OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ

[adios]

National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html)


Could someone post a link to the DNC strategy for Iraq?

[cardcounter0]

DNC plans for victory:

Drop a bunch of expensive bombs and missles causing "shock and awe" which will cause the people to greet us with flowers.

Topple Saddam's statue. Ship in a bunch of people to stand around it while American tanks pull it down. Make sure it is played continiously on all media for days.

Have high ranking offical strut around in military outfit on aircraft carrier and announce "mission accomplshied".

Kill Saddam's sons. Post pictures of bodies in the media.

Capture Saddam. Make sure trial doesn't get start for a year or more, and than drags on indefinately.

Announce a transfer of "sovereignty" to a group of people you have appointed to run the country.

Hail the victory of "free elections" and the remarkable turnout. People not knowing who they are voting for, and voting to get needed food rations is true democracy in practice.

Hail another victory in a proposed constitution.

Announce that the enemy is in it's last troughs.

When proposed constitution causes some of the most bloody incidents ever, observe that it is proof the enemy is beat because they are growing so desperate.

Come up with "New" plan and strategy that proclaims how wonderful things have gone so far.

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html)


Could someone post a link to the DNC strategy for Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

That report is not based in reality and it does not deal quanatative terms. It is strictly a glossy PR piece. It called Saddam a "destablizing force in the region." Um, that has turned out to be not true. He made Iraq stable, our military is the destablizing force.

Who is DNC? never heard of him.

A good start would have been to listen to the Generals on the ground and plan the war according to their thoughts and observations.

Bush relied on civilian politicians to plan the war based on false assumptions, like WMDs in Iraq and we'd be greeted as liberators etc. Having only 100,000 troops was a HUGE mistake that the generals pointed out before the war. That general was demoted.

[ QUOTE ]
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html)

Could someone post a link to the DNC strategy for Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]


Shameful, adios, simply shameful. Two comments:

1) The last time you trotted out this canard, I pointed you to a link with a very sensible democratic strategy. You never responded.

2) The document to which you linked boils down to the following:

Our new strategy is to declare that our old strategy is working.

Bravo, Bushies, bravo. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Shameful, adios, simply shameful. Two comments

[/ QUOTE ]

Shameful for posting a link from the White House? What's shameful about that?

[ QUOTE ]
1) The last time you trotted out this canard, I pointed you to a link with a very sensible democratic strategy. You never responded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please post the link again don't remember this post. Was this the DNC strategy or something?

[ QUOTE ]
2) The document to which you linked boils down to the following:

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this commentary as specific as the strategy that your link pointed to?

[canis582]

Theres nothing specific in the Bush 'strategy'

We have been paying Iraqi newspapers to print our propaganda. Way to foster democrazy!

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
... Post pictures of bodies in the media....

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you disagree with doing this?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html)


Could someone post a link to the DNC strategy for Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
That report is not based in reality and it does not deal quanatative terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

What quantitative terms would you link to see elaborated on?

[ QUOTE ]
It is strictly a glossy PR piece.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your opinion but fine.

[ QUOTE ]
It called Saddam a "destablizing force in the region." Um, that has turned out to be not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

How stable was the Soviet Union? Of course oppressive dicatators promote domestic stability. Look at North Korea and "Krazy Kim," would you call him a stablizing force in the region?

[ QUOTE ]
He made Iraq stable, our military is the destablizing force.

[/ QUOTE ]

The military made the insurgent terrorists target civillians, I see. No accountably required for the insurgents that target civillians.

[ QUOTE ]
Who is DNC? never heard of him.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know that party that Kerry represented in 2004.

[ QUOTE ]
A good start would have been to listen to the Generals on the ground and plan the war according to their thoughts and observations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elaborate please.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush relied on civilian politicians to plan the war based on false assumptions, like WMDs in Iraq and we'd be greeted as liberators etc. Having only 100,000 troops was a HUGE mistake that the generals pointed out before the war. That general was demoted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I refer you to the joint resolution passed in Congress where the majority of Democrates voted for this resolution.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]

Theres nothing specific in the Bush 'strategy'

[/ QUOTE ]

What about all the specific goals, the specific factual indications of how those strategies are working, and the specific acknowledgement of current and future challenges?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]

Our new strategy is to declare that our old strategy is working.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I missing something, or is this not supposed to be a "new strategy" but rather a vindication of the strategy that's currently being employed, and has been for some time?

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html)


Could someone post a link to the DNC strategy for Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
That report is not based in reality and it does not deal quanatative terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

What quantitative terms would you link to see elaborated on?
<font color="red"> How many Iraqis will be trained and when. What this means for our troops, who I support. What are the contractors doing with our tax dollars besides squandering them? </font>


[ QUOTE ]
It is strictly a glossy PR piece.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your opinion but fine.

[ QUOTE ]
It called Saddam a "destablizing force in the region." Um, that has turned out to be not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

How stable was the Soviet Union? Of course oppressive dicatators promote domestic stability. Look at North Korea and "Krazy Kim," would you call him a stablizing force in the region?

<font color="red"> Bringing up the USSR is a red herring that has nothing to do with this. In fact, we seek to install an oppressive dictator in Iraq who is more friendly to our interests. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
He made Iraq stable, our military is the destablizing force.

[/ QUOTE ]

The military made the insurgent terrorists target civillians, I see. No accountably required for the insurgents that target civillians.

<font color="red"> What does this mean? </font>

[ QUOTE ]
Who is DNC? never heard of him.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know that party that Kerry represented in 2004.

[ QUOTE ]
A good start would have been to listen to the Generals on the ground and plan the war according to their thoughts and observations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elaborate please.

<font color="red"> Read Sy Hersh's latest piece </font>

[ QUOTE ]
Bush relied on civilian politicians to plan the war based on false assumptions, like WMDs in Iraq and we'd be greeted as liberators etc. Having only 100,000 troops was a HUGE mistake that the generals pointed out before the war. That general was demoted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I refer you to the joint resolution passed in Congress where the majority of Democrates voted for this resolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"> what does this mean? </font>

[adios]

DNC 2004 Presidential Election Platform (http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf)

Winning the peace in Iraq. More than a year ago, President Bush stood on an aircraft carrier under a banner that proclaimed "mission accomplished." But today we know that the mission is not finished, hostilities have not ended, and our men and women in uniform fight almost alone with the target squarely on their backs.

People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq, but this much is clear: this Administration badly exaggerated its case, particularly with respect to weapons of mass destruction and the connection between Saddam's government and al Qaeda. This Administration did not build a true international coalition. This Administration disdained the United Nations weapons inspection process and rushed to war without exhausting diplomatic alternatives. Ignoring the advice of
military leaders, this Administration did not send sufficient forces into Iraq to accomplish the mission.

And this Administration went into Iraq without a plan to win the peace. Now this Administration has been forced to change course in order to correct this fundamental mistake. They are now taking up the suggestions that many Democrats have been making for over a year. And they must – because having gone to war, we cannot afford to fail at peace. We cannot allow a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. And we must secure more help from an international community that shares a huge stake in helping Iraq become a responsible member of that community, not a breeding ground for terror and intolerance.

As a first step, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. To do this right, we must truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence. Other nations have a vital interest in the outcome, and we must bring them in to commit troops and resources.

The Bush Administration has missed three great opportunities to do that. First, the President broke his
promise to build a legitimate coalition in Iraq by exhausting diplomacy before resorting to the use of
military force. Second, when the statue fell in Baghdad, Kofi Annan invited the United States to come to the table to discuss international support – but we rejected his offer.

Third, when the President addressed the United Nations last fall, he once again refused to acknowledge the difficulties we faced in Iraq and failed to elicit support from other nations.
The President has not given our troops the clarity of mission, the equipment or the international support they need and deserve. We have a different approach based on a simple commitment: Troops come first. Our helicopter pilots have flown battlefield missions without the best anti-missile systems. In a Democratic Administration, that will change. Too many of our nation's finest troops have died in
attacks, because tens of thousands were deployed to Iraq without the best bulletproof vests, and there is a shortage of armored vehicles on the ground. In a Democratic Administration, that will change.

Thousands of National Guardsmen and reservists have been forced to leave their families and jobs for more than a year – with no end in sight – because this Administration ignored the pressing need for a true coalition. In a Democratic Administration, that will change. To succeed, America must do the hard work of engaging the world's major political powers in this mission. We must build a coalition of countries, including the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, to share the political, economic, and military responsibilities of Iraq with the United States.

