dc_dux

The Dems are looking for a reasonable way to proceed on the Iraq funding issue. The question is whether Bush really is as well or whether he will continue to insist that a funding bill have "no strings" attached (ie a blank check) despite no public support (a new low of 28% job approval in the latest Newsweek poll) and dwindling Republican support (at least privately).

Are the Repubs in Congress willig to compromise or would they rather continue with their bombastic rhetoric about Dem "surrender" plans.

Congreeman Obey, the Chair of the House Approrpriations Committee ,has reportedly come up with a compromise (still in the planning stage) that would provide funding through July, then require Iraq to meet hard benchmarks on politcal and security goals in order for Congress to approve addtional funding beyond that. There would be no speficic timeline on US troop withdrawal.

The bill would also remove all the domestic spending in the bill (some of which is reasonable to consider in an "emergency bill and some just plain ole pork) and vote on those in a separate emergency funding bill.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/b...ing_up_to_bush

There is not much more detail yet, but it sounds reasonable to me.

Your thoughts or other options on the best way forward?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

host

It seems "reasonable"....after a four year occupation, removing the timetable for withdrawal, because our CIC, with his 28 percent approval rating, demands it?

With 133 Iraqi lawmakers are calling for US troops to leave, and the rest are planning a two month vacation...
3363 US troops dead, and 11 more killed just yesterday....over a 100 killed in April...
Between us, my wife and I have three sons, and the oldest is back from Afghanistan, just 5 weeks, now. He'll be ordered to go back there, probably in October.

Maybe we have a different perspective, because this experience is in our family. Iraq occupation is not worth one more US casualty. It is not a time for anyone in the house or the senate, who voted for the bill that Bush vetoed, to vote for anything less, as far as a timetable for withdrawal.

I favor small supplemental appropriations....force Bush to budget for the sixth year of this occupation, and seventh full year of war in Afghanistan. The emergency here is 16 month deployments for already over extended troops.

The politics are that it is Bush who is destroying his party's chances for gains in the 2008 elections, not the democrats....and there is no public "sign" that his faithful, "get it", yet:

This, to me is sobering....lemmings in lockstep with their failed president:
http://www.wewintheylose.com/bloggers.php

aceventura3

What is the Democratic Party's case for continued funding of the war, even to July? I don't get the distinction between thinking the war was a mistake, poorly managed, lost - and, the desire to put more money into what they and many others think is a hopeless cause.

My thought is that you don't compromise on this issue. I think you have to support the Bush plan or fight it with 100% effort. Compromise leaves you with something half-assed, either way.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

host

The withdrawal timetable must remain in any new bill drafted that includes the entire supplemental appropriation. Legislators must protect us, and our troops from the decisions of the American and Iraqi administrations:

dc_dux

Ok..so thats two votes (ace, host) for both sides digging in their respective heals, spewing bullshit at each other, until one is left standing.

Is that how you guys characterize strong "leadership"?

Rather than trying to reach a pragmatic, acceptable (to some degree by both sides) solution that has a greater likelihood of success and support across the country than either extreme?

Oh well, I hope wiser heads prevail on both ends of Pennsylania Ave.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

I asked what is the Democratic Party case for continued funding? Given what they have said, I don't get it.

How do you compromise being at war? You are either at war or you are not. I understand compromising to achieve peace, but that is not what is on the table, the issue is do we stop spending money on a lost war and bring our troops home or do we continue to fight in Iraq.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Ace...I dont believe it is that black and white, but we obviously differ on the war/peace and the qualities of leadership to resolve it.

