I know there are many threads about Iraq, but they are mostly about president Bush. What I am trying to determine is where exactly does the democratic leadership stand on Iraq. Recently the democratic party, its presidential candidates and congressional leaders, determined that president Bush may be vulnerable on the Iraq issue. So they have been jockeing to produce the best sound bytes against him, and arguing about who was the first and loudest to denounce his policy. I understand that this is political fluff, and that is how the game is played. But what exactly do the democrats propose that we do about Iraq? All the major contenders except Dean supported the war. (Well, we are not sure about General Clark, because he changed his mind so many times). More recently, some of them supported the package to send financial aid to the soldiers and to reconstruct Iraq, while others rejected it. But has any of them said what they would do differently? If so, then it got lost in the fluff, because I haven't heard it. Perhaps some of you who follow the democrats more closely can tell me. How is our policy likely to change if a democrat wins the White House? Would we pull out of Iraq? Would we continue the course? Would we expand the effort? So far all I heard is that they will try to get more help from other countries. But the Bush administration is also trying to do that. And do they really think that the answer is French and German troops, even in the unlikely event that they could get them? In congress the democrats haven't done much more. The only minor difference with the republicans was their proposal to turn some of the aid requested by Bush into loans (which some republicans also signed on). But to me that is like charging Iraq for the damage we caused while liberating them. I agree with the president that it is not a good idea. But even if it is, it is not a major change in policy really. So after all the soundbytes and political attacks are over, what is it exactly that the democrats would do differently?
Most of the Democratic candidates have comprehensive policy papers regarding Iraq posted on their Website.
Re: Re: Waiting for Democrats on Iraq I have seen some of those web-sites, but I havent seen any ideas other than what I just mentioned. The talk is mostly about enlisting more help from American 'allies' and the United Nations. But they are not clear as to how exactly they would achieve this. Even if it was desirable to bring more foreign troops in (rather than train Iraqis which I think is the better choice), it is not clear how they would accomplish that. Would they give control in Iraq to the UN in exchange for foreign troops? Nothing I have read is clear on this. I should point out that the Reverend Al Sharpton is clear that he will bring all the troops home as soon as he gets to the White House. My question is what would Dean, Gephard, Kerry, Lieberman, Clark, or Edwards do?
Well, I can give you my position paper. I was previously in favor of bugging out, immediately. Unfortunately, Bush's alleged flypaper strategy has worked too well. Leaving now would put Iraq in the control of people who would turn out worse than Saddam. There's a very real chance that this will happen anyway. The goal is to minimize that chance, and, sadly, our troops are just going to have to stay in harm's way for a long time. Fourteen more months of Bush - man, that's an eternity. A new president will get a second chance with the UN, with our allies, and with world opinion. A more sincere appeal to international aid would hopefully work a lot more than hearing it from Dubya. That fourteen months - wow, that's going to be awful. The Bush Administration does not have the competence or the vision to solve this problem. There is no cure for this short of firing them all and starting over. billmon.org.v.sabren.com posits the theory that Bush will declare "victory" and bug out in March, or retreat to the desert. Billmon also posts a long list of the downside to that plan, as well. But giving these people $87 billion to spend is madness. Absent a completely comprehensive change in personnel, the money would literally be better spent establishing a US rugby league, with rugby-specific stadiums. Considering no one got fired for 9-*#*#*#*#ing-11, that's not going to happen. So, as presidential candidate, I'd just keep screaming at Bush to not *#*#*#*# up any more than he has been. If I were a Democratic congressman or senator though, I'd be screaming for (a) a very painfully precise accounting of what that $87 billion will be spent on, down to the last nickel, and (b) a complete change of the guard in State, Defense, NSA, the Valerie Plame leaker's head on a pike, and total complicity with the 9/11 commission. For a start.
Re: Re: Re: Waiting for Democrats on Iraq I'm going to assume you're not just playing stupid: Dean: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign_iraq Kerry: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/security_plan.html Edwards: http://www.johnedwards2004.com/foreign-policy.asp Lieberman: http://www.joe2004.com/site/PageServer?pagename=ii_joesagenda Clark's position papers are due out this weekend.