To win over allies, we must share responsibility with those nations that answer our call, and treat them with respect. We must lead, but we must listen. The rewards of respect are enormous. We must convince NATO to take on a more significant role and contribute additional military forces. As other countries, including Muslim majority countries, contribute troops, the United States will be able to
reduce its military presence in Iraq, and we intend to do this when appropriate so that the military support needed by a sovereign Iraqi government will no longer be seen as the direct continuation of an American military presence.
Second, we need to create an international High commissioner to serve as the senior international
representative working with the Iraqi government. This Commissioner should be backed by a newly broadened security coalition and charged with overseeing elections, assisting with drafting a constitution, and coordinating reconstruction. The Commissioner should be highly regarded by the international community, have the credibility to talk to all the Iraqi people, and work directly with Iraq's
interim government, the new U.S. Ambassador, and the international community.

At the same time, U.S. and international policies must take into consideration the best interests of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people desperately need financial and technical assistance that is not swallowed up by bureaucracy and no-bid contracts, but instead goes directly into grassroots organizations. They need to see the tangible benefits of reconstruction: jobs, infrastructure, and services. They should also receive the full benefits of their own oil production as quickly as possible, so as to rebuild their country and help themselves as individuals, while also reducing the costs of security and reconstruction on the
American taxpayer and the cost of gasoline to American consumers. And they need to be able to communicate their concerns to international authorities without feeling they are being disrespected in their own country.

America also needs a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people. It must be done in the field and on the job as well as in the classroom. Units cannot be put on the street without backup from international security forces. This is a task we must do in partnership with other nations, not just on our own. And this is a task in which we must succeed. If we fail to create viable Iraqi security forces – military and police – there is no successful exit
for us and other nations.

The challenges in Iraq are great, but the opportunity is also significant. Under John Kerry and John Edwards, we will meet those challenges, win the peace in Iraq, and help to create new hope and opportunity for the entire Middle East.

Slick PR piece or comprehensive plan, full of quantitative information?

Basically other nations have not wanted to get involved in Iraq including the Western European nations besides Great Britain. Efforts to get NATO involved have failed. Would this be different if a Democrat was the Prez?

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Bush relied on civilian politicians to plan the war based on false assumptions, like WMDs in Iraq and we'd be greeted as liberators etc. Having only 100,000 troops was a HUGE mistake that the generals pointed out before the war. That general was demoted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I refer you to the joint resolution passed in Congress where the majority of Democrates voted for this resolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't seem to notice anything in that resolution for how a war was to be executed. Am I somehow missing the part where the Democrats voted for 100,000 soldiers on the ground?

[Stu Pidasso]

If we wish to succeed in Iraq we need to do the following with each Iraqi army battalion.

1. Tell every member of each Iraqi Army batallion that they may either leave the army right now or take an oath of loyalty to the new Iraqi government.
2. Let every member of that Iraqi batallion know that once they take that oath the punishment for desertion or cowardice in battle is death by firing squad. Let them know that in addition to death their home will also be razed.
3. Enforcment of the above is done exclusively by Iraqis.

Many will leave the Iraqi army but those that remain will be committed. New recruits will also be committed.

Stu

I fully expect to be flamed by all the pansie-ass lefties.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Bush relied on civilian politicians to plan the war based on false assumptions, like WMDs in Iraq and we'd be greeted as liberators etc. Having only 100,000 troops was a HUGE mistake that the generals pointed out before the war. That general was demoted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I refer you to the joint resolution passed in Congress where the majority of Democrates voted for this resolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't seem to notice anything in that resolution for how a war was to be executed. Am I somehow missing the part where the Democrats voted for 100,000 soldiers on the ground?

[/ QUOTE ]

Joint Resolution (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html)

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Bush relied on civilian politicians to plan the war based on false assumptions, like WMDs in Iraq and we'd be greeted as liberators etc. Having only 100,000 troops was a HUGE mistake that the generals pointed out before the war. That general was demoted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I refer you to the joint resolution passed in Congress where the majority of Democrates voted for this resolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't seem to notice anything in that resolution for how a war was to be executed. Am I somehow missing the part where the Democrats voted for 100,000 soldiers on the ground?

[/ QUOTE ]

Joint Resolution (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html)

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I'll cut the sarcastic remarks. How does this implicate the Democrats as responsible for the parts of the war that were poorly executed?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I'll cut the sarcastic remarks. How does this implicate the Democrats as responsible for the parts of the war that were poorly executed?


[/ QUOTE ]

They are not responsible. The blame falls squarely on the Commander and Chief. That being said, everything thing I have seen from the democrats appears to be dumber than what numbnuts is doing/proposing.

