What is the Democratic Party Plan of Action in Iraq Anyway?

[adios]

Kerry and Biden to name a few Democrats were touting the U.N. and NATO more or less during the 2004 election campaign. I think it's fairly clear that the members of the security council want little to do with the situation in Iraq. That seemd clear during the election campaign and as I've stated before, Kerry's meely mouth, vague statements about Iraq IMO cost him the election more or less. Kerry had no credible policy regarding Iraq. The Democrats still don't have one. All they're doing no is playing politics (as are the Republicans). I think Rummy should be canned and I don't think he deserves Bush's loyalty but that has nothing to do with the Democratics proposed policy for conducting the Iraq war. They don't have a policy and therefore I think it's fair to say that what they really want is to embarass Bush as much as they can to gain politically. They don't have a plan and they don't have a vision and my conclusion is that establishing a "democratic" form of government in Iraq isn't very important to the Democrats. That's shameful IMO.

BTW -- Hope is not a plan.

Oh, and see the answer to your question here .

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry's meely mouth, vague statements about Iraq IMO cost him the election more or less.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the evidence supported this. Kerry did well with voters who identified Iraq as one of their most important issues. If Kerry took a hit on foreign policy, it was about more general issues concerning his ability to conduct the war on terror.

[ QUOTE ]
They don't have a policy

[/ QUOTE ]

I basically agree. Two things are important to consider, though. First, Bush has botched the situation so badly that there simply are no good policy options. Second, laying out a big alternative vision of foreign policy is not something people do in the year after an election year. Kerry didn't have an alternative solution last year really. But I don't think its surprising that the Dems right now are not going out on a limb to propose something radically different.

[ QUOTE ]

and therefore I think it's fair to say that what they really want is to embarass Bush as much as they can to gain politically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously. This is politics after all.

[ QUOTE ]
They don't have a plan and they don't have a vision

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and this is why they are still in trouble. Even when the other guy's plan and vision are demonstrably terrible, as is the case with Bush, it's hard to win without some proposal of your own.

[ QUOTE ]
my conclusion is that establishing a "democratic" form of government in Iraq isn't very important to the Democrats. That's shameful IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the Bush administration seems so likely to fail in this endeavor anyway, opposing the administration doesn't seem so shameful to me.

[SycoFrogg]

I wouldn't say Bush /botched/ the job in Iraq. First of all, no one in the mainstream media, or most Democrates have helped the situation in any way. If not making it worse. A perfect example is your Washington Post link.

We are at war. It's unpredictable, it's ugly, and time and time again through history, necessary. Now, I can agree the war is being fought poorly, as in saying not aggressive enough. Were playing politics with it, playing with lives. Pussy-footing around even.

Now. You ask me, all politicians are crooks. Democrate, Republican, doesn't matter. Their the same, in my opinion it doesn't matter who was in office, Saddam was going to be removed any ways. He was undercutting the world market in oil sales to Russia, China, France, and Germany. Well, the U.S, being buddy buddy with the Saudi's, yes Clinton was to, couldn't let this continue. It's the powers that be, people. The powers that be said, "it's time to get rid of this guy. Lets get the man in office to do it," so they did.

The 120 most richest families in the world don't get together once a year to play poker.

Great post.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't say Bush /botched/ the job in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

The major mistake was going to war. Of course when you make a poor decision to enter a pot (to which you know you will be pot committed to, at that) many missteps often follow.

He did make many mistakes in the execution of the post shock and awe stage -- mostly because he had no plan and ignored the experts (the state department) in favour of the neocon types.

All in all, a pretty poor job.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's fairly clear that the members of the security council want little to do with the situation in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I dont know their current sentiments, there have been at least a couple of chances for us to hand over the mess to the UN (we should have taken them). As long as we insist on control (do we have any in Iraq at the moment? Well perhaps some) the UN rightly rejects getting involved.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW -- Hope is not a plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is often the plan of the fish!

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
We are at war. It's unpredictable, it's ugly, and time and time again through history, necessary. Now, I can agree the war is being fought poorly, as in saying not aggressive enough. Were playing politics with it, playing with lives. Pussy-footing around even.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a great post. The real lesson of Vietnam was that you can't slowly escalate a conflict which allows the enemy to slowly gather strength. You have to pound them big from the start. And sure it would be nice if this was like Kuwait where we liberate a country where 100% of the citizens are glad to see us come. But it is clear that the Sunni insurgency is allied with Al-Queada who is our mortal enemy, and we cannot allow them to have a safe haven in Iraq after mostly destroying it in Afghanistan.

The democrat plan is nothing other than politicing the issue and not taking effective action if they were in charge. Same as the european leaders who appeased Hitler and allowed him to become an even more serious threat. Same as the euro leaders who fiddled for years while thousands of Bosnians were being killed and brutalized, being willing to take action only when news of the most heinous atrocities leaked out. It's always better to pay the price now than pay a greater one later.