to announce their

timeline for withdrawal plan.

Bets are on that it will sound very, very familiar.