Stu

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Bush relied on civilian politicians to plan the war based on false assumptions, like WMDs in Iraq and we'd be greeted as liberators etc. Having only 100,000 troops was a HUGE mistake that the generals pointed out before the war. That general was demoted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I refer you to the joint resolution passed in Congress where the majority of Democrates voted for this resolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't seem to notice anything in that resolution for how a war was to be executed. Am I somehow missing the part where the Democrats voted for 100,000 soldiers on the ground?

[/ QUOTE ]

Joint Resolution (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html)

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I'll cut the sarcastic remarks. How does this implicate the Democrats as responsible for the parts of the war that were poorly executed?

[/ QUOTE ]


The Democrats that voted to pass this resolution have no accountability when the resolution states:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate

?????????????????

Furthermore from the resolution:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

How many Democrats disagreed with this but voted for the resolution anyway?

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Evil guy Saddam is what the Dems who voted for this are stating.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Yep in a preceding paragraph stating that Saddam was pursuing the development of WMDs it would seem quite logical to try and prevent someone from doing this.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Did the Dems not agree with this?

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Did the Dems who voted for this not think these statements were true?

[Analyst]

OK, we're just talking in two different directions. The "original" poster commented negatively about the Bush administration's skill in executing the war (a sentiment with which I strongly agree). You seem to feel that the fact the Dems voted to give Bush authority to go to war (and I never disagreed with that) makes them equally culpable for the mistakes made in prosecuting the war, or at least it certainly seems that way from the fact that all you do is talk about the resolution and not the war itself. Kind of like the administration, no? Any time they get questions, the answer always seems to be "9/11" no matter what was actually asked.

Linky (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=politics&amp;Number=3941922&amp;S earchpage=3&amp;Main=3941922&amp;Words=adios&amp;topic=&amp;Search =true#Post3941922)

Oh, and btw, the "shameful" part is not posting a link from the White House. The shameful part is you posting "Democrats don't have a plan" two weeks after you posted the same thing and THEN failed to acknowledge that I did, in fact, show you a democratic plan.

I'll mark my calendar; it appears that you'll be making another "democrats have no plan" post around December 15.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
2) The document to which you linked boils down to the following:

Our new strategy is to declare that our old strategy is working.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it was either that or blame Bill Clinton. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


q/q

[Cyrus]

It's not about "victory", either.

[ QUOTE ]
Could someone post a link to the DNC strategy for Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ] You GOPsters keep treating this like a partisan issue, while it is a national issue. (See comments on post title.) Who said the DNC has a better "strategy"? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. The question is whether or not the United States leadership has a good plan, there.

The proposals put forth by those who do not agree with the leadership's current "strategy" have been numerous, detailed and justified, and I have already provided web links to a number of 'em. (There are some documents that are not circulated on the web.) Case in point was Edward Luttwak's article in FA about disengaging now without losing sight of the objective. Et cetera.

For the record, I have found most of those proposals to be lucid and logical. On the other hand, every time I see Rumsfeld or Rice opening their mouths about Iraq, I cringe.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Who said the DNC has a better "strategy"? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Case in point was Edward Luttwak's article in FA about disengaging now without losing sight of the objective. Et cetera.
For the record, I have found most of those proposals to be lucid and logical. On the other hand, every time I see Rumsfeld or Rice opening their mouths about Iraq, I cringe.

[/ QUOTE ]

See that would be fine if the dumocrats actually adopted some of those alternatives as their plan. But they don't. They just want to keep saying NOT to the administration while never putting out such an alternative plan, even if it wouldn't work. That is why even if a sizeable portion of americans don't like certain administration policies, that they also don't place much faith in the dems who contantly criticize without offering an actual alternative.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
See that would be fine if the dumocrats actually adopted some of those alternatives as their plan. But they don't.

[/ QUOTE ] That's because the Democrats have been brilliantly cornered by the Republican strategy of painting as un-patriotic anyone who seriously disputes the war effort! (And because they are cowards.)

The Democrats have been placed in a lose/lose situation. Every move they make, usually makes their position worse. In marketing , that's called "the opponent's brilliant positioning". (Remember the #2 rental company's slogan that actually boasted of being #2? "We are Number Two. WE TRY HARDER!" The #1 company had no response to that and everything it did re-enforced the other guys' position!)

In chess, it's zugzwang.

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats are whiners, not doers and fixers [like the Republicans].

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, I like your idea of Republicans as ..plumbers.

Wait! That was always a Republican specialty! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif