Sestak Caves On Iraq

Via atrios, Pennsylvania Democrat and ertswhile Netroots favorite Joe Sestak has caved in on Iraq:

Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) . . . said Democratic leaders should set aside their demands for immediate withdrawal "and begin to help author a comprehensive regional security plan that accepts the necessity for a deliberate redeployment."

. . . Sestak has been among those Democrats who think that setting a "date certain" for withdrawal is the best way to force Iraqis to assume more responsibility.

But he now believes the length of time needed to redeploy, and the potential for the entire Army to "unravel" unless troops are redeployed, require a compromise.

Good bargaining there Admiral. So are we going to support primarying Sestak? The Netroots/activist strategy on Iraq in 2007 has been an abject failure.

< 36th Anniversary of Attica Prison Uprising | The Time to Say "No" to Ted Olson is Now >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Spineless Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:02:09 AM EST
    Spineless Democrats!

    It is instructive to read Bush's Jan 10 2007 speech when he announced the surge.  It would be interesting to fact check so many of the things he said then.


    • Iraqis don't feel secure or feel that things have gotten better.
    • Baghdad is still divided in sectarian enclaves and people are fleeing.
    • There is no political reconciliation.
    • Benchmarks (that Bush then said he'd hold them to) are not met.
    • There is more violence there YTD than had been there YTD at this time last year.
    • Even if violence were reduced, there is no indication that it is not temporary.
    • Our rent a thug sheik got killed in Anbar.
    • Bush has been saying for years (as he did on Jan 10 2007)that we'll accelerate training of Iraqi forces.  Yet we are nowhere close.
    • Over 700 US soldiers died since Jan 10 2007.
    • I don't know how much money we've spent in Iraq since Jan 10 2007, but it is probably over 70 Billion dollars (much more if you include indirect costs).

    All this so that Bush/Petraeus could play some number games with the violence statistics.

    It is time to change course now.

    Yes it is (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:11:44 PM EST
    'Fully Funded Withdrawal' (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by chemoelectric on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:06:09 PM EST
    Randi Rhodes 'clarified' yesterday, stating that she is for 'Fully Funded Withdrawal'. This came after a session of whining to Bruce Fein, during which she expressed her fear that Bush would leave de-funded troops in Iraq (a justified fear) and that this would be bad for electoral politics (that aspect is not on my radar screen).

    In essence, Randi Rhodes is saying that George W. Bush can terrorize her into funding his occupation if he wants. However she can pass responsibility for this personal failure to her listeners and the American people generally, for not having corraled and deliverered the Godot 'Republicans', and generally for being rotten, lazy citizens who would allow Randi Rhodes to be terrorized by George W. Bush.

    Heh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:11:13 PM EST
    I love your Randi Rhodes reports.

    I never really thought much about what she says and, tell the truth, I only do when you report it to us here.


    No Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:13:23 PM EST
    If we had a SINGLE senator, they could filibuster everything the administration asks for - but we dont. Sure, they might get voted down (cloture), but then we would have a record of those who sided with the administration and against its people.

    We dont need a spine (although donations to the research to correct Democratic Spinal Defect "DSD" would be greatly appreciated). We need one senator who cares more about the people than he does his own party.

    Bush's strategy is to give the Iraq war to the next president. The Democratic strategy is to be that president. The people's strategy is to quit bleeding and dying.

    Anyone know an honest senator?

    No one could have predicted... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CMike on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:47:48 PM EST
    We in the netroots have enthusiastically aligned ourselves with an assortment of former CIA and military officers along with various on the outs but looking to stay in the game State Department players. Gee, who would have thought that would lead to us helping along the "military power is there to be used, foreign entanglement crowd?"  

    We pick out nominees based on how (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 01:11:19 PM EST
    ruggedly handsome they look standing in a wheat field.

    The deal? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Donna Z on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:00:27 AM EST
    If I had to guess what's coming down here, my choice "A" would be "Nothing can interrupt the coronation."

    Comparing the list of caving Dems. to my credit card statements kinda makes me wince, or at least think 100 times before I click submit.

    Word (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:11:25 PM EST
    Too cryptic. ? (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:01:35 PM EST
    Who bought him off? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:13:32 PM EST
    With what?

    Democrat heeding the call of Dem. leadership (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:43:55 PM EST
    last night.  Will any Republicans accept "the call"?  No.