IMO....what is on the table is how best to transition from a US led occupation (war) to an Iraqi led peace as quickly as possible, with a minimal loss of addtional lives.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

the proposal is a bit....um...vague, isnt it?
any idea what these "benchmarks" will be?
and what would the implications be of a string of vetos?

if i restrict the frame of reference to the world of horsetrading and even that at the level of what might sound ok (without knowing any of the details that is), i would favor the simultaneous floating of the de-authorization proposal or an equivalent and this short-term funding thing. the only reason for this is that it would effectively set up a more far-reaching confrontation if the short-term thing were to be vetoed (but again, the devil is in the details and there aren't any yet)....

aside:why is there no public pressure being brought to bear on this issue?

moving outside the frame that would take such horsetrading as the extent of the political again, what i would really favor is a long hot summer for the bush people, even if the effect of that long hot summer is an acceleration of a slide toward a serious political crisis...so far as i am concerned, the states is already in one, but in slow-motion. the remarkable feature of this crisis is that everyone seems committed to pretending it isnt there.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

roach.... I assume the proposal is an intentionally vague trial balloon.

I think, at the very least, the benchmarks would include those that Bush/Rice suggested last year, but have never been firmly applied to the Iraqi govt:

* reversal of the de-Baathification laws that are widely blamed for alienating Sunnis by driving them out of jobs in government ministries;

* final approval of an oil law regulating distribution of oil revenues and foreign investment in the oil industry;

* the holding of local elections and reform of Iraq’s Constitution

* measurable progress on training and capacity of Iraq security forces

The LA Times has an interesting article: Secy of Defense Gates may not be following Bush's Playbook:
Few beyond the Bush inner circle believe the surge will succeed in slowing down the sectarian violence. Few believe we should begin a phased withdrawl all US troops immediately.

And the debate rages on with no end in sight. What does that accomplish?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ubertuber

Benchmarks are better than timetables for all concerned, save the President.

Whether we leave this week or next year, the Iraqis would benefit from us achieving at least a couple of tangible goals.

Congress gets to look like they care about the issue rather than humiliating the president.

Most of all, benchmarks would mean that for continued funding, President Bush would have to make a case for progress going down a bulleted list. If there's progress, so much the better for the Iraqis, the troops, and for us. If there isn't, the media glare will be far uglier for Bush than anything a forced withdrawal would have accomplished.

Ace, the case I would make for continued funding with strings is the old standby:
"you break it, you buy it". To me, the idea of doing the damage we've done without setting viable structures in place is pretty repugnant. In that vein, I'm not all that interested in President Bush's proposal of more of the same, without strings, benchmarks, or expiration. There's a reason the corporate world doesn't function that way.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

dc_dux

Uber...you stated the case for a pragmatic and principled political solution that, would potentially be bi-partisan and veto-proof, better than I.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

host

Show me any recent news reports that support the idea of any Iraqi in or appointed by the Iraqi government supporting a pluralistic Iraq within it's present borders, (i.e. a Shi'a government official....) and who is describing goals/methods to achieve that.

The only "benchmark" I see the leaders of the Iraqi government supporting are Shi'a political dominance and a summer vacation.

IMO, it is long past the point of benchmarks...they are indistinguishable from four years of "they'll stand up, so we can stand down", rhetoric. The people in the Iraqi government are in it for the power and the money, and the Baker ISG report plainly told us that most Iraqi troops refuse to serve away from their home districts, and take a week off per month to bring their pay home to their families.....bullshit, considering that they refused to serve very far from home, in the first place. Further, the ISG found that being AWOL is common and does not result in consequences to the absent Iraqi soldier.
There is no justification for "benchmarks", because there is no commitment evident, from Iraqis themselves, to preserve the existing government, borders, or ehtnic diversity in it's current distribution in a united Iraq.

There is no "there", "there"....nothing that Iraqis are willing to fight and die for....so why should Americans be making a coninued, open ended, life and death sacrifice, to give "benchmarks more time".....more time for more Americans to be killed, with no evidence of increased Iraqi commitment to preserve and advance what Americans are ordered to fight and die to maintain, until "they stand up"!

C'mon, uber....."supporting the troops" should not mean leaving them in a place, with no timetable for withdrawal, after the president's hand picked Iraq assessment committee, led by one of his family's closest and most supportive friend and "fixer", described the local military and the police, after a 42 month effort, (as of last fall) to "stand them up", to provide security for the sustainability of their own country in it's present politcal form....

Waiting for "benchmarks" to "take hold", and nothing more.....is not to be taken seriously, IMO...in view of the amount of American time, money, and lives to achieve an Iraqi "stand up"....with so little commitment indicated coming from Iraqis.....in the course of such a long period of time, US encouragement, and the incentive of a peaceful, "dictator free" environment to live and build a future in.

This is over....the Baker ISG report says so.....and 5 months later, nothing has happened to contradict it's findings....

ubertuber

Benchmarks could come in many different forms. They could be set by increased support for international peace-keeping forces from the UN. They could be set around increased infrastructure improvements, around placing economic structures that reinforce stability. You're only considering the types of benchmarks that would reinforce the current situation.

If it is your belief that there is no internal support for a unified Iraq and that the tensions within that country are so high that there is no chance for peaceful, pluralistic resolution, then your desire for complete withdrawal implies that you wish to see a "lord of the flies" style pogrom as the region degenerates into warlords and factions fighting over the tempting natural resources. I do not share this desire. Before abandoning innocent people to that fate, I'd rather see more creativity applied to the idea of stabilizing the region. In the end, that may mean revisiting the political structures we've already created.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

host

I'd rather see a rapid elimination to the "hell" that so many American families go through....now in 16 months doses.....wondering whether they'll get the knock on the door, from two crisply uniformed representatives of the Secretary of Defense who "regret to inform them".....

....have you ever, uber.....have you ever rehearsed how you would react to such a knock on your door.....I have....starting for the first time, last October. We'll be doing it again...starting this fall. This is not worth the sacrifice demanded of our troops, or of their families. Iraqis have had their opportunity. They have chosen to fight each other, or the American occupier.....
You can come out for "giving it more time for benchmarks to be achieved". You can ignore the passage of a bill with a withdrawal timetable by majorities iof both houses, simply because it was negated by "the decider" who had been correct about nothing, and reliable and honest....what percent of the time?

I'm not willing to.....and I've only lived a small "taste" of what it must be like to actually answer the door at the knock of two crisply uniformed....on behalf of the secretary....we regret to inform you that......

aceventura3

In that case the Democratic Party should offer an alternative plan, not benchmarks. Why not the Biden plan?

If the Democrats and the majority of US voters want a new direction, the Democrats need to force the issue.

I don't want to discuss it any further, but this is why I had a problem with the confirmation of General Patraus. The Democrats should have forced the adoption of a new plan at that moment in time, now we have wasted more lives, time and resources.

When will the Democrats take a stand, if they won't do it now with Bush's popularity below 30%, and when most people in Iraq want us out, when will they ever do it? Bush will push his Iraq agenda until the day he leaves office, we all know that. And, Bush is almost certain not to compromise anything material unless forced, we all know that too. So we sit, wait while they play games in Washington.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ubertuber

Yes. I was a military brat and spent many years living on bases.

You don't have a monopoly on this.

These memories don't change my opinion of the disaster that would ensue if your view were the adopted by our leadership.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

tecoyah

Unfortunately....you are correct, but until more republicans defect from the coattails....these "Games" will continue.

host

Fourth most circulated newspaper in US, editorializes for withdrawal.....

ubertuber

The way I see it (which is not necessarily the way the world is working at the moment), our government isn't supposed to be run by the Democratic and Republican parties. It's supposed to be run by the Legislative and Executive branches, with occasional mediation by the Judiciary. It would be entirely appropriate for Congress, when giving money, to indicate what the money should be buying. Further, it would be appropriate for the Executive to figure out how to do those things with the money. I suppose that is the basis for the unfortunately inarticulate "commander guy" comment.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

aceventura3

I think there are Republicans waiting for leadership from the Democratic Party before they "jump" from the Bush camp. They are not going to take that "jump" until Democrats demostrate that they are a party of convictions rather than a party simply taking politically motivated shots at Bush. If the Democrats comit to a viable plan, I bet they would easily get the votes they need to over-ride any veto attempts by Bush.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

As a liberal with friends in Iraq, I don't want them to be underfunded while they're at war. The idea is to cut funding to get them home, but what if the bluff is called? What if they insist on keeping them in Iraq despite a cut in funding? That's a massive risk with our troops safety. That is where the divide in the liberal strategy lies. We want to end the war, but we also recognize the amazing sacrifice of our troops and we want them to be safe.

