What Are The Democrats Plan For Iraq

gixaholic · #1 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 03:48 PM

Please Can Any One Tell Us

gixaholic · #2 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 05:31 PM

i guess the silence means the dems dont have a plan

cat's meow · #3 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 05:53 PM

People can't exactly answer every second of the day when we are a work Mr. Smarty pants.

First of all it is the Executive branch that is intitially charged with this, so any Democratic plan has to deal with the bi-partisan process which would have to be worked on.

Second, there have been numerous Democratic plans that have been fully thought through in the past year and a half. These have been proposed by people like Joe Biden, Jack Murtha, and several others through comittees (the way they are supposed to). Those committee chairs in the last congess were all Republicans and never let the plans out to see the light of day on the floor of Congress and were killed in committee. You are very disingenious to accuse there is NO plan. Instead of being so accusitory you could have easily looked this up yourself...sorry, the FOX network or NEWMAX would not carry this...the following was very simple to find in a search.

Quote:

The Democrats' plan for Iraq addresses withdrawal, Iraqi governance, and Bush culpability. On the key subject of withdrawal, Real Security states, "Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces." It stops short of proposing a definite timetable for withdrawal. This represents a compromise between the position of Dems, like Congressman John Murtha, who want a firm schedule for withdrawal, and others, like DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel, who say President Bush must establish "timetables for success."

A careful parsing of the Dems new Iraq position finds three key elements: 2006 must be the year when significant changes occur in Iraq. In other words, if at the end of the year there are no clear signs of progress, there must be a significant change of American policy, such as a schedule for withdrawal. This is distinct from the Bush doctrine that America stays in Iraq until we "win;" that steadfastly refuses to propose a timetable; that doesn't see 2006 as being all that different from 2005. The White House position is "stay the course;" that we'll be involved in Iraq as long as Dubya is President. At his March 21st press conference, Dubya admitted that the date for the last of our troops to leave "will be decided by future Presidents."

The Dems Iraq plan also states that 2006 must be the year when Iraqis take major responsible for both security and governance. Currently "Iraqi troops have primary responsibility for less than 20 percent of the country overall." One would expect that at the end of 2006 they would have responsibility for more than half. Again, the White House doesn't have any concrete expectations; for good reason, as the Iraqis currently can't get it together enough to form a government.

The third element of the Dems plan is "responsible redeployment of US forces." This follows the Murtha logic that withdrawal doesn't mean that all our Iraqi troops should leave the Middle East, rather that a quick reaction force should be maintained nearby in Kuwait or a similar location.

Thirdly, because of the way our system works and what roll the Executive branch plays the Congress now has to wait and see what the EB wants. You have have gotten used to this stuff flying through with tactic approval by a Rep controled Congress, now it has to be bi-partisan. Imagine that...the entire government will be involved now. You won't find the stuff on this with NewsMAX or FOX, look elsewhere my friend.

gixaholic · #4 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

People can't exactly answer every second of the day when we are a work Mr. Smarty pants.

First of all it is the Executive branch that is intitially charged with this, so any Democratic plan has to deal with the bi-partisan process which would have to be worked on.

Second, there have been numerous Democratic plans that have been fully thought through in the past year and a half. These have been proposed by people like Joe Biden, Jack Murtha, and several others through comittees (the way they are supposed to). Those committee chairs in the last congess were all Republicans and never let the plans out to see the light of day on the floor of Congress and were killed in committee. You are very disingenious to accuse there is NO plan. Instead of being so accusitory you could have easily looked this up yourself...sorry, the FOX network or NEWMAX would not carry this...the following was very simple to find in a search.

Thirdly, because of the way our system works and what roll the Executive branch plays the Congress now has to wait and see what the EB wants. You have have gotten used to this stuff flying through with tactic approval by a Rep controled Congress, now it has to be bi-partisan. Imagine that...the entire government will be involved now. You won't find the stuff on this with NewsMAX or FOX, look elsewhere my friend.

is withdrawl a plan. And is that responsible since democrats ran on a platform that they can fix iraq. And if we run from iraq where are we going to run too. You know the muslim extremist wont stop fighting us and they just might get emboldend by us retreating

Smitty0311 · #5 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gixaholic

is withdrawl a plan. And is that responsible since democrats ran on a platform that they can fix iraq. And if we run from iraq where are we going to run too. You know the muslim extremist wont stop fighting us and they just might get emboldend by us retreating

Yes they have no plan for victory in iraq. Just defeat!

cat's meow · #6 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gixaholic

is withdrawl a plan. And is that responsible since democrats ran on a platform that they can fix iraq. And if we run from iraq where are we going to run too. You know the muslim extremist wont stop fighting us and they just might get emboldend by us retreating

You asked for a plan and they have one, there is your answer. You act like they don't have plan, there have been many. So therefore you are wrong in your thread/post. If you want to argue the merits of a plan that is completely a different subject and thread. When you ask a question and debate that question then basically Ad Hom comments don't really matter at all.

Smitty0311 · #7 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

You asked for a plan and they have one, there is your answer. You act like they don't have plan, there have been many. So therefore you are wrong in your thread/post. If you want to argue the merits of a plan that is completely a different subject and thread. When you ask a question and debate that question then basically Ad Hom comments don't really matter at all.

A plan for defeat isnt a plan at all!

cat's meow · #8 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitty0311

A plan for defeat isnt a plan at all!

You asked for a plan and there have been many. Question answered. Move on. Go to a thread that that you want to debate the merits. Sort of sick of you guys saying there have been no plans from the Democrats; they have HAD many and all of them don't just automaticall say withdrawl. You lose that argument, in fact it is a non-argument.

The facts are that over and over the administration's plans have had massive problems and you guys have never admitted it; even the guy you all staunchly support admitted mistakes last night in his speech. I think it is high time to stop fooling yourself here.

There has to be bi-partisan plan at this point and that is probably what Mr Bush better start aiming for. Talkign to troops at Ft Benning is not going to cut it, he needs to start talking to a lot of other people and take some sound advice from some of those Generals he has not listened to yet.

Smitty0311 · #9 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

You asked for a plan and there have been many. Question answered. Move on. Go to a thread that that you want to debate the merits. Sort of sick of you guys saying there have been no plans from the Democrats; they have HAD many and all of them don't just automaticall say withdrawl. You lose that argument, in fact it is a non-argument.

The facts are that over and over the administration's plans have had massive problems and you guys have never admitted it; even the guy you all staunchly support admitted mistakes last night in his speech. I think it is high time to stop fooling yourself here.

There has to be bi-partisan plan at this point and that is probably what Mr Bush better start aiming for. Talkign to troops at Ft Benning is not going to cut it, he needs to start talking to a lot of other people and take some sound advice from some of those Generals he has not listened to yet.

There is no plan from the democrats! Fact!

cat's meow · #10 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitty0311

There is no plan from the democrats! Fact!

Thank you for your hard head Smit. Move on...