Posted by Mark Silva at 10:06 am CST
Acknowleding that many members of Congress are "skeptical'' about his new war plan, President Bush said today in his weekly radio address that his strategy offers hope for a more secure Iraq.
"Some say our approach is really just more troops for the same strategy,'' Bush said in his address. " In fact, we have a new strategy with a new mission: helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad. Our plan puts Iraqis in the lead.''
Minnesota's Rep. Tim Walz, a National Guardsman, delivered the Democratic response to the president today with a radio address declaring that "the escalation announced by the president will compound a bad situation and make matters worse, not better. It will make us less secure, not more. It is a step in the wrong direction -- more of the same at the very time, when we need a new direction in Iraq.
This is the text of the president's radio address:
"Good morning. On Wednesday night, I addressed the Nation from the White House to lay out a new strategy that will help Iraq's democratic government succeed.
"America's new strategy comes after a difficult year in Iraq. In 2006, the terrorists and insurgents fought to reverse the extraordinary democratic gains the Iraqis have made. In February, the extremists bombed a holy Shia mosque in a deliberate effort to provoke reprisals that would set off a sectarian conflict. They succeeded, and the ongoing sectarian violence, especially in Baghdad, is making all other progress difficult.
"Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. Their leaders understand this, and they are stepping forward to do it. But they need our help, and it is in our interests to provide that help. The changes in our strategy will help the Iraqis in four main areas:
"First, we will help the Iraqis execute their aggressive plan to secure their capital. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of Baghdad. The new plan to secure Baghdad fixes the problems that prevented previous operations from succeeding. This time, there will be adequate Iraqi and U.S. forces to hold the areas that have been cleared, including more Iraqi forces and five additional brigades of American troops committed to Baghdad. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter neighborhoods that are home to those fueling sectarian violence. Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference with security operations will not be tolerated.
"Second, America will step up the fight against al Qaeda in its home base in Iraq -- Anbar province. Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists, so I've given orders to increase American forces in Anbar province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to increase the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan, and we will not allow them to reestablish it in Iraq.
"Third, America will hold the Iraqi government to benchmarks it has announced. These include taking responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November, passing legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis, and spending $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction projects that will create new jobs. These are strong commitments. And the Iraqi government knows that it must meet them, or lose the support of the Iraqi and the American people.
"Fourth, America will expand our military and diplomatic efforts to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. We will address the problem of Iran and Syria allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. We will encourage countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states to increase their economic assistance to Iraq. Secretary Rice has gone to the region to continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.
"My national security team is now making our case on Capitol Hill. We recognize that many members of Congress are skeptical. Some say our approach is really just more troops for the same strategy. In fact, we have a new strategy with a new mission: helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad. Our plan puts Iraqis in the lead.
"Others worry that we are pursuing a purely military solution that makes a political solution less likely. In fact, the sectarian violence is the main obstacle to a political solution, and the best way to help the Iraqis reach this solution is to help them put down this violence.
"Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.
"Whatever our differences on strategy and tactics, we all have a duty to ensure that our troops have what they need to succeed. Thousands of young men and women are preparing to join an important mission that will in large part determine the outcome in Iraq. Our brave troops should not have to wonder if their leaders in Washington will give them what they need. I urge members of Congress to fulfill their responsibilities, make their views known, and to always support our men and women in harm's way.
"Thank you for listening.''
This is the text of the Democratic response:
"Good morning. This is Congressman Tim Walz of Minnesota. Last November, voters in Minnesota and across the country sent a clear message at the ballot box when they voted for change.
"They cast their votes for new leadership in Washington and a new Democratic Congress that would help change the course in Iraq, end the culture of corruption in Washington, and give hard working families a voice in Congress once again. They voted for a Congress that would do the business of the American people, and one that would be known for its ideas, not its insults, its patriotism, not its partisanship.
"I know that as I speak to you today, you are gravely concerned about the war in Iraq. As the highest ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress and a veteran who served in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, I share your concerns. After nearly four years of combat, we have lost more than 3,000 brave Americans. Tens of thousands have been wounded. And we've spent more than 300 billion dollars.
"Now, as the president escalates our involvement in Iraq and puts more of our troops in harm's way, I think of the men and women I served with in the 1st Brigade, 34th Infantry Division of the Minnesota National Guard.
"Those brave men and women, and their families, just received letters informing them that they won't be coming home this winter, after all. After their second year-long tour of duty since 9/11, they'll be staying in Iraq even longer for this escalation.
"Our military men and women know that it is their duty to execute their mission without question. But so too is it our duty to question the mission on their behalf. Rest assured that this Democratic Congress will live up to its responsibility to challenge the failed policies that have already cost us so dearly.
"Before moving forward with this escalation, we owe it to these troops, to their families, and to all Americans to ask the tough questions and demand honest answers about this policy. Is there a clear strategy that the commanders on the ground believe will succeed? What are the benchmarks for success, and how long does the President believe it will take to achieve them? Is this a policy that will contribute to the America's security in the larger war on terror, or distract from it?
"I believe, along with most Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans, that the escalation announced by the president will compound a bad situation and make matters worse, not better. It will make us less secure, not more. It is a step in the wrong direction -- more of the same at the very time, when we need a new direction in Iraq.
"Let us be very clear. We need diplomatic and political solutions in Iraq, not more American troops. We know that the forgotten cost of the President's plan will be borne by the husbands and wives and sons and daughters of the brave men and women who will be away from home for an even longer period of time because of the President's misguided decision.
"So Democrats will ask the tough questions, conduct meaningful oversight and do everything possible to honor our men and women in uniform. At the same time, we will continue to honor our pledge to enact some of the American people's top priorities in the first 100 hours of the new Congress. We promised to pass ethics reforms, increase the minimum wage, help ensure our security here at home and to exercise fiscal responsibility.
"Today, I am proud to report that in just over one week as the majority party in Congress, Democrats are delivering. Democrats acted swiftly to clean up Washington and approved the most comprehensive ethics reforms in decades. We stood up for hard-working families and approved a minimum wage increase which will give 13 million Americans the pay raise they deserve. And we offered patients suffering from debilitating diseases new hope when we approved a bill to expand potentially life-saving stem cell research. Democrats in Congress also acted decisively to secure our nation by approving new measures to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
"In a short period of time, we've [the Democratic Congress] won real victories on behalf of the American people, but we know there is more work to be done. In the coming days, we'll complete our 100 hours agenda by passing legislation to make college more affordable, end subsidies for oil companies, and invest in renewable sources of energy.
"And as we go forward, we will continue to stand together and ensure American families have the strong voice in Washington they deserve.
"This is Congressman Tim Walz of Minnesota. Thank you for listening.''
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"Some say our approach is really just more troops for the same strategy,'' Bush said in his address. " In fact, we have a new strategy with a new mission: helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad.''
========
Is that a strategy or a goal?
I thought a strategy was a series of sequential steps and benchmarks laid out to achieve a desired outcome.
This sounds pretty light on details.
Typical MBA, I guess.
Posted by: rob | January 13, 2007 10:45 AM
I appluade the President for doing the unpopular thing and making a commitment to what he believes in. Only time will tell if his plan will actually work, but no one can dispute this man's resolve.
Posted by: Conor Gillis | January 13, 2007 10:52 AM
Again I read this week a speech that tries to encourage us to believe that the stategic planning process of going to war has been well thought out and bears acceptance based on some last minute changes. Increasing the number of Americans in Iraq by 20,000 will do little to stop a group that its sole intent is to continue the destabalization of the middle east. The phrase "go big or go home" is appropriate for this stage of the war. The President must hear what the people are saying. Your voice has never been required than it is at this very moment.If America wants to end this futile war it cannot do it with this President in charge. For all those who want change 2008 is not far away.
Posted by: Confused in Canada | January 13, 2007 11:50 AM
Resolve in a well thought out plan is a virture but when men and women's lives are at stake its a character flaw...he's not even listening to his own party members.
Posted by: Confused in Canada | January 13, 2007 12:09 PM
I love it "...Only time will tell if his plan will actually work ..." it the mentality that keeps this mess alive and stinking.
Only time, more lives lost, billions of dollars down the toilet, and the continued rape of our constitution will tell us his plan still doesn't work
Posted by: Big Mac | January 13, 2007 1:03 PM
Connor, you're absolutely right. Only time will tell what the President's current plan will reap, and there's no one on the planet who can deny he has resolve. SANITY, on the other hand, is another question entirely. My tendency is to think his plans are right, but for about a year and a half to two years ago.
Posted by: John | January 13, 2007 1:04 PM
Too little to dam late. We called for more troops over and over again. 20,000 troops will not even put a dent in what happening. Plus if you read the link I left on a other post. He is sending troops that are untrained and under staffed with Combat leaders. What is that called a body bag unit now that a fact. You cheerleaders it time for you to put your butts on the line and join up
Posted by: Dale Peters | January 13, 2007 1:41 PM
Hello ameriki friend:
In Waziristan all say your bush president is to getting weaker for pressure of killing time war.
Look not so healthy. Fear in the eye. Third chapter of I, Claudius.
In madrassa say most people bush fear of adviser because adviser of past spy for israeli the neocon you call themn. and make bush do the bad. now no trust for anyone just the death of the more people.
Posted by: Mullah Cimoc | January 13, 2007 2:11 PM
Boosh: "In fact, we have a new strategy with a new mission: helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad. Our plan puts Iraqis in the lead."
So -- Clueless George could you please be so kind as to tell us what the OLD mission and the OLD stratergy were? And what, exactly, are the differences? The American people would really like to know.
Posted by: Figbash | January 13, 2007 2:58 PM
Someone pleeeeeeeeeze send me a link to the Democrats' plan. So far, I've only seen them criticize the President's plan. Well, I guess you could count Harry Reid, just four weeks ago, calling for more troops as sort of a plan. Except now he's saying more troops are a bad idea. So I just don't know what to expect from the Democrats. Do the Democrats really plan to make good on their rhetoric or were they just trying to regain power, and opposing whatever the President says or does sounded like a good idea for the campaigns?
bill r. - - - send me a link. I'm waiting. Like I said before, perhaps I'll like the Democrat's plan, but I won't know until I can see what they have in mind.
Posted by: no name | January 13, 2007 3:23 PM
"But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible."
Who's he trying to fool? A detailed alternate plan HAS been offered - by the Bi-Partisan Iraq Study Group. Bush dismissed their recommendations out of hand, and is, in fact doing just the opposite.
Once again, Bush disregards all reasoned debate and afalls back on his "Your either for me, or against me attitude".
Posted by: Tony | January 13, 2007 3:24 PM
This being the Democrat response, of course there's a Clinton-sized lie. Newly elected Cong. Walz asserts that "As the highest ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress...I share your concerns."
His own bio shows that he left the National Guard as a sgt. major. We all honor that service. However, plenty of enlisted soldiers have achieved much higher rank than that, and then gone on to Congress and higher office. To give but one example, Congressman and later President William McKinley enlisted as a private in the Civil war, eventually earning promotion to major. I could cite dozens of other examples. Was Walz ignorant of this history when he claimed he was "the highest ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress"?
Where is the outrage over this lie?
Posted by: bruce | January 13, 2007 3:27 PM
Regarding Bruce's outrage about "highest ranking enlisted soldier" -- the phrase "enlisted soldier" doesn't mean a soldier who at one point enlisted, but rather one occupying an enlisted rank, as opposed to a commissioned officer. By the time McKinley was a Major, he was no longer an enlisted soldier, but rather a commisioned officer. Walz was saying that he held the highest enlisted rank (Command Sergeant Major, an E-9 rank).
Posted by: Max Hailperin | January 13, 2007 4:20 PM
Bruce,
Here it is.
Oh my gosh! How dare he not check the McKinley entry in Wikipedia before opening his mouth?
There. Feel better?
Now, back to relevant issues.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | January 13, 2007 4:30 PM
I can not applaud the President for doing what "he
believes in".
Fellow poster Conor, may I ask you this question?
When does an individuals resolve deserve to be called foolish stubborness ?
Posted by: johnf | January 13, 2007 4:34 PM
Cimoc is comic.
Posted by: johnf | January 13, 2007 4:53 PM
Tony,
No disrespect but didn't the people of the United States vote him in to put the right plan together? You and I don't have the insight as to what to do on this global scale...but he should!
Thats his job...Make the right decisions with the team that are in power...
He's not doing his job. If we didn't perform at work we woould receive a warning...for which he has...
The next step is to fire him...wait for 2008
Posted by: Confused in Canada | January 13, 2007 5:02 PM
bill r. - - - send me a link. I'm waiting. Like I said before, perhaps I'll like the Democrat's plan, but I won't know until I can see what they have in mind.
Posted by: no name | Jan 13, 2007 3:23:52 PM
If you really want to know (which I doubt) go to
Obama's website moving forward in Iraq. It just
seems that by now you would have heard some of the ideas or are you just doing some talking points from the republican playbook on the "they don't have a plan" chapter? That dog just don't hunt anymore. I have no doubt it will not be what you want to hear as to you still think there is a good way out of Iraq. It's not quite as good as the one Bush has used so far to get us where we are today nor is it as good as sending 20,000 more and "that" will make all the difference.
Posted by: bill r. | January 13, 2007 5:37 PM
"Cimoc is comic."
Posted by: johnf | Jan 13, 2007 4:53:17 PM
____________________________________________
Harry Caray's not dead; he's posting as johnf. :-)
Johnf, this Bud's for you!
Posted by: Figbash | January 13, 2007 6:11 PM
Which circle of Hell is being reserved for our cheerleader in chief?
5? 6? 9?
Certainly not the first circle. It's occupied by great men and women.
I am actually starting to pity him.
Posted by: C.Morris | January 13, 2007 7:35 PM
What you call resolve I called ego. He's a manical arrogant buffoon that two years ago couldn't name one mistake he has made. Jr wants to be a demigod and Iraq is his own personal crusade becasue God told him to do it. George think he is a king not a President and he makes me embarrassed that he is the face of the US for 8 years. This will be known as a time worse than the Nixon years
Posted by: Paul | January 13, 2007 8:58 PM
bill r,
no name is right, the Dems by and large have NO IDEAS about how to fix the Iraq mess.
Yes, Obama is an exception, he has outlined something like a reasonable plan, but but there are a lot of details to noodle out. But so far he's the ONLY Dem who has even come close to looking at this intelligently.
And no name's also right in that Reid just a few weeks ago was signing off on a surge. Seems like you all have forgotten that. A lot of the posters here are in love with the term "flip-flop" -- what about in Reid's case? Or is that just called "changing his mind".
It's high time for the Dem party to get its poop together. And it's high time for the people here to stop the celebrating and gloating and start getting serious about where we're going from here. Or would you all rather just spend your time thinking of new nicknames for Bush and insulting each other?
Posted by: Leo T | January 13, 2007 9:18 PM
bill r,
no name is right, the Dems by and large have NO IDEAS about how to fix the Iraq mess.
Posted by: Leo T | Jan 13, 2007 9:18:44 PM
Like I said...You don't want to know.
Plus why are we "in" this mess? The presidents great plan?
Posted by: bill r. | January 13, 2007 10:13 PM
hey mullah, (Borat?)
nobody is buying it.
Posted by: C.morris | January 13, 2007 10:20 PM
Bruce,
Sgt. Major(of the Army) is the highest enlisted rank.
Major is a commissioned, field grade officer rank.
Posted by: C.morris | January 13, 2007 10:25 PM
It's high time for the Dem party to get its poop together. And it's high time for the people here to stop the celebrating and gloating and start getting serious about where we're going from here. Or would you all rather just spend your time thinking of new nicknames for Bush and insulting each other?
Posted by: Leo T | Jan 13, 2007 9:18:44 PM
I wouldn't call it celebrating and gloating, I would call it more vindication and more an I told you so attitude. Do you think we are the only ones who insult and make up cute little names? Pleeeeeez! Many from your own party do not like this plan. It's not a plan. When did you think the president realized when he did not go in with enough troops? Last week? Last month?
No....It was months and months ago.....why do you think he waited till now. Can anyone say
elections?
I, unlike you, say we all need to get our poop together cause one side aint going to do it alone.
Posted by: bill r. | January 14, 2007 7:39 AM
"I, unlike you, say we all need to get our poop together cause one side aint going to do it alone."
Posted by: bill r. | Jan 14, 2007 7:39:23 AM
bill r,
I NEVER said one side will do it alone, and I'm on "your side" anyway. I'm NOT a Republican (but I'm sure not in love the Ds) so you're wrong to tell me about "many people in [my] own party".
And "vindication" and "told ya so attitude"... well however you want to label it's gloating. And OK, gloating is understandable, but the elections were over 2 months ago so it's time to get over that.
Everybody,
We all know why we're in this mess, so it doesn't do much good to ONLY keep repeating that Bush didn't have a plan. (DU-UH!!) That's not news.
So now what? Like I said, so far Obama is the only D who seems to have thought seriously about this. Well what if he's not the 08 pres. candidate?
It's time for the party to focus, to come up with a single direction for Iraq that gets us out of there ASAP without making things worse. Obama's plan sounds like a good start, but so far that's only him and his supporters.
It's also important for everybody to not think we can just coast now. The D's won the congress so now everything is just fine and now the White House is guaranteed... well it ISN'T! and everything ISN'T just fine now!
And as far as The Swamp goes, it seems to me that the posting has been pretty weak since the new year. There's been a whole lot of shouting and cheerleading and small mindedness (from both sides) and not much thinking.
All I'm saying is -- not naming names -- some people here have become sloppy and lazy and can do better in their posts.
All I'm saying is that a loyal Democrat would turn a critical eye on his own party.
And I KNOW that Juanito and Bill would agree with me.
Posted by: Leo T | January 14, 2007 9:07 AM
We all know why we're in this mess, so it doesn't do much good to ONLY keep repeating that Bush didn't have a plan. (DU-UH!!) That's not news.
Posted by: Leo T | Jan 14, 2007 9:07:30 AM
Leo T....but I disagree with you that this is old news. The very same plan that the right says will now work is the same party that put us in this position in the first place. How can that be irrellavant? I have always stated that there is much BS on both sides of the aisle. There is enough venom on this thread to take out army.
Posted by: bill r. | January 14, 2007 9:44 AM
All I'm saying is -- not naming names -- some people here have become sloppy and lazy and can do better in their posts.
Posted by: Leo T | Jan 14, 2007 9:07:30 AM
If I'm not mistaken....2 days ago I posted that I would like civility to return to the thread. I believe you were the "only" one to respond and that was to say...nice post...won't happen. So I think I feel the same way.
Posted by: bill r. | January 14, 2007 9:47 AM
biil r.,
You're wasteing your time buddy.
You do realize that you're arguing with one of Little Johnnys alter ego's don't you?
"Leo T." pppppuuuuullleeeeeezzzzzzzzeee!
Posted by: John E. | January 14, 2007 10:30 AM
"...I disagree with you that this is old news. The very same plan that the right says will now work is the same party that put us in this position in the first place."
bill r,
But as you rightly pointed out, not even Bush's own party is buying it. Anyway, it's time for the Ds to step up to the plate and come up with a viable solution.
We're more or less on the same page.
Posted by: Leo T | January 14, 2007 12:12 PM
Sorry, I've been away watching football.
Sure, Obama's got a plan. Good! However, I'd like to see the Democrats as a party step up and sign their collective name to an approach on Iraq. The President has already had to do so. I'm not saying his plan is the right approach, I'm just pointing out that he's put a plan out there and put whatever is left of his (and the GOP's) political life behind it. The Democrats, by and large, have thrown ideas around and criticized the Republicans at every turn, but they haven't really had to "put up or shut up" yet. This bothers me greatly. What of the calls to cut funding to stop the Presdient's ability to wage this war? Why will the Dems not do this? I think it's because they are afraid to step out on a limb and act and face the possible political consequences of their actions.
I'm with Leo T - - I'm unhappy with both parties.
Posted by: no name | January 14, 2007 6:53 PM
"Anyway, it's time for the Ds to step up to the plate and come up with a viable solution." Leo T
“I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I’ve made my decision. And we’re going forward,” Gerorge W. Bush 1-14-2007
Bush isn't planning on listening to any other plans. He already rejected the Iraq Study Group's 79 recommendations. He's not going to pay any attention to a Democratic plan, or an alternative Republican plan for that matter.
He's the "decider", and he's decided. That's how we got into this disaster to begin with.
Posted by: Tony | January 14, 2007 7:02 PM
bill r.
Just another note...please give me some credit by allowing that I may actually have my own thoughts on this situation. Just because I happen to have an opinion that may differ from yours doesn't mean I'm following Republican talking points. Accusing me of that is a weak ploy to divert attention from the subject at hand, and I know you can do better than that from reading your previous posts.
Posted by: no name | January 14, 2007 7:34 PM
bill r.
Just another note...please give me some credit by allowing that I may actually have my own thoughts on this situation. Just because I happen to have an opinion that may differ from yours doesn't mean I'm following Republican talking points. Accusing me of that is a weak ploy to divert attention from the subject at hand, and I know you can do better than that from reading your previous posts.
Posted by: no name | Jan 14, 2007 7:34:50 PM
Sometimes I get wrapped up in the ( mean) spirited debates these threads can produce. You have every right to your opinion and I'm sure there is a lot we could agree on. Feelings run deep and divided on the war and I hope we make it through it all together.
Posted by: bill r. | January 14, 2007 8:08 PM
I agree with no name. The best thing the D's could do for themselves and for the nation is to unify behind a single, well thought-out plan to get us out of the Iraq mess while minimizing the damage. (yeah, that's easy for ME to say.)
Tony,
I take you're point, but Bush isn't going to be decidering much longer. If the D's are going to take control of both the Executive and Legislative branches they'd better shape up. They're STILL pointing out that the war has been royally screwed up -- that worked for last Fall's campaign, but the election's are over and they won. Well OK, says I, how are you going to fix it?
All of this sectarian conflict we're seeing in Iraq has threads that lead out to neighboring countries -- Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan... if we just pull out tomorrow, the civil war becomes a regional war. Somebody has to figure out how to put a lid on that.
bill r,
You're a gentleman.
Posted by: Leo T | January 15, 2007 6:16 AM
Leo-
I agree, to a point. Yes the Democrats will need a strategy. Specifically whoever the Democratic nominee for President in 2008 will.
But it's too early to develop that strategy now. Unfortunately Bush will be decidering for two more years. We have no idea how different (how much further deteriorated) the situation may be by the time a Democrat can effectively do anything about it.
By the way, very few Democrats are calling for us to "pull out tomorrow". Most all of them want a phased exit strategy, and involvement of the international community, including other nations in the region, as the Iraq Study Group suggested.
Posted by: Tony | January 15, 2007 6:28 AM
no name,
BTW, I don't see the Ds cutting funding... EVER. You're absolutely right "they are afraid to step out on a limb and act and face the possible political consequences of their actions". But they SHOULD unify behind a single plan for Iraq.
Posted by: Leo T | January 15, 2007 6:30 AM
no name,
BTW, I don't see the Ds cutting funding... EVER. You're absolutely right "they are afraid to step out on a limb and act and face the possible political consequences of their actions". But they SHOULD unify behind a single plan for Iraq.
Posted by: Leo T | Jan 15, 2007 6:30:55 AM
Leo T....It's not just the political consequences
that keep them from cutting the funding, it's not the right thing to do period. You don't play politics with American lives on the battlefield.
Tony.....good post. I wished more would understand that we don't look to pull out right away. There are only 2 ways to go with the troops,
more or less.
Posted by: bill r. | January 15, 2007 7:57 AM
Someone pleeeeeeeeeze send me a link to the Democrats' plan.
[...]
bill r. - - - send me a link. I'm waiting. Like I said before, perhaps I'll like the Democrat's plan, but I won't know until I can see what they have in mind.
Posted by: no name | Jan 13, 2007 3:23:52 PM
Dear no name:
It took me just about one minute to find not one, BUT FIVE, Democratic plans:
John Murtha's Plan:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr060407.html
John Kerry's Plan:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/19947
Joe Biden's Plan:
http://decision08.net/2006/08/24/the-biden-plan-on-iraq
Dennis Kucinich's Plan:
http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-01-09-20-38-23-news.php
Democratic House and Senate Plan (pdf):
http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/RealSecurity_web.pdf
Posted by: BC | January 15, 2007 10:50 AM
BC-
You should have also included a link to the Iraq Study Group recommendations, which recieved broad support amongst Democrats.
Posted by: Tony | January 15, 2007 11:16 AM
Thanks, BC, you've illustrated my point perfectly. Individual Democrats have proposed many plans, however the party as a whole has not advocated a unified approach to Iraq. Until they do so, the Democrats are not really accomplishing much. I'm not saying the Dems have to cut funding to prove anything. But, they do need to move beyond the "Bush is wrong" stage and start using their new majority to change Iraq policy.
And I agree, bill r. is a gentleman. It's nice to see someone willing to have an intelligent discussion instead of just posting the shrill, angry comments I see so often here.
Posted by: no name | January 15, 2007 3:17 PM
no name- At this point the Republican Party has multiple plans for Iraq. Ask Chuck Hagel. The perception that they have a single plan is that they have the President, who is learly the lead Republican.
Until the Democrats have a Presidential nominee, there will not be the perception of a single "Democratic" view on Iraq.
Posted by: Tony | January 15, 2007 3:57 PM
Right. The official Republican plan is the President's plan, whether they like it or not, because he's the leader of the party. I think it's wrong to say that the Democrats don't have to have a unified plan until they elect a President, however. They ran as the party of opposition. They ran on a ticket of change in Iraq policy. If they don't enact legislation to change policy then you all might as well accuse them of being liars. I think it's becoming obvious that the Democrats don't care about the war as much as they cared about gaining power. Well, this has been obvious to me for some time, just as it's been obvious the Republicans only cared about holding on to power. Face it, neither party is serving this country well.
Posted by: no name | January 15, 2007 7:58 PM
"Face it, neither party is serving this country well."
Posted by: no name | Jan 15, 2007 7:58:37 PM
Good post. Juanito couldn't have said it better!
Most people posting here look at the political process like a football game -- they back their team no matter what and hooray, we won! We need alternatives to the powers that be.
That aside, if the D's don't find the unity of purpose we're talking about then their success is going to be shortlived.
Posted by: Leo T | January 16, 2007 7:21 AM
"They ran on a ticket of change in Iraq policy."
Leo, you can keep trying to sell that, but it's just NOT true.
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html
No mention of changing Iraq policy in the 6 point plan. Was it because they agree with Bush's policy? Of course not. It was in recognition that even with control of Congress they do NOT have the power to effectively control foriegn and military policy. They have a few very blunt tools, such as cutting off funding, but they are not tools a responsiblr party uses lightly.
Posted by: Tony | January 16, 2007 8:38 AM
Tony,
You're actually quoting no name, but I agree with him 100%.
Do you REALLY believe that the last election was NOT first and last about Iraq? Just because it wasn't in the 6 point plan?
C'mon.
In fact the D's do have the power to effect policy by controlling the purse strings, plus given the fact that this administration is thoroughly discredited.
If the Congress were to cut funding do you REALLY believe it would remain cut? That no more bullets or bandages or body armor would EVER go over to the troops? Of course not. Congress and the White House would come to terms, some compromise would be found and policy would change.
It may be a blunt instrument, but I'm certainly not talking about using it "lightly". It happens to be crtically important for America to get out of Iraq WITOUT CAUSING FURTHER DAMAGE to the region and to our national security -- ASAP!
The reason that doesn't happen is not because the Ds are "responsible" but because they're irresponsible. Because...
1) The party has not unified behind a single well written plan for exit.
and
2) They don't have the stomach for a fight, and they're afraid of the standard Republican accusation of "weak on defense".
As I said in another thread, I also suspect that there is the cynical motive of just letting the administration founder so they can reap the political benefits.
Posted by: Leo T | January 16, 2007 10:26 AM
"If the Congress were to cut funding do you REALLY believe it would remain cut? That no more bullets or bandages or body armor would EVER go over to the troops? Of course not. Congress and the White House would come to terms, some compromise would be found and policy would change."
Leo- The fatal flaw in your theory is that it calls for the Bush administration to act responsibly. They don't do the resposible thing. Bush wouldn't come to an accomodation. He would force a major constitutional crisis or worse.
Posted by: Tony | January 16, 2007 12:55 PM
Tony,
I doubt that, but the confrontation isn't going to happen so we'll never know.
Posted by: Leo T | January 16, 2007 1:20 PM
The new way forward is:g.w.will skate out of office blaming Mr.Maliki for the lost war in Iraq.He will blame the Democrats for all of his horrible decisions.He will blame anyone he can and WILL NOT accept responsibilty for ANY of his own actions.For this reason I refuse to call him a man.He is a person at best and needs mental help.I am proud American and ashamed of what this person has done to the country.sad,very sad!!!
Posted by: gordon | January 16, 2007 4:40 PM
From Jesus General
The Ballad of the Yellow Beret
(to the tune of "The Ballad of the Green Berets")
We are tough, young Republicans
We fight with words (but never guns)
We show support by drinking beer.
But since we’re rich we’ll stay right here.
(chorus)
Chicken wings suit me just fine
They go so well with my yellow spine
I’ll ply my trade while you’re overseas
When you return, your job will speak Chinese
I’m like my grandpop and my dad,
Those terrorist bastards make me mad;
But I’m a Stanford B-school grad;
So I’ll not be going to Baghdad
(Chorus)
Chicken wings suit me just fine
They go so well with my yellow spine
The poor man’s born to join the fray
I was born rich, I’ll get an MBA
I just can’t share the poor man’s fate
Cause at the Frat House hot babes wait
Just like Dubya I get “C’s”,
And like Dick, I got “Priorities”
(Chorus)
Chicken wings suit me just fine
They go so well with my yellow spine
We strut like cocks in our “Old School” halls
We’re really hens, we’re lacking balls
Posted by: Catherine | January 16, 2007 7:54 PM