The best way to end the war is to push decent legislation about ending the war through the Senate and to get BIG support. The idea is to bypass the veto-machine in the oval office.

aceventura3

In theory you are correct. However, there are certain moments when people have to step outside of the comforts of the way thing are supposed to work, what they are supposed to do and do what needs to be done. Bush believes that he is 100% correct, he is a man of conviction, he is a guy surrounded by men who are willing to do what needs to be done. do you think Democrats have under-estimated Bush and his team?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ubertuber

Sorry Ace, I'm not sure how you got from the first two sentences to the rest. Could you clarify or say it a different way?

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

aceventura3

Clinton suggested a vote for re-authorization of the war. Perhaps something can be put on the table to fund the troops fully until they are removed from Iraq based on funding and a vote to change the mission.

O.k.

In theory this assumes that the Legislative branch works cooperatively. However, they do not. The Executive branch currently controls the Republicans in the Legislature. Holding party lines is too easy. We need people to vote convictions and not party loyalty.

Again, in theory this seems correct. However, if the nation has lost confidence in its Executive Branch, then the Legislative Branch has to assume (or take) greater responsibility. I see no real alternative to supporting Bush's plan or supporting another plan. I don't understand how compromise works, and if there is no compromise, what is the Legislative Branch willing to do?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

host

Tick...tick....tick.... June, july, august, september....december....2008 !! A presidential election year.....
.....polling of even the most favorably received in the primaries of the front running republican presidential candidates, will be marked with Bush's stench....the party and the leading candidates will put Bush and his policies more "in synch" with the reality of the situation on the ground, and hence....with the sentiment of the congress, as demonstrated, this past week. This will be a waiting game, if democrats simply follow the will of the majority of the electorate.....hold fast....no compromise is possible with a man who is almost always wrong, seldom honest, and who calls himself, "the decider" !

tecoyah

They placed a way to measure progress before the President, which in truth he should have jumped at if he was confident of the existing plan. In no real way did the spending bill attempt to compromise the command, or implimentation of the war.....it simply asked for accountability that has been sorely lacking for years. This is the second Veto from the President ( the first was on stem cells)
and was ill directed in my opinion, as it was the compromise he asked for in the first place.

dc_dux

ace....the political realities as I see it is that there is no way the Dems can get a veto=proof majority for a new plan. There are not enough Repubs who will abandon Bush completely....there may be enough who will support benchmarks in order to allow the Bush surge to continue for a few more months. If the surge continues to fail by later summer, it gives the Dems time to coalesce around one plan and the Repubs the political cover they will need to support an alternative to more of the same.

There are no good alternatives. We should be looking for the least damaging to the US, our troops, the goverment of Iraq and the Iraqi people.

Poliitics is, and has always been, the art of compromise and consensus buidling. But it requires real leaders who wont act as petulant children stubbornly crying my way or no way, something lacking particularly in the WH, but in Congress as well.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

There is one way: clones. We take DNA from each stubborn idiot Republican and create perfect phenotypic replicas and have them cloned at Berkeley so that they actually have some sense of civic responsibility.

dc_dux

Bush has promised to veto any cloning bills.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

