Democrats should suggest alternatives
I have been following the never-ending political pressure being placed on President Bush by the Democrats. I have been trying to determine if the Democrats actually have a strategy to exit from the mess in Iraq other than to “cut and run” which I will not support.
If the Democrats think the overall slaughter is unacceptable now, just wait until we leave with our tail between our legs. I guarantee that the streets of Baghdad and other cities in Iraq will run knee-deep in the blood of all those innocent Iraqis who supported our troops.
I can only guess that the Democrats did not learn from Vietnam or they choose not to remember the aftermath when the last helicopter lifted off from the roof of the American Embassy. I, for one, do not want to see history repeat itself.
My message to the Democrats is to stop their complaining and present a clear exit strategy that will not result in a bloodbath. Generally speaking, if someone doesn’t like how something is being done, alternatives should be suggested, otherwise the complainer is only part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Michael J. Mee, Westminster
The Democrats are pressuring the President because the people pressured the politicians to do just that.
If the only thing keeping us there is the Iraqis who helped us, it would be cheaper to bring them along with us.
As it stands now, they are leaving in droves, going to Jordan and other countrys.
If you want a clear exit strategy, with the condition that it will not result in a bloodbath, then I think you are out of luck. just like those poor people in Iraq.
First, Who invaded Iraq? Who made the decision to go into Iraq? Who made this decision to attack? Does anyone have a clear answer for an exit strategy? Try making the resonsible party for this mess to stand up and "Figure out the exit strategy"
I would have thought that after Viet Nam number one...never do anything that stupid again.
First, Who invaded Iraq? Who made the decision to go into Iraq? Who made this decision to attack? Does anyone have a clear answer for an exit strategy? Try making the resonsible party for this mess to stand up and "Figure out the exit strategy"
I would have thought that after Viet Nam number one...never do anything that stupid again.
From a website called Think Progress, posted at http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/01/bush-timetable-2
Flashback to 1999, when George W. Bush was governor of Texas. Then, Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo.
George W. Bush, 4/9/99, Houston Chronicle:
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
And on the specific need for a timetable:
George W. Bush, 6/5/99, Scripps Howard/Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
Despite his past statements, Bush now refuses to apply the same standard to his war and smears those who want a similar timetable for Iraq.
And from The Nation:
(Posted on new.yahoo.com at http://http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070510/cm_thenation/15194059;_ylt=AubMaspA7iyqgIxWeDUphVP9wxIF)
This Is What Democracy Looks Like?
The Nation
Thu May 10, 11:51 AM ET
The Nation -- Iraqi parliament votes to end the occupation
The American public favors withdrawal
The cause of Democracy apparently demands we ignore both.
Posted by Mary on May 11, 2007 05:20 AMMary - We still have troops in Kosovo
Posted by on May 11, 2007 07:08 AMActually, there have been strategies proposed by several Democrats, but since they don't control the Executive branch, those strategies don't really matter much at all. At most, the only thing they can hope to do is try to influence Bush's decisions (ie - apply political pressure).
Posted by CL on May 11, 2007 07:49 AMI guess if michael guarantees it, it must be true.
Posted by Ollie on May 11, 2007 08:02 AMIt is this deluded White House that NEVER HAD A PLAN after the run to Baghdad. And now the Democrats are blamed because they can't get the toothpaste back in the tube? Saddam gone = victory, as victorious as it will get. Let's accept this victory gracefully, pull back to the quieter border areas, away from Baghdad, and let the Iraqis "celebrate their diversity" as only they can. If need be, we'll still be "in country" but no longer providing free sniper and IED practice to the "insurgents."
Finally - since Bush has such a clear vision on this and is so committed to the Iraqi people, I propose that the next President appoint him as permanent in-country ambasssador to Iraq.
Just yesterday the white house released a statement regarding a strategy brought forth by democrats. The immediate response was "We reject that idea. It won't work". Why is it that democrats are being called upon to come up with strategies for the republicans, and every time they do, it gets rejected or vetoed. Whatever happened to "give this idea a chance to work"? Does that only apply to republicans who don't want this war to end?
Posted by on May 11, 2007 08:20 AM“It makes sense to have benchmarks as a part of our discussion on how to go forward,” Mr. Bush said.
Posted by Truth on May 11, 2007 08:28 AMTruth, you for got to use the word "finally" in your previous post. I guess the pressure from Democrats is working at least somewhat...finally.
