Bush asks for an escalation of troops - how should the DEMS respond?

[RiverStone]

Poll question: Bush asks for an escalation of troops - how should the DEMS respond?

With Bush presenting his new Iraq strategy tomorrow night, our DEM leaders in both the House and Senate are faced with our first big leadership challenge: how to respond as DEMS on a unified front to the insane escalation of both troops and funds that all anticipate Shrub to ask for. We got elected in great part over a mandate that the status quo in the tragic Iraq quagmire is no longer acceptable.

The MSM seeks to find any discourse in our party and are making a point to assert disagreements in the depth and scope of how we intend to respond to BushCo's plan. Case in point can be found in this NYT article from 1/08/07 titled - Democrats Split Over Iraq Approach.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/world/middleeast/09dems.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


So fine DUers, here is an over-simplified poll to at least get a compass bearing on where we stand on Bush's anticipated plan to increase troop levels and dollars for the almost 4 year long Iraq war. I'm optimistic that as a party we will come together with a response that represents a majority DEM view and reflects the values behind the voices of We The People from last November.


Question - Which response to the Bush plan to you prefer?

[nosmokes]

1. where's the other button?

the one that says they should oppose any more troops being sent to iraq and work like hell to get the ones there back home asap?

[Taxloss]

2. Teddy's plan works for me. n/t

[robertpaulsen]

3. How about Kucinich's plan?

I'd pick that option if you added it.

[Rainscents]

4. They should respond with... FUCK YOU, Bush!

[liberal renegade]

6. I agree

fuck you and the horses ass you rode in on......

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

5. If possible, force Bush to veto his own military spending bill

Tie conditions to any further military spending on repeal of the tax cuts and use of the money to fund alternative energy. After all, our troops are there to secure the oil. If we had advanced alternative energy technology in place and in use, we wouldn't need to send human shields in U.S. military uniforms to police another country's civil war. For every dollar spent on killing, force Bush to spend a dollar on new energy that would benefit not only our country but the entire world and lessen the need for war. He'd have the choice to accept it or veto it and I think the American people would applaud it.