I am not sure how you know this, but as a Republican I think our continued efforts in Iraq are a waste of American lives and resources given that we are not unified in our belief that our reasons for being in Iraq are proper and just. Over the years all I have heard from Democrats is how we either had no plan or that the plan in Iraq has failed. What I have heard from Bush is either the plan is working or will work after some adjustment. Today, the American people are clearly against our military presence in Iraq, fighting in an un-winable civil war. The rest of the world is against our military action in Iraq and it seems that the Iraqi people are against our presence. We need to get out, we need a plan to get out. I think if the Democratic Party truely accepts the message sent by the American people during the congressional elections, take a stand against Bush - they will have the support of the American people and get Republican support. If Democrats waffle on this issue, they will not have anyone's confidence. The window of opportunity is closing.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

i have some trouble posting to threads about this any more because the topic just makes me angry.
there is no debate about this. the war in iraq was is and will remain wholly unacceptable to me. that it could have happened is an index of dysfunction at the system level. that it continues is an index of dysfunction at the system level. that the administration responsible for it remains in power is beyond comprehension to me--i understand the procedural and political (in the trivial sense) situations--but that changes nothing. benchmarking and low approval ratings and so forth mean very little: the fact of the matter is that this administration remains in power and that fact is somehow ok.
well, it isnt ok.
it is an index of fundamental problems within the american political structure itself. in the end, there is no accountability: not if the crime is huge enough, not if addressing it would require thinking seriously about systemic change. i dont understand this: it seems that the historical situation in which we find ourselves is characterized by a deep, deep ideological paralysis that is repeated and repeated in a total lack of imagination, a complete lack of any sense of coherent alternatives to a socio-economic and political order that is self-evidently incoherent, self-evidently adrift, lost..and in its anxiety about being adrift (those traces that cannot be wished away), the existing order is eating itself---incoherent at the level of rationality, incoherent at the level of ideology, self-blinding at the level of consequences, assessment of consequences, incapable of adjustment, a particular type of incoherence the primary characteristic of which is a simple refusal to see--a refusal to see the consequences of capitalism in its present form, a refusal to see the problems in the nature and characteristics of state power, a refusal to address the evacuation of any meaningful democratic elements in the american political process.

there are so many problems that it is hard to know where to start listing them.
when i manage a list, it is always the same list.
in the context of a micro-space like this, repetition becomes itself a grind. there is no sublimation to be had from it. there is nothing to be had from it. and so i get tired.
i have to say that i admire the fact that host is able to continue, that he is able to direct his anger in ways that enable him to continue---his is a deeply personal anger--the vectors that shape it are such that he can express it and still remain to some extent within the parameters of debate here, such that they constitute meaningful actions.

mine is more abstract.
i dont know what else to say at this point.
it is not this space, but the fact that the situation addressed across it does not move.
the larger stasis is simply repeated in the smaller space.
this is not a "normal" situation we are living through.
this is a kind of crisis, it seems to me, the kind of thing that is not reducable to television imagery and as a consequence is not named for us. but there is always the stream of other "crises" that we can watch unfold and deplore or feel bad about, all of which are in a certain sense distractions in themselves and at another level are fundamentally problematic in that they feed into the circuit of avoidance that seems to be the basic characteristic of the times we are living in.

i doubt this makes sense. i am not going to edit it. i am going to go do something else.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

ace....I just dont understand what you're saying and I cant imagine what you have been reading or watching.

The Dems had numerous plans that may or may not have had the support of the American people. All the plans took a stand against Bush....and they coalesced around the one they thought was best for the US and Iraw and had the best chance of passage...the emergency supplemental bill that included this languague:

Directs the President to commence the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq no later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number essential for: (1) protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure; (2) training and equipping Iraqi forces; and (3) conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.

Requires redeployment implementation as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community to collectively bring stability to Iraq.

Requires reports from the President to Congress every 90 days on progress made in implementing such redeployment.

Requires a joint report to Congress every 60 days by the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq describing progress made in achieving specified benchmarks toward the stability of government in Iraq.

How is that NOT a plan to get out (at least relative to the "surge" plan)?

Because it doesnt call for immediate and complete withdrawal? I think it is far more responsble by giving the Iraqis time to get their shit together, politically and in terms of their security forces.

Yet, it had virtually no Repub support, many of whom characterized it as the "surrender bill"....and you think Repubs will support something stronger in the current environment?