Highlights: Dean: We will keep the promises to Iraqis that the administration made, but we will involve the UN and Nato. Oh, here is something different: Women should participate in every aspect of the decision making process. (?) One good thing Dean is doing is giving a timeframe for democracy: 18 to 24 months. (Although he admits troops should be expected to stay in Iraq for a longer period). So, basically (other than trying harder than Bush to involve NATO, the UN and presumably more women) he will continue what Bush is doing. But I give him credit for guessing on the time it will take. Bush and the other democrats have been unwilling to venture a guess up to this point. Kerry: I supported the war, but the administration has no plan to win the peace. We must change course in Iraq. By 'changing course' he means that he will be a better diplomat than Bush in securing help from others and thus spreading the risks to other nations. But he will basically continue the effort. 'Winning the peace in Iraq is critical to us because it will have a profound impact on the war on terrorism. We literaly cannot allow ourselves to fail' Edwards: I supported the war, but the situation now is confused and chaotic. We are understaffed and underequiped. We must ensure that the iraqi people shape the future of their nation and that their economy booms. We need to involve NATO and the UN. I love this quote. 'It is in America's interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors because a democratic tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner.' Senator Edwards seems to agree one hundred percent with me. Sounds like he would continue what Bush is doing, plus (surprise-surprise) try to involve more the NATO allies and the UN. Lieberman: 'The opportunity to build a more stable and democratic Iraq, made possibly by our stunning military victory, is now in jeopardy'. His answer: Commit more US troops to Iraq, but (surprise!) give command of the mission to NATO. Also, work with the UN. So, for all the criticism, it sounds like the major democratic contenders are in agreement with Bush (and with me) about the goals in Iraq. They are commited to continue with the effort. But they want to give up control of the operation to those who refused to help to remove Hussein. Once we take away the political soundbytes, their only major dissagreement seems to be that they would give NATO and the UN (and women in Dean's case) more control over the situation, and that by doing so they expect that other nations will be more likely to sent troops. So, give up control to NATO and the UN and maybe France and Germany will help us a bit more. (You think so? The answer, my friends, is France?) Other than that we are all in agreement about the mission and its goals. While many radical liberals are demanding that we immediately bring the troops back home, the democrats are closer to Bush in how they view this issue. Their criticisms are loud, but it seems to be much ado about nothing.
I think you're forgetting about the competency issue. Aside from policy, the Bush Administration is simply not very good at what it does. For example, I have no doubts that were Dean or Clark elected, they would be able to round up foreign support in the form of tens of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of troops in a matter of weeks. Because of a simple understanding of diplomacy.
So the major difference between the democratic views on Iraq and that of Bush is that you are certain that Dean and Clark have great diplomatic skills and so will be able to get more foreign aid than Bush? That is a very subjective opinion. If the major difference between democrats and republicans is on our personal opinions about diplomatic style, then we are all basically in the same page on the more relevant issue of what to do about post-war Iraq. So why all the bitter criticism? If our debate is over a change in diplomatic style, then it is hardly worth all the damage that is being done to our country by the partisan criticisms and by all the negative publicity that they create. But lets debate the issue at face value. Countries around the world have already pledged over 13 billion dollars to the effort. So far France and Germany have contributed Zilch. So perhaps if we do what the democrats want and give NATO and the UN control of Iraq, and we kiss ass to Chirac and Schroeder, then perhaps they will put in a billion or two? I don't think it is worth it.
I've seen bags of potato chips that have greater diplomatic skills than Bush and his administration. Dean hasn't proved it yet, but I'm willing to back that horse regardless because he's been unwavering in his message since before Day 1. Clark has proved, in triplicate, that he's a great diplomat (and general). Unless you think the killing in the Balkans stopped by itself. The diplomatic style that brought us "mission accomplished" back in May, then "i didn't mean it" by October. The diplomatic style that brought us "bring it on", in regards to increasing attacks by Iraqi irregulars upon our troops in occupied territories. The diplomatic style that alienated most of the world, including our longest-standing ally, despite the blank check everyone wrote to us after 9-11. The diplomatic style that has turned what was, in all honesty, a stunning victory in Afghanistan into a nightmare of embarrassment. The diplomatic style that awarded huge sums of money to friends of the administration as the spoils of war. No amount of criticism from the democratic candidates could possibly damage this country any more than Bush's "diplomatic style" already has. That's 13 billion and a big middle finger from the rest of the world, and 87 billion from our own taxpayers. I don't know about you but I'm not too high on paying for Bush's political screw-up out of my own pocket just because he can't admit that the administration is incompetent.
Your determination to dismiss the Democrats' call for more international invovlement is making you forget what efforts Bush has actually made in that arena. The recent UN resolution, while better than nothing, is still scarcely better than nothing. The 13 billion dollars likewise. This whole war was a big F-you to the UN and many of our allies. Then when all was said and done, and we clearly needed help to create stability in Iraq, Bush stood before the UN again and told them all that we were right and they were wrong. But they could redeem themselves by putting their people in danger and spending their money, more because it's the right thing to do than because they'd receive any reward or much of a voice in determining the course of action in Iraq. Gee, why hasn't this strategy won him the Nobel Peace Prize yet? When the Democratic candidates say they will seek international help, they mean it. They mean the US will sacrifice more control in Iraq in exchange for troops and money. It's not just about diplomatic skills; it's about changing the very nature of our mission there.
I misspoke- you're right, it is about more than competency. Although I can't remember the last time we had an incompetent president.
Would this be an appropriate time to bring up the Bush administration's promises of funding for No Child Left Behind, AIDS funding in Africa etc. vs. what was actually spent on these programs? Just a little hypocrital to chastise others for not coming up with promised funds is all I'm saying.
I am not dismissing it. I am saying that the democrats supported the war (except Dean and maybe Clark) and they all clearly support the current efforts to bring democracy to Iraq. They also support more international involvement, just as Bush now does, but are more willing than Bush to give control to the UN and NATO. We may dissagree on how much control to give to foreign countries in Iraq. Personally I think it is time to start turning things over to trained Iraqis, not to foreign troops and leaders. But that is a relative minor dissagreement in the whole scheme. What I haven't seen is any of the democratic candidates or leaders in congress (other than the Reverend Sharpton), support a major change or shift on our Iraq policy. I don't see a great policy dissagreement which warrants such partisan hatred and divisions and personal attacks. If we can agree that our differences are merely in diplomatic style and in how much we want to involve the UN and NATO in the decision making, then we should not be so up in arms about this whole thing, because we are basically all pulling in the same direction. Perhaps Senator Edwards can put it a bit more eloquently than President Bush, but they are all basically trying to achieve the exact same goals. The important thing to remember is that the enemy is not Bush (like Dean mistakenly said) but Al quaida and those who declared war on America. These people will not let up and stop their attacks in Iraq and around the world just because a democrat is in the White House. They hate all Americans. Our differences are minor and they don't warrant the kind of hostility that should be reserve for our true enemies.
Calvin Coolidge. The primary accomplishment during his administration was that the earth, as best as can be determined, did not spiral into the sun.
They can't support an extreme change in policy now that the deal is done. The chaos has been unleashed, and they'd look like left wing nutcases (see: Kucinich) if they advocated a full withdrawal of troops and abandonment of Iraq. But their anger over the way Bush has handled matters so far is not an exaggeration. Their proposed policies are distinct changes from Bush's, and not at all the minor differences in diplomatic style that you are suggesting. If Bush remains in power, the US will spend more money, the troops will stay there indefinitely, the UN will continue to sneer and say "we told you so," and the reconstruction of Iraq will continue to proceed slowly and violently. The Democratic candidates, to different degrees, are talking about getting a real international force in there. The UN will take over control of this situation, as they should have in the first place. The shared effort will allow some US troops to come home, decrease the impression of the US as a hostile occupying force, and speed up the transfer of power to the Iraqis, which will in turn increase security for the soldiers still there. Not to mention help the nation of Iraq get back up and running again.
Where do you come up with that conclusion? The president is working clearly towards speeding the transfer of power to Iraqis. But it is a delicate situation. To do it too soon would be as dangerous as to do it too late. And maybe you are not aware that some democrats have called for sending more American troops to Iraq. None of the democrats except Dean gave a time table for turning the country over. And they are right not to do so, because at this point it would be nothing but a guess. To think that having the UN in there would make the effort seem like less of an occupying force to the radicals who are putting bombs and trying to kill both Americans and Iraqis is a fairy tale. The UN headquarters was bombed already by these madmen. These radicals hate the UN and the Europeans as just as much as they hate us. Iraq is on the right track, and that is why the terrorists are trying so desperately to destabilize it. Now they are resorting to attacking the red cross and others who are there to help. It is a sign of desperation. We are making progress every day. But to think that Iraq will suddenly turn into a rose garden with a Democrat in the White House is very naive. I expect that with a responsible Democrat in the White house, like Kerry, Edwards or Lieberman, the situation will not change much in Iraq. We will continue to make progress and we will still have some setbacks. Perhaps they might be able to get some French and Germans to join in by giving them some power, but it won't amount to much. Frankly, I am not that concerned about giving power to NATO and the UN, as long as they are as commited as we are to bring freedom and democracy to the country. If they are on the same page as we are, I don't think it will change things much, but it may not hurt much either. I don't see it as a major shift in policy. The most important thing if the democrats win is that they don't derail the great effort that was started by president Bush. That is my hope. Maybe the most positive thing about having a democrat lead the Iraq effort is that the liberals may finally shut the f*** up and quit trying to turn everything into an anti-Bush propaganda. Maybe that would be a positive for America, if these people stop trying to undermine everything we do. Personally, I would support anybody who is leading America's effort in the war against terror. If it happens to be a democrat, and they are working towards the same worthy goal, I wouldn't resort to the hate tactics that are now been used. I would debate ideas about how to reach the goals, but I would not stoop to that shameful level of hatred, like a candidate for president calling the leader of our country 'our enemy'.
