Bush accepts Republican House resolution i.e. (Kerry's plan) on Iraq

[mzmolly]

While many of the president's lines drew applause, lawmakers sat in silence after he said that.

The White House has charged that proposed bipartisan Senate resolutions opposing Bush's plan could undermine the war effort.

The House Republican resolution, which may be offered as early as next week, calls for the creation of military, political and social "benchmarks" to monitor the success of an increase in U.S. troops, and hold Bush and Iraqi government accountable.

It also calls for creation of a bipartisan congressional panel to monitor implementation of the benchmarks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070126/pl_nm/usa_congress_republicans_dc

Kerry's plan: http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=248663

This afternoon, Senator John Kerry introduced in the Senate his plan to succeed in Iraq and bring the vast majority of our combat troops home in a reasonable time frame tied to specific, responsible benchmarks to transfer responsibility to Iraqis – beginning with the draw down of 20,000 U.S. troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. These additional troops are in Iraq only for the purpose of providing security for the upcoming elections. If they remain in Iraq after that benchmark is achieved, it only exacerbates the sense of American occupation.

Kerry's plan is an extensive, reasonable solution to the issue, though it would have been best implemented when he initially called for it. All this chatter about how "democrats don't have a plan" is of course bullshit.

[Imagevision]

1. It beats going in cold with no time/progress limit involved!!

[mzmolly]

2. Yes it does.

I just want to see the MSM give credit where it's due. But, then again that's a fools errand. ;)

[teach1st]

3. What they said a few years ago...

October, 2005:

The Republican National Committee immediately denounced the Democrats as a ''party of 'retreat and defeat' with a newfound interest in addressing the war on terror, President Bush's top priority for years."

And a senior White House official said Kerry's withdrawal plan would make Iraq more dangerous for citizens and US troops. ''The troop withdrawal needs to be tied to order and stability, not simply to political benchmarks," this official said. ''The political track, while vital, can't by itself defeat the insurgents."

[mzmolly]

5. Which was of course a strawman argument on their part.

Shocking! :sarcasm:

[blm]

9. Saddest part is that when Kerry presented that plan in 2005, it had a chance to work

BEFORE civil war set in some months later because of Bush's inactions.

[mzmolly]

11. I felt the same way reading it again.

:(

[MH1]

4. 15 months after Kerry proposed it...now the situation has changed.

Even if Kerry's plan from 15 months ago is still appropriate to any degree (and yes it is better than doing nothing), the Bush administration is incompetent to implement it.

The only plan they should be talking about is the one that starts getting our troops out of Iraq with the minimum of pissed-off-ness of allies in the region.

[_dynamicdems]

6. Kerry's old plan was better and more fleshed out than Bush's pirated version.

And that plan was designed for the situation at the time. Far more has happened because nobody listened to Kerry's plan when it would have done some good.

Fucking Bush.

[mzmolly]

7. Yes indeed.

I attempted to elaborate on that above.

Seems to me they should invite Kerry to the "bi-partisan solution" table?

[blm]

10. Kerry's first plan was BEFORE civil war developed a few months later - thanks to Bush's

inactions at that time.

[spanone]

8. There is no 'Republican House', mr. bush*.