Posted by J on May 11, 2007 09:00 AMdeclaring defeat is there strategy,even whenthe troops are winning the war.Now the un-educated will say the polls show that want us out.This polls are run by antiamerican liberals who make sure to poll a majority of ignorant people.
Posted by Keith on May 11, 2007 10:18 AM"This polls are run by antiamerican liberals who make sure to poll a majority of ignorant people."
Your phone must ring itself off the hook.
Posted by on May 11, 2007 10:20 AMI call on every member of Congress to come up with a plan that will demonstrate a will to win, and be practical for achieving success and not an another abandonment of the Iraqi people.
I feel that we need to engage the Iraqi government in a way that will allow them to transition responsibility with reward for doing so, and withdraw of troops for not.
I feel it is imperative to engage Iran and Syria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as these four countries will face the burden of an unstable Iraq immediately.
I believe it to be a moral obligation of the United Nations to have a much greater role in the reconstruction of Iraq, both economically and for security.
I believe that the hard line doves, and the hard line hawks need to stay out of this, and have moderates from both parties sit down and reach compromise. We can not go "as is" and we can not "withdraw immediately." Both ideas are impractical and will resolve nothing.
I believe it is time as Americans to stop pointing fingers, stop calling names, and start thinking critically. Stop saying "I wouldn't do it that way," and start saying "this is what I will do," from both political parties.
I believe it is time to get rid of the sound bites and start making policy. There is too much at state for politics. It is time for our leaders to lead.
Posted by Dan2 on May 11, 2007 10:20 AMAnd Keith knows ignorant. Very, very well...
I am somewhat surprised that he managed to only post his response once today.
Must have remember to take at least some of his meds this morning...
Posted by Ah Yes... on May 11, 2007 10:25 AMSeveral Democrats have suggested alternatives. What we're all waiting for is for the commander in chief to actually lay out a plan for Iraq - since he got us into this quagmire. What Bush's real "plan" is, is obviously to string things out and pass the mess on to his successor
Posted by Drew on May 11, 2007 10:32 AMAnd "Stay the Course" and "When they step up we'll step down" aren't plans, they're empty slogans
Posted by Drew on May 11, 2007 10:36 AMKeith took the poll several times.
Posted by Drew on May 11, 2007 10:38 AM"The American public favors withdrawal"
The American public doesn't decide military strategy, thank God.
Posted by KW on May 11, 2007 10:40 AMGod has spoken: America will lose the war in Iraq as it did in Vietnam. He is miffed that he would be invoked as America's motto: In God We Trust when it is clear that new dollar coins are now worth $50 because they don't contain the motto (though the ones that do have it on the side are worth face value).
Keith: I know you want to contribute; however, you invite too much ridicule. I can't protect you. Either hire a premier scribe to type out your comment or desist. Sorry. Me, your friendly deicide.
Posted by Richard Grimes(Risen Ape)r22037yahoo(ffrf.org) on May 11, 2007 10:43 AMLast night on one of the talk tv shows i heard something new. Bush may be waiting for something to take our minds off of Iraq, some natural or man made event, or he may be waiting for a miracle.
They did not say he consciously knows this, but is subconsciously expecting something, anything to help him.
Wow, if they are right.....
Posted by Sharon B. on May 11, 2007 11:06 AM"The American public doesn't decide military strategy, thank God."
So what we want is a really strong king who can decide this stuff instead of us peasants who know nothing and are only fit to be led and exploited for the benefit of the princes.
Great stuff!
I love conservatism and it's love of royalty.
Grimey Dick,
I have read your scrambled anti- any -religion babbling in the past. You rarely make any sense and I tend to skip over most of your incoherent posts,as I'm sure many others regularly do.For all the slack that Keith takes from the lefties they seem to never call you on your nonsense.
You should take your own advice.
Dan 2,
An excellent presentation. One that could be a start for a constructive conclusion to this whole fiasco.
Best of luck in getting it past the usual War-Is-Wonderful-and-Shooting-People-Is-Fun crowd, who have to "win" at everything first.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 11, 2007 11:42 AMOG,
I sure do hope so. I feel the same way that you do with the "war is great crowd," but also the same way with the "war should never happen crowd."
We all would love world peace, but in today's world, war is a horrible reality. Let's face that fact, and work towards an end to this terrible conflict, through all measures available. Through diplomacy, economic sanctions, the UN, military presence, but most of all accountability and responsibility.
OG, don't you think I should run for office? haha
Posted by Dan2 on May 11, 2007 11:47 AMI would probably vote for you dan2.
Posted by Larry on May 11, 2007 11:49 AMMichael-There is no good solution to a stupid idea, which the Iraq invasion was. Before the war, liberals warned a simple message any average business major would recognize "you break it, you bought it", but W is less than average and his followers must be even dumber. So after the 2004 elections, FOX & repubs were crowing "liberals are out of touch" & "Democrats just don't get it" Well we got it alright, nailed it right on the head. It's your mess, clean it up. I've got no solution for your stupidity. I'm going hiking, but I gotta know: whatever made you think the US could establish a democracy in the Middle East; now that's what I call out of touch. What a bunch of clowns, hardy har har!
Posted by hikingartist on May 11, 2007 12:03 PMMany Democrats have been pushing redeployment to Kurdistan for well over a year. The basic idea is to establish a base there and patrol in a way similar to the no fly zone. Smaller forces would remain in other parts of Iraq, but primarily for search & destroy missions, not police work & nation building.
It's a good, credible idea that focuses on the here & now, not the past. Alas, Sean Hannity & company can't think in such complex terms, so they decided to call it cut & run.
Posted by Derek Scruggs on May 11, 2007 12:21 PM"cut & run."
Isn't that what Bush did when he was supposed to report to the Texas Air National Guard?
Posted by Drew on May 11, 2007 12:25 PM"So what we want is a really strong king who can decide this stuff instead of us peasants who know nothing and are only fit to be led and exploited for the benefit of the princes."
What we have is called a constitution. We elect a president who has the power to make these decisions. He's not elected to take orders from the voters. Especially when it comes to military strategy.
If you famiiarize yourself with the way our government works you wouldn't be making statements such as these.
Posted by KW on May 11, 2007 12:27 PMNot quite, that was more of a "run and hide" technique.
Posted by Larry on May 11, 2007 12:29 PMKW - the Constitution also gives military funding power to the Congress. That's why it's called separation of powers, not consolidation of power.
Posted by Derek Scruggs on May 11, 2007 01:50 PMAll those dollars I threw in the pot with my pair of twos will be gambled in vain if I don't continue to raise my bet in their honor.
Posted by Some logic on May 11, 2007 02:45 PMCorrect Derek. But that has nothing to do with the subject I was refering to. Many people here keep posting that Bush has to do what the will of the people want with regards to Iraq. I'm just trying to edjumacate them since they have a rather thin grasp of our constutition.
Posted by KW on May 11, 2007 02:59 PMIraq Pre-2003: Fascist opression and minimal level of violence with high level of fear.
2003-2007 Anarchy, high level of violence, high level of fear.
What happened was removal of the oppressive force that was keeping these tribes from fighting out their milleniums old grudges.
Short of reinstating fascist opression, what is anyone's plan? Nothing else will quell the violence. Better they kill each other than us.
Posted by What's your plan? on May 11, 2007 04:11 PMBiden has a plan. It was linked up to one of these forums last month. I`m sure you can find it on the web.
Whatever plan is used, we need to remove thousands of Iraqis who supported us and would be killed when we leave. They cannot get out on their own and there is no part of Iraq that can hold them. Since we will not let them come here, they are going to be left to the tender mercies of their neighbors.
If supporters of Bush thought that every additional month in Iraq meant more Iraqis being allowed to move here, then how fast would they "cut and run"?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 11, 2007 05:30 PM
This board is utterly idiotic. "Conservatives" accuse the "Left" -- supposedly represented by the Democratic party -- for wanting to "cut and run" from the inevitable withdrawal from Iraq a lousy three months before the supposedly "Conservative" Republicans want to cut and run. That is such a stupid p*ssing match, only another skunk would join.
IF you disagree, take a note and write down what the Republicans say come September.
What could possibly constitute "mission accomplished" at this point?
KW, please, cap C on "Constitution." Show some respect, punk.
moron is now Con Mor
Posted by Con Mor on May 11, 2007 11:38 PMKW,
True that Bush has the power to set policy and guide the military, but he is subject to the will of the people through our elected representatives power of the purse.
You refer to the Constitution in your defense of his power, but have you noticed that Bush doesn't think the rule of law applies to him- including the constraints on his power laid out in the Constitution?
Why would you put such total confidence in a man who's been so very wrong about so much?
Posted by Charles B on May 12, 2007 08:31 AMAaah, Continuous Moron called me a punk. I don't wanna play anymore.
But to answer Charles B - Even General McCaffrey, who has been a major critic of the situation in Iraq, is now saying there has been great progress, the cause is just and if we fail the consequences will be severe.
Something with which I happen to agree.
Now if congress wishs to cut off funding that's their perogative. But as far as the constitution (small c to irritate moron) goes, Bush has authority.
Posted by KW on May 12, 2007 09:00 AMHow sadly true, KW. God help us all. He does. For another year and a half, or so, anyway. Time enough to really destroy the world, when he invades Iran next.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 12, 2007 09:57 AMKeith
I have seen your posts quite a bit on differant letters and have come to the conclution that you spend your intire day defending republicans. And thats OK to a certain degree but lets look at the facts for just a minute. First I'm not a democrat or a repubican. That is whats wrong with this country. We spend so much time defending these parties stupid desitions that these people do what ever they want because they know that people like you will defend them no matter what they do. I'm a veitnam vet and this war is no differant then Nam. We can argue till the cows come home why we went and who's fault it was but we are there. This war is unwinnable. Just like Nam. It is a gorilla warfare war. Which means there is no front lines to control. The people we're fighting are all around and we don't know who they are. I take back that this war is not winnable it is. If you have a large red ant hill in your back yard you don't go out there and start stomping on them. Yes you will kill a lot of them but you will ware out your foot first. You have to pour gas on them and burn them. I'm not saying that is what we do here I'm just saying that is the only way to end this mess. What this administration has done is not only stomped on that ant hill in afganistan put they poured suger in another part of the yard (Iraq) and created another ant hill. So for us to write that the democrats need to come up with alternatives there's not many And come away saying we won. These poeple have been fighting for hundreds of years and it gets old that every President thinks he is going to be the one to bring peace to the middle east. Like veitnam it will come a time when we have to cut our loses.
Keith: Don't just revisit Larrymc's letter; save it. You can copy and paste it unto your email. Me, your pal and friendly deicide trying to save you from excoriation. I have emailed to myself responses afflicting and affecting me. Do it, my boy, and learn from them.
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape(r22037@yahoo.com)ffrf.org on May 12, 2007 02:19 PMlarrymc,It's not that I'm pro republican il's that I'm basically against the dem. party because how they knowinly lie to get there want they want to benefit themselves and close friends.They have lied to the American people about the war ,brought up false acusations which prolong the war which in turn have cause more of our troops being kill with more to follow.That's what really pisses me off.This are human sacrifices so dems can take the white house.Plus we are dealing with all these problems because of the last time they had the white house,
Posted by Keith on May 12, 2007 02:42 PMKeith: You have'nt been paying attention. They all lie. That is how you get tocome prez. This prez took advantage of 911 to sell his war. He had already planned to attack Iraq before 911. It is well documented from some of his former aids that has stepped aside. 911 fell right into his lap. The dems are not the ones who lied to you on this one that has been getting our troops killed. They do have their share of lies but not this one. This man had the hole country and world behind him when he attacked afganistan. Then when they let Bin Laden slip away. He went to Iraq by scaring the american people that we were in going to get attacked by Saddam any time. Just like we were lied to about nam ( the commies are coming the commies are coming). I had alot of good freinds killed and mamed in that war too. And it's happening again. Keith I don't know if you've ever been in combat and say this first hand but if you have you should know that a war is not to be taken lightly. This is serious business to be playing politics. That is what this prez has been doing not just the dem. In nam Johnson had Brown & Root. And now Bush has it's mother ship Haliburton. You fiquire it out.
Posted by larrymc on May 12, 2007 03:08 PMKeith: Perhaps you have noticed that I never attack or declare someone a moron, stupid, idiot or similar lexicon; it is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. I simply post and enter a secular prayer that I won't end up roast. Like "larrymc" takes you under his wing, I follow suit. For you to resort to gutter language is unacceptable. Your posting reveals you are just a kid; proofread several times before you click on "post." Me, your friendly deicide whose only enemy is found in Luke 19:27 where the transmogrified Jew orders assassination similar to what is found in other holy books such as Qu'ran. Chill out and proofread.
Posted by Richard Grimes(Risen Ape)r22037@yahoo.com(ffrf.org) on May 13, 2007 03:44 PMdrewy,do they let you walk point on your strolls.
Posted by Keith on May 13, 2007 09:37 PM