ASF are you thick or just pretending to be? Saying that the Democrats agree with Bush because they back continued involvement in Iraq is like me having the following conversation with my wife when I get home: Me: "Honey I am home!" Wife: " Sweetie the dog crapped in the living room again". Me: "That stupid dog. I told you we should never have gotten a dog. We don't have time to walk it and I knew that you wouldn't be able to take care of it - did you clean it up?" Wife "Gross! I am not picking up dog SH$T; besides I gotta get going!" Okay at this point I have too choices. I can grab a beer sit down on the couch and flip on FSW with the steaming pile of dog crap still right there in front of me. I can do this all pissed off at the wife but I am going to be the one suffering not her as she is headed for "girls night out". Or I could pick up the sh$t. By your theory - if I decided to pick it up that means that I agree with getting the dog in the first place. Understand the fallacy in your logic? What else are the Demos going to say? Pull out right now? We all agree that is dangerous as hell. We have to stay the course. Finally I will say this - you seem to look at the Iraq mess as a "mistake" and something "we need to get over". Alot of innocent people died ASF as a result of Bush's hubris, ignorance and lies. Many are still dying. I don't take that lightly nor should any Democratic candidate. Yes I am very pissed off. Additionally we went from having the world's support in the months after 9.11 to basically being alone. I don't take that lightly either even if it is only "diplomatic style" to you - to me it is the major reason we are in this mess.
Errrr... I am not thick nor am I pretending to be. And you? BTW: Nice story about the dog. Mine does the same. That would be a good analogy, except that all the major democratic candidates, except Dean, supported the effort to remove Hussein. Check out their websites and they will tell you so themselves. They supported the war and believe it was the right thing to do. So, to follow your analogy, you admiteddly agreed to buy the dog and now suddenly you act pissed because he shit in the living room floor. So, you agreed to buy the dog regardless of whether or not you decide to pick up the shit. And so you shouldn't be angry about it. Unless you are Howard Dean, of course. He didn't want the dog to begin with. Maybe that is why he considers Bush 'The Enemy'.
I think there is a step we are missing in my dog analogy. What if my wife said "I want to get a golden retriever and he is going to have the highest pedigree and be professionally trained. Don't worry I have it all under control". Then she comes home with a mangy mongrel who chews up the furniture and craps on the carpet? Do I still agree with the wife even though she pulled the ol bait and switch? In the other D cases I think their support for the war was a little more nuanced than you are making it. Did the Senators vote to give Bush authorization for war? Yup. Not the greatest move IMHO. However, they did that under evidence provided them by Bush, Powell etc (the Golden Retirever) Evidence now proven to not only be false but also selectively choosen and promoted by the Bush Administration(Flea-bitten Mongrel). Furthermore, they supported the war based on the premise that there would be a plan to win the peace (Golden Retriever to be professionally trained). Clearly there has been no plan (The dog even looks like phucking Benji!). So it is not inconsistent to have supported military action based on pre-war faulty intelligence and now have heavy criticisms of the post-fall of Saddam handling (Mongrel also has ticks in addition to crapping on the carpet). That said I still support Dean overt the others because in my gut I knew Bush was full of crap on this war from day one and I will vote for the guy who had similar feelings. For the record I don't have a wife and I do have a kick ass dog who would never think to *#*#*#*# on the floor.
You consider a mangy mongrel to be less than a golden retreiver? Isn't that the doggy equivalent of being a racist?
Ahhhh but you know us liberal elitists from the NE. We don't like to muddy our gene pool be it human or canine! Purebreds only baby!
And at girls' night out, she comes back with another bitch and she mentions her credit cards got cut up cuz they were maxed and you were late on the payments. Maybe Toby Keith will write a country ballad about this one!
This looks like a job for.... Rick Dingwall - Metaphor Cop! When metaphors run wild...when figures of speech go out of control...there's only one man to call.... Rick Dingwall - Metaphor Cop! When I got to the scene, I couldn't believe what my eyes were telling me. It wasn't a crime scene - it was a killing floor. It was up to me to bring the dog down. For it wasn't just any dog. It wasn't just crapping on the couch. It was a dog that had killed over a hundred soldiers, and wounded thousands of others. It would take more than a Milk Bone, that's for sure. "Heel, Fido," I said. "Woof," snarled the howling hell-beast. "You can't take that dog down," said a smirking streak of piss behind me. "That dog's as tough as nails." "Tough AS...? That's a SIMILE, you BASTARD!" I emptied my gun in his general direction. "Oh, God, my kneecap! It hurts like hell!" "LIKE hell?" I air-conditioned his other kneecap. "Please, for the love of God! Even Jesus used similes?" "Yeah? Well, tell him I said hi." And I blew out his candle for good. The dog got away, of course. And it looks like I'm in for another session with Internal Affairs. But it's all in a day's work for.... Rick Dingwall - Metaphor Cop!