I hate Joe Scarborough

[renie408]

But he's right. He just said that for Democrats to take advantage of the current crash in Bush's poll numbers, they need to form a cohesive message on the war in Iraq. Some Dems think we need to increase troop numbers, some propose an extended time table for withdrawal and others want the troops home now. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much chance that 'increase troop strength to speed things up' and 'get the hell out of there' are going to come together.

So, what IS the best thing to do? I was against the war, but I think leaving completely would be a mistake. That area already despises us for the way we abandoned the region after the first Gulf War. How do you clean up a mess this foul?

[chaumont58]

1. If the US does stay until 'stable' 'democratic' government

how long would that be, and what is the likely hood it will last 24 hours after the last GI leaves? Is there any way that the Shias, the Sunnis and the Kurds want to be one nation without a boot on their necks. If it were to break into three nations, what is the problem?
As far as a cohesive message out of Dems, how is that possible? There are 20 DLC senators. How can one get a common, cohesive message out of Boxer and Feinstein? Feinstein is a member of the DLC. Boxer isn't.
For one thing, having a cohesive message from Dems gives the repukes a target. I wouldn't trust Scarborough to tell me that the best way to cure constipation would be to take a dump. He doesn't have my best interests at heart.
A lot of people who are now telling Dems to get a message were supporters of the invasion. Columnist David Ignatius has a WaPo column this morning saying as much. He was a supporter of 'removing Saddam Hussein.' I don't give a god damn how dumb someone is, people get killed in war. 'Removing Saddam Hussein' meant someone was going to die. Ignatius and his ilk can kiss my ass. These chickenhawk strategists that advocate war but don't give a rat's ass about who dies are forever beyond the pale for me.

[renie408]

4. Way to identify what's wrong!!

So, do you have an idea about HOW TO GET OUT?? See, I think the point is that Dems are getting really GREAT about standing around and pointing at the other side and noting what they are doing wrong. God knows, the other side offers us enough ammunition. But we don't seem to come up with any SOLUTIONS!! I get what the problem is. Got it. Noticed it a long time ago. HOW DO WE FIX IT??

We.....have.....got.....to.....have.....a.....message. Its just true. The one thing you have to give Repukes is that they are ON MESSAGE 24/7. They know how to beat the drum.

[chaumont58]

15. Sorry to be dense, but I don't understand

How to get out? Logistically, its going to be difficult. chimpie and his crew have screwed up this thing royally. I am asking the question of what is the likely hood of Iraq falling apart in any case where they do not live under a totalitarian government. Do the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds truly want a united Iraq? There seems to be ample evidence that they don't.
My point is that I don't think Dems have an obligation to come up with a plan to bailout chimpie. And, given the disparate Dem views in congress, a cohesive 'democratic plan for Iraq' is an impossibility. I gave an example of DiFi and Boxer. Biden's ego won't let him be a party of anything not his own proprietary idea.
Any Democratic 'plan' is going to be attacked by repukes, whatever it says, and will divert attention to chimpie's mess. Consider chimpie's lame ass attack on Social Security. The Dems sat back and let him choke on his own spittle. Some talking heads tried to bait them into presenting an alternate plan, but they didn't take the bait.
Bottom line is I don't see the need a 'Dem solution' to chimpie's problems. The best thing that could happen to the troops is for Dems to win back congress. I can wait untill next year for the campaign to start.

[renie408]

17. I don't give a rat's ass about Bush

I am not talking about bailing out Bush. I am talking about our responsibility to an entire country that has been thrown into civil unrest and whose infrastructure (not exactly wonderful to begin with) has been devestated. I am not certain a democratic Iraq as we understand democracy is possible or even feasible. It does not make sense to me for Dems to say, "Oops, our bad. We're outta here." and just pull the troops out. That makes *almost* less sense than trying to ram democracy down their throats.

[Lerkfish]

22. our occupation is the largest problem.

leaving immediately is the best course of action, period.
Sometimes the simplest most obvious solution is the correct one.

And I'm not even saying that in order to save our own servicemen and women (though I do want to) I'm saying that because we are the cause of their current problem. Since our being there at all is the problem, anything we might do while remaining there will not resolve any issues.

Right now, we have over 10,000 imprisoned detainees with not much hope of releasing them. We've slaughtered a hundred thousand or more and completely destroyed any non-oil infrastructure. We've propped up a sham govt. that has no clue how to represent their own country while still bowing their necks to our occupation.

Will civil war erupt? of course, it was always going to once Saddam was removed. Whether we leave or stay that will still happen. And even if we miraculously manage to stabilize it before we leave (and I don't see that, realistically), it will just destabilize immediately in the vacuum of force. Why do you think Saddam ruled with an iron fist? He had to. I"m not condoning, but I'm saying that's the reality.

Our occupation has BECOME problem number 1, no matter what other problems there were or are. Guess what? if we no longer occupy, the insurgents have no reason to continue. THEY WANT US OUT. and, I don't blame them.
No solution that involves us being there will work.

[grumpy old fart]

24. Yep, leave now. It's been 2 years and we can't secure one 6 mile road....

From the Green Zone to the airport is still the deadliest stretch of highway in the world.

[MintOreoCookie]

2. I agree with Joe

What the he|| are democrats doing? They should be taking advantage of the fact that nothing is going well for Bush--not just the war in Iraq. There was a great article in the New York Times several weeks ago about issues the democrats should take up. In today's Washington Post, David Ignatius also addresses this issue. The link to the article is posted below.

Why are the democrats in Congress doing nothing? This is their chance to have a message. They could perhaps increase their numbers in Congress in next year's elections.

What Democrats Should Be Saying
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801645.html?nav=hcmodule

[Inland]

3. Our message should be, can't clean it up w/Bush, Rmmy in charge

No matter what kind of hypothetical plan one can dream up to fix the mistake of invading, it would have to rely on a competent adminstration whose goal really was to implement the policy and not just cover up and escape blame for past mistakes.

In my mind, taking the time and trouble to draft up a plan is like the plan we had to go to the UN for authorization: Bush will pretend to agree, pretend to try, but just for show. Then he will do whatever it was he felt like doing anyway, and argue that gee, he did everything we wanted, according to OUR plan, so it must be OUR fault. A good plan is badly or insincerely executed and actually used as cover for the bad plan Bush wanted to do anyway.

Therefore there's nothing to do but save our soldiers and bug out. Sad to say, the best thing for Iraq and any other country is to remove power from Bush.

[renie408]

5. Winning in 2006, 2008...

I agree with the first part of your post. And, when you think about it, its not like Bush has articulated (isn't it funny to see 'Bush' and any form of the word 'articulate' in the same sentence??)a plan for withdrawal. The only thing they can say is "stay the course". What course? So maybe we don't need a plan, we just need a strong sounding phrase.

As for the last part, I cannot help but feel that we owe the Iraqi people electricity and clean water, if nothing else. Peace is probably not in the picture there for quite awhile. I also have this idea that our friendly Iraqi government is going to turn to IRAN and not us. Wouldn't that just be the height of irony???

[Inland]

13. I think we owe Iran a lot, BUT

if you say, "We owe Iran a lot, let's pump in money and keep our troops there for stability until it is a viable state", the Bushies are going to hear, "blah blah blah blah keep our troops there blah blah blah." Then there isn't going to be anything.

So my strong sounding phrase is, "Leave now". There isn't anything to be gained by leaving Bush in charge of Iraq, not for us, not for the Iraqis. Will Iraq eventually turn to Iran? Maybe, but the idea of keeping troops there to prevent it doesn't make sense, and keeping troops there with the idea that we will make it unnecessary doesn't make sense either.

[Canuckistanian]

6. Who formulates policy for the Democratic party?

Is it Dean? Or does he just coordinate campaign finance?

There should be a convention or a study group called to solidify policies on Iraq, noy to mention all the other areas such as the deficit and national security.

When looking at the Democratic party these days, all I see is a range of politicians all with different messages and degrees of whorishness.

Is it even possible to get a coherent message out of these people or is it like herding cats?

[MintOreoCookie]

7. *sigh*

I totally agree with you. I cannot understand for the life of me why democrats are not banding together and coming up with a message on all issues. I am so disappointed with them.

[tsuki]

10. No, Dean was told when he was elected to party chair that he does

not make policy.

[Efilroft Sul]

12. The first thing to do is frame the issue to the American people

And the failure in Iraq has to be framed as a Republican war of choice. The war there distracted us from the hunt for Osama, Rumsfeld sent troops in without adequate armor and got rid of generals who knew the mission would require thousands of more boots on the ground, and George Bush rigged the facts to fit his beligerant policy. Those are all Republican failures. If the Democrats got together and raised enough holy hell, it would shock the Republicans (as well as us here). But while the Republicans sputter to respond to the Democratic attact, the Democrats drop the next bomb: A cohesive exit strategy.

Now I don't speak for the party, inasmuch I don't speak for anyone here on DU, but here is just one such idea to remove our troops from Iraq.

Prior to all the Democrats announcing in unison that Iraq is a failed Republican war, its leaders have already gone to Iraq and met with that nation's top elected officials. In those meetings, the Democrats will urge the Iraqi leaders to send envoys to Arab League members and other Muslim nations to replace our troops on a 1:1 basis, thereby setting the stage for our troops to be withdrawn according to a Democratic Party plan. And while Rush and Hannity and Coulter and Frist sputter to the "unpatriotic" attack by the Democrats, the Democrats announce their withdrawal plan to the world alongside the Iraqi leaders. Surprise!

It's more of a plan than the Republicans have put forth, it's a diplomatic solution, and it puts the onus on the Iraqis for it to succeed. Plus it really makes Bush and the Republicans look ineffectual and anything but proactive.

Everyone wants the Americans out of Iraq. Here's one such opportunity to investigate.

[ihaveaquestion]

8. The real solution to the war in Iraq hasn't changed, but it isn't easy.

The message from Dems should be strong and as complicated as it needs to be! Having a complex message is what lost the election for the Dems in 2004, but they can now point to how disastrous trusting the guy with the "simple" solution was. Dems should continuously hammer away at Bu$h's "stay the course" and "fight the terrorists over there" rhetoric and propose 4 things (at least) as practical solutions ...

1) Bu$h and his cronies have to go ASAP. Bonus: there's a good chance the insurrgents will lighten up on attacking our troops when Bush can no longer be used as the focal point of their wrath.

2) Our forces should leave as soon as the Iraqi government asks them to - even if that's before everything else is completed.

3) The UN should take over peace-keeping and training the Iraqi military.

4) Negotiations must be started between the Iraqi government and the insurrgents with UN mediators.

5) Iraqis should be handed over control of their country's reconstruction and the money already promised by the US Congress should be placed in trust for the rebuilding effort.

Just my take on it.

[Dawgs]

14. I have heard some Dems mention...

securing the borders with additional troops and moving the training of Iraqi forces out of Iraq.

[Sparkly]

9. "New Leadership"

You're right about this:
"The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much chance that 'increase troop strength to speed things up' and 'get the hell out of there' are going to come together."

And people like Joe Scarborough (and Tweety, most notably) keep hammering the black/white, dual options of "Bush's Way" or "Cut and Run." The situation is so screwed up now thanks to BUSHCO. It makes it very difficult to give a short, clear answer that's not one of those two options.

Some short answers might be:
"We need New Leadership."

"The Republican administration has destroyed our nation's credibility. We need new leadership to give us a fresh start with our allies."

"The Republicans are beholden to companies profiting from this war. We need new leadership to deal with the region for a political solution; Republicans have so many strings attached they're tied down."

"The Republican administration has no exit strategy for success. We need New Leadership to establish an effective political solution that involves other countries in the region, our allies, and international cooperation and participation on intelligence, training Iraqi troops, and forming a working government all factions can accept."

Maybe there's an acronym or something...

Leadership
Engagement in Region
Allies
Viable Goals
Exit Strategy
= "LEAVE."

[ihaveaquestion]

11. Is anyone in the Dem leadership listening to us? n/t

[stopbush]

16. When the RWNM goes into "The Dems better come up with a plan"

routine, you know it's time to NOT offer a plan.

Actually, the Dems are following the first rule of politics: don't get in the way when your opposition is self-destructing. Nothing good will come of the Dems offering a plan on anything right now for the following reasons:

1. It gives the media a distraction from *'s woes
2. It allows the media to frame the argument negatively. Any plan the Dems would offer would be nuanced. The RW & media would tear it apart, ignoring the positives and highlighting "negatives"
3. It asks the Ds to put it all on the line when the same hasn't been asked of *

Trust me, if the new RW mantra is "Ds need to offer a plan" it's a trap.

[maxsolomon]

18. amen. there is no good way out

going IN was a betrayal of our responsibility to the AMERICAN PEOPLE. ultimately, we will betray the iraqi people no matter what we do, so, in the most machiavellian terms i can muster: screw them.

as a matter of realpolitik, why not get out now? *'s personal mission, which was to exact revenge on Hussein's clan for his father's loss in 92, has been achieved. stabilizing the oil for america's exclusive use was a PNAC pipe dream. it was never realistic given the level of hatred we've engendered in the muslim world by backing israel.

so get out, let the inevitable civil war & partition occur. tell the sunnis that another stalinist regime will be met with the same opposition. we'll break the country again. we're good at that part. the oil isn't going anywhere if there's chaos. and that might be a good thing, to leave an untapped reserve for 20 years in the future.

[grumpy old fart]

20. Correct. Plus the Dems have no power to implement any plan we suggest.

We cannot go to Arab leaders, as an earlier post suggests. We have no power to make promises, alliances, etc. The U.S. can only ACT through it's elected bodies. Dems have no actual power, only the power to suggest and speak from the moral high ground.

[LittleClarkie]

19. It's a puzzle. I know what the best course would have been

and Kerry would have done it.

But asking Bush to do what Kerry would have done seems impossible. They won't give up their profits. And even if they decide to try and leave, I fear a Saigon style fubar. Rummy and Cheney helped out with that one, I fear this one will look the same. You can't count on people who've never seen a war and keep firing those who have, and so never take their advice.

I fear we're fucked regardless.

[grumpy old fart]

21. How many U.S. soldiers died between 1968 and 1975 in Viet Nam??

And what difference did it make that we didn't pull out in '68? None, except for more dead soldiers and civilians.

[grumpy old fart]

23. Answer: 21,200 deaths from 1969-1975. Worth it?

http://thewall-usa.com/stats/#year