We have far different views of the political realties.

I am looking a solution that can get bipartisan support...I have no idea what you are looking for or believe the highly partisan Congress can unite around. to end this failed endeavor.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Perhaps it is the way they communicate their message.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Perhaps more Bush supporters need to listen with an open mind.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Democrats are near perfect. I get your point. However, perhaps there are Republicans at the grass root level looking for answers, and it is the rhetoric that is preventing an open assesment of alternatives to the Bush plan.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

ace....I am looking for any post of mine where I said or implied the Democrats are near perfect. Can you point me to one, please. The closest I could find was the most recent one where I said that Congress needs to demonstrate better leadership skills.

I agree that it is the rhetoric that is preventing an open assessment of the alternative plans. Calling such plans surrender plans, abandoning the troops, caving into terrorists, etc....is not helpful.

Republicans at the grassroots had the same access to the details of the plan in the emergency supplemental as I had. I took the time to read it before making a judgement. Did you?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

I simply suggested that the Democrats are not effectively communicating the plan you outlined, your response was: I understand your point.

In your last post you say: These are coments from Republicans and more specifically the White House. I get that point as well.

What I don't see is where there is room for Democrats to do a better job, of perhaps communicating their plan to grass root Republicans. As a Republican, I don't understand what the Democrats want. It is confusing to me. Perhaps, I am not at the grass roots level, perhaps Democrats don't care about getting me on board with their plan. I get that also.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

tecoyah

Americans, in general do not know what they want in this.....it's extremely complicated. On the one hand I think we all want Iraq to be a safe, healthy, and functional State capable of sustaining itself and creating stability in the region. On the other hand we really can't accept that People are Dying in huge numbers for a plan that seems incapable of bringing this about. I doubt very much ANY policy change at this point can correct the situation, and create a dynamic in the area that will lead to peaceful resolution.
Expecting the Democrats in congress to fix this mess is rather disingenuous on the part of anyone attempting to understand just how screwed up Iraq now is. We have managed to remove the infrastructure (what there was of it) of prosperity, thereby creating instability in the population and making any hopefor peace in the region unobtainable. At the same time we have placed our troops into the middle of the inevitable civil strife, poverty, and religious powerplay likely to come about in the aftermath of an invasion within the area.

The history of the middle east should have been payed attention to before we took on something NO ONE in history has managed to succeed at, Peace in the middle east. Case in Point:

http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf

The Democrats it seems, have come to the realization that this was a terrible mistake, and as the current leadership on high is blind to the obvious they are in the inenviable position of trying to get us out of an unwinnable situation. Sucks to be them.

aceventura3

I think this is the basis of Bush's strategy and his plans come from that. I think my confusion with the Democrats is that I don't know what their stated goal is. Do they simply want to reomve the troops? Do they want to move the fight to Afghanistan? Do they want what Bush wants as stated above? Do they think we are even at war?

I think if the Democrats could clearly communicate what the underlying basis for their plan is, I could understand where they want to take us.


That is the conclusion I have reached. However, I think if we were unified and agreed on the reasons why we are fighting in Iraq we could bring this to a relatively peaceful end.
If our elected leaders can not step up and fix this, who will? At some point we have to make a national comitment to one plan to fix this or another one. I think the idea of a date certain or providing funding every couple of months based on subjective goals is unrealistic. If it were me, I would comitt to win or withdraw, no time-tables, no bench-marks, either all in to win or all out.

All they (or anyone) have to do is act on what they think is right. I don't think that is difficult.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ubertuber

Ace, this isn't a difference between Democrats and Republicans - it's a difference between the Congress and the White House. The White House speaks with one unified voice, and that gives Congressional Republicans something to fall in line with, even though in reality, they probably have as many plans among them as the Dems do. The Democrats don't have a similar leader - so they make a plan by compromising and combining the many different goals of many different people.

I think you may be ignoring this fact in order to set the Dems up to fail an impossible standard that you invented, which is speaking with one voice as persuasively as the White House.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam