Dems Plan On Iraq

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,828
1,790
They haven't one, that's the problem. So this is what you get:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008535
Trying to Get Even
Democrats keep betting on failure in Iraq.

Monday, June 19, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

During last week's congressional debate over the war in Iraq, critics of the Bush administration's policy made three arguments: that President Bush more or less lied when claiming Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S., there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that no progress is being made in the war there.

All three assumptions rest on shaky ground, so it is remarkable how much critics have seized on them with such fervor and certainty--the very vices of which they accuse the war's supporters. Indeed, one wonders how Democrats would react if real evidence of weapons of mass destruction, say the discovery of chemical weapon shells, surfaced. Would they step back and re-evaluate their assumptions, or would they accuse the Bush administration of planting the evidence as part of a Karl Rove-inspired pre-election dirty trick? Far from politics ending at the water's edge, today's partisan battles seem to take on added ferocity when they concern foreign policy.

Let's examine the three assumptions critics of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy make:

Bush lied about Saddam being a threat. Both the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and the independent Silberman-Robb Commission found not one case in which Bush officials, quoting the Senate committee, "attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities." Recall that both the French and German intelligence agencies also believed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Just two months before the war, the Los Angeles Times reported that chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix "disclosed troubling new details about Iraq's weapons programs and expressed frustration with what he described as Baghdad's refusal to resolve long-standing questions about efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, as well as long-range missiles." Mr. Blix later told reporters that in his gut he felt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. "These guys had played cat-and-mouse during the whole of the '90s, so I was suspicious of that," he told NBC's Tim Russert earlier this month. He later changed his mind when his officials uncovered no evidence of a weapons program. But the question remains: If President Bush lied about Saddam having WMD why did so many others also say the same thing at the time?

Some Democrats still believe Saddam was a threat, WMD or not. Former Nebraska senator and presidential candidate Bob Kerrey, now president of New York's New School, noted earlier this year that newly declassified documents from Saddam Hussein's office concerning a meeting between an Iraq official and Osama bin Laden show that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." One document is a handwritten account of a Feb. 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and bin Laden, where bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document reports that after Saddam was informed of the meeting he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by bin Laden. Several months later al Qaeda terrorits attacked the headquarters of the Saudi National Guard. The document specifically said the question of future cooperation "between the two parties [is] to be left according to what's open" in the future.

"I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the Sept. 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm," Mr. Kerrey told the New York Sun. "This presents facts that should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on Sept. 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."

There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada rose during last week's debate to declare, "There are two things that don't exist in Iraq: cutting and running, and weapons of mass destruction." Not everyone shares his certitude.

The Iraq Survey Group, an investigative commission set up by President Bush to look at the WMD issue, released its last public report in October 2004. While it found no evidence of WMD inside Iraq, it reported that Saddam was preparing to reconstitute his WMD program "as resources became available and the constraints of sanctions decayed." According to the report, Saddam had the capability to start anthrax production within one week of making the decision to do so, and thereafter to produce more than 10 tons of weaponized anthrax a year. The congressional Office of Technology Assessment estimates that if even 200 pounds, or 1% of that amount, were released into the air over Washington, up to three million people would die.

The Iraq Survey Group report also found that the CIA had "received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved." These reports "were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation"--especially "given the insular and compartmented nature of the [Saddam] regime." The CIA was unable to complete its probe due to instability in Iraq, but it held out the possibility that an "unofficial" transfer of WMD might have been secretly conducted, with WMD material either shipped out of Iraq into Syria or destroyed by another country after being flown there.

Since then, the Iraq Survey Group has been inactive even though a continuing stream of credible sources have come forward with clues of where evidence of WMD material might be. Some administration officials now appear to be reluctant to investigate further, in part out of fear that any fresh discovery might lay the White House open to charges that lax U.S. security could have allowed the insurgents to get their hands on highly dangerous material. Some Pentagon officials have actively discouraged further investigations. But even with no official approval, some U.S. servicemen continue to explore promising leads about possible WMD sites or out-of-country transfers on their own. Many believe such tips will eventually bear fruit.

Then there is a vast trove of untranslated documents, recordings, videotapes and photographs captured in Iraq that have not been examined--partly because of the sheer volume (36,000 boxes) and partly because of foot dragging by career bureaucrats. The few documents that have been examined have yielded some clues. ABC News has reported that 12 hours of captured recorded talks between Saddam and his cabinet officials include Saddam saying, "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before [the 1991 Gulf War] and told the British as well . . . that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction." The Iraqi dictator then added that while he would not authorize such an attack, he speculated that someone else could launch a chemical, nuclear, or biological attack from a booby-trapped car.

Other sources tell me that recently translated captured documents include target lists of U.S. facilities and frequent references to WMDs in Saddam's possession. "He was either being lied to by his own officials, lying to them or he had something," one intelligence analyst told me.

No progress is being made in Iraq. Rep. Jack Murtha, the leading Democratic advocate of immediate withdrawal, is convinced that "we can't win this militarily." He told CNN last week that "we've been there three years longer than World War I, we've been longer than the Korean War and almost as long as the war in Europe." He expressed frustration that "we can't get [the president] to change direction. . . . In Beirut, President Reagan changed direction. In Somalia, President Clinton changed direction."

Most terrorism experts are agreed that the precipitous withdrawal from both places emboldened our enemies by convincing them the U.S. could always be made to back down in any conflict. Not repeating those mistakes may be reason enough to stay the course in Iraq. But Mr. Bush has other reasons.

Documents found on the computer owned by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi show he was increasingly concerned about the "bleak situation" the insurgency he led faced. "Time is beginning to be of service to the U.S. forces by allowing them to form and bolster the [Iraqi] National Guard, undertake big arrest operations, carry out a media campaign weakening the resistance's influence and presenting it as harmful to the people, [and] creat[ing] division among its ranks." He concluded by saying that the best way "to get out of this crisis is to entangle the American forces into another war. . . . We have noticed that the best of these wars is the one between the Americans and Iran."

The Zaraqwi document sure sounds like progress, an impression buttressed by the admission of an al Qaeda leader last week that his death was a grave blow to the insurgency.

Not every Democrat believes there's no progress in Iraq. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel, who managed Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign, had the honesty to tell Fox News Channel last Friday: "Yes, we're winning, but we're not winning fast enough." Imagine what would have happened if in the middle of the fight against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Franklin Roosevelt had been accused of not rolling back the Axis fast enough. Mr. Beckel went on to conclude "This war is just--it's stupid politics."

Last week's less-than-edifying congressional debate on Iraq contained a lot of that. Democrats were incoherent in their opposition to a nonbinding "stay the course" resolution on Iraq. At one point, Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat, stood up and declared, "This side is not trying to go wobbly. We're trying to articulate what we think would be a better strategy for success in Iraq." After the debate no one I talked with thought the Democrats could claim "mission accomplished" on that front. A total of 42 House Democrats voted for the Iraq resolution. Only three Republicans voted against it.

That's not to say that among Republicans there wasn't political posturing along with a desire to embarrass the Democrats with the debate. The GOP-sponsored resolution itself was a disappointment. Michigan Republican Thad McCotter (who voted "present") rose "to express my profound disappointment with this resolution before us, because it is strategically nebulous, morally obtuse and woefully inadequate." He noted that the resolution merely declared that the U.S. would prevail in "the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary." Mr. McCotter expressed dismay that the resolution "lacks the moral clarity to call the terrorists our enemy."

Given the bland and limited language of the resolution, it is astonishing that 80% of House Democrats felt compelled to vote against it. If President Bush has staked the future of his administration on the outcome in Iraq, Democrats appear to have placed their political bets on the war continuing to go badly. Given the death of Zarqawi, the formation of a unity government in Baghdad, and possible developments in the search for WMD material, that is starting to look like a risky wager.

Democrats might recall they made similar bets that they could win the political debate over Iraq in both 2002 and 2004. They lost both times, and last week's Iraq debate in Congress shouldn't give them confidence that they have any better approach in this election year
.
 
The Dems have one plan and one plan only...oust the Republicans. Of course, they have no steenkin idea of how to do that either. I have yet to see a comprehensive plan on how they are going to handle ANY of the issues facing this country....all I see from the Dems is a lot of buzz words with no substance behind them.
 
CSM said:
The Dems have one plan and one plan only...oust the Republicans. Of course, they have no steenkin idea of how to do that either. I have yet to see a comprehensive plan on how they are going to handle ANY of the issues facing this country....all I see from the Dems is a lot of buzz words with no substance behind them.
Lots of less than buzz words. One only had to see Murtha on Sunday programs to know that. I'm trying to get a video clip which is so sad, it'd be funny if the risks weren't so damn high.
 
Kathianne said:
Lots of less than buzz words. One only had to see Murtha on Sunday programs to know that. I'm trying to get a video clip which is so sad, it'd be funny if the risks weren't so damn high.


Here's some commentary, :laugh: with links, including video:

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/20553/#comments

Sunday, June 18, 2006
Help Wanted (UPDATED with video)

What follows is an excerpt from a June 18 transcript of “Meet the Press,” featuring a Tim Russert interview with Rep John Murtha (D-PA) that I’m hoping somebody will please translate for me. Because I’m afraid I don’t speak Murtha—which I’d previously assumed was a variant of English, but after reading the transcript, I’m no longer sure about even that much:

MR. RUSSERT: You say redeploy. Again, Mr. Rove challenges that comment.

Let’s listen and give you again a chance to respond to the White House.

(Videotape, Monday):

MR. ROVE: Congressman Murtha said, “Let’s redeploy them immediately to another country in the Middle East. Let’s get out of Iraq and go to another country.” My question is, what country would take us? What country would say after the United States cut and run from Iraq, what country in the Middle East would say, “Yeah. Paint a big target on our back and then you’ll cut and run on us.” What country would say that? What country would accept our troops?

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: What’s your response?

REP. MURTHA: There’s many countries understand the importance of stability in the Middle East. This is an international problem. We, we use 20 million barrels of oil a day. China’s the second largest user. All these countries understand you need stability for the energy supply that’s available in the Middle East. So there’s many, many countries.

MR. RUSSERT: Who?

REP. MURTHA: Kuwait’s one that will take us. Qatar, we already have bases in Qatar. So Bahrain. All those countries are willing to take the United States. Now, Saudi Arabia won’t because they wanted us out of there in the first place. So—and we don’t have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa. We, we don’t have—we can redeploy there almost instantly. So that’s not—that’s, that’s a fallacy. That, that’s just a statement to rial up people to support a failed policy wrapped in illusion.

MR. RUSSERT: But it’d be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa.

REP. MURTHA: Well, it—you know, they—when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And—and—when they don’t know we’re coming. There’s no question about it. And, and where those airplanes won’t—came from I can’t tell you, but, but I’ll tell you one thing, it doesn’t take very long for them to get in with cruise missiles or with, with fighter aircraft or, or attack aircraft, it doesn’t take any time at all. So we, we have done—this one particular operation, to say that that couldn’t have done, done—it was done from the outside, for heaven’s sakes.

Okinawa? Okinawa?

That’s, like, in Japan, isn’t it?

Which makes me wonder if, in speaking of quick strike troops redeployed outside of Iraq, Murtha isn’t overhyping to ability of the military just a bit. Or perhaps it’s just the laws of physics he’s overhyping. And he’s doing so, ironically, because the military is in his estimation unable to fight well enough when they are able to confront the enemy directly.

All of which seems rather bizarre to me.

Likewise, Murtha spends a lot of time noting that operations against Zarqawi (who, incidentally, he claims we “built up”—though Nick Berg’s head might tell a different tale) and other successful operations were performed “from the outside”—proof that we can pull troops from inside Iraq and still help the Iraqis control the country.

Of course, by “outside,” Murtha seems to mean something like, “from the air”—his argument being that because we bombed Zarqawi’s safe house from the sky rather than bumrushing it with ground troops, we can effectively fight the insurgency from bases outside the country without fear of the insurgents taking any strongholds.

Except for the strongholds that already have.

So the question becomes one of military judgment. And I’m still not clear what it is that makes Murtha’s military strategy (which is based around the idea that Iraq is embroiled in a civil war) more sound than that of the Generals and the DoD, who one suspects (indeed, who one hopes) are much better informed and more intricately involved with the operations than is Murtha himself—who, let’s remember, seems to find a quick strike force from Japan a viable alternative to working closely inside Iraq with Iraqi forces whom we are training even as we fight alongside them, and who are providing us with more and more intelligence, leading to somewhere in the neighborhood of 450-460 raids since Zarqawi’s death.

But as I say, I don’t seem able to speak “Murtha.” So if someone would please explain his thinking to me, I’d be much obliged. Because frankly? I hate being out of the loop.

(h/t Tom, via email)

****
update: More from Froggy, writing at Blackfive.

****
update 2: Video available at Expose The Left

****
update 3: Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds both have excellent roundups.
 
Now that is just too funny to be true! Okinawa???? I am convinced more each day that Murtha has lost his marbles.
 
CSM said:
Now that is just too funny to be true! Okinawa???? I am convinced more each day that Murtha has lost his marbles.
Agreed. Funniest thing I found on that last night were these:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/06/the_zarqawi_ope.html

and this:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/06/oooooooookinawa.html
OooooooooKinawa!

Hold on - I feel a song coming on! Let's set Rep. Murtha's new redeployment strategy for Iraq to music. And since John Kerry's amendment urging a bailout by Christmas got a whole six votes, let's keep him in the mix too:

Ooookinawa!
Where the planes come whistling from the sky
With our redeployed men we can leave right then
And it's just six thousand miles to fly!

Ooookinawa!
Ev'ry night my intel chief and I
Sit alone and talk and watch an AWAC
Makin' lazy circles in the sky.

We know we are here for John Kerry
And to the Iraqis we aren't very scary
And when we say
Yeeow! WTF is it now?
We're only sayin'
Why are we based in Okinawa?
Okinawa, no way.

They say there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway. However, I kinda suspect my new musical won't be opening there, so I may never know.
 
I am beginning to suspect that Murtha has abandoned his Marine background and gone completely over to the lure of politics. It has been many decades since he has been on the ground and in the foxhole....that coupled with his overexposure to the political scene has really really put him out of touch. Just my opinion of course.
 
I can't help myself:

demcr5ts.jpg
 
"Cut and Run" is the Bush Administration's strategy for Iraq. As shrapnel from IED's cuts the flesh of our troops to the bone, their blood runs freely, saturating Iraqs soil.
 
Bully pulpit said:
"Cut and Run" is the Bush Administration's strategy for Iraq. As shrapnel from IED's cuts the flesh of our troops to the bone, their blood runs freely, saturating Iraq's soil.

You are one sick little man..... Say the shit you just spoke above to the military of years gone by.......

I'd like for you to say that stupid shit...... To a lot great great grandfathers(well we know you cant with these brave souls, because they died for your freedom). I'd like to see you say that to the grandfathers of today(well you better hurry, cause if they didn't already die for your freedom, unfortunately their in the ages that they are today, they still carry the memories of the fight of their lives, for your freedom(and they would and should be ashamed of you........
I'd like for you to say that to your fathers generation of military, who fought for your freedom(but people like you don't care, you have the freedom to say all the stupid and ugly shit you please, thanks to them...
Now your brothers and sisters are over fighting for your freedoms, and you still sit here and shit on them, and the President, who is their commander in cheif, (who 70% of the military men and women voted for) and the country they love.....

Your sir are a real piece of shit........You want to talk about........Dismissed
 
CSM said:
Both you and Bully need to gat off the crack....really.

Nah the only outcomes are these:

1. Leave now.
2. Leave later.

There is no option that says, "after you win", that's because there will be no "win" and because "winning" was never a foreign policy objective for the US. You only thought it was.

Given all that I'd go for option 1.
 
Diuretic said:
Nah the only outcomes are these:

1. Leave now.
2. Leave later.

There is no option that says, "after you win", that's because there will be no "win" and because "winning" was never a foreign policy objective for the US. You only thought it was.

Given all that I'd go for option 1.

Too simplistic a philosophy ... I suppose the US could have said the same thing during WW II "...can't win so why bother". There were many times during that war that it looked that way too...Dunkirk comes to mind.

Given your European background I am not surppirsed you think that way though.
 
Diuretic said:
Nah the only outcomes are these:

1. Leave now.
2. Leave later.

There is no option that says, "after you win", that's because there will be no "win" and because "winning" was never a foreign policy objective for the US. You only thought it was.

Given all that I'd go for option 1.


Why don't you libs sit back and let the real men fight this war. You are not required to do anything. We have a 100% volunteer army, why are you libs so oppsed to them fighting for something they believe in? And don't give me that crap that you actual care about soldiers lives or Iraqis.
 
theHawk said:
Why don't you libs sit back and let the real men fight this war. You are not required to do anything. We have a 100% volunteer army, why are you libs so oppsed to them fighting for something they believe in? And don't give me that crap that you actual care about soldiers lives or Iraqis.

And you're a "real man"? I served my country honorably. I've had family on the ground in Iraq, and am about to have more family on the ground in Iraq. Do you have any skin in this game? Have you served your country?

Wait...don't answer, because I really don't care. I have, and my family has...for generations. So, bite me.
 
Bullypulpit said:
"Cut and Run" is the Bush Administration's strategy for Iraq. As shrapnel from IED's cuts the flesh of our troops to the bone, their blood runs freely, saturating Iraqs soil.

Hello Mr. Pulpit and I hope you are enjoying a lovely Sunday evening. :)

Seriously though, speaking of cutting and running, what's your thoughts on the administrations insistence on staying the course, and the dems who oppose them and want an immediate withdrawal?
 
jimnyc said:
Hello Mr. Pulpit and I hope you are enjoying a lovely Sunday evening. :)

Seriously though, speaking of cutting and running, what's your thoughts on the administrations insistence on staying the course, and the dems who oppose them and want an immediate withdrawal?

Jimmy! good to hear from ya!

The insistence of the Bush Administraion on "staying the course" really wouldn't be an issue if there were a clear course laid out. But given the missteps made by the Administration from the inception of this ill-concieved and poorly planned war of aggression, it is far too late to even begin to plot any course other than to remove our troops from the region. At this point, Chimpy McPresident's "stay the course" argument is little more than bull-headedness that has little to do with reality.

Our troops are a lightning rod for the insurgents, and with the death of Al Zarqawi, a door has been opened for the unification of the various insurgency factions which did not heretofore exist. This could lead to heightened violence against US troops.

We see a tripartite civil war in its infancy, as the police, dominated by Shi'ite militias carry out attacks against Sunni Muslims, while the Kurds stand aside and wait to pick up the pieces. But Kurdish control of anymore territory than what they currently have would be met by vigorous opposition from Turkey, and other nations in the region, already nervous about Kurdish autonomy in Iraq now.

As for the Democratic opposition to the Bush administration and calls for withdrawl, I think the Administration would do well to listen to those who have actually been to war, as none of them have done so. Bush will bring troops home when it is politically expedient to do so, regardless of what his commanders on the ground say.
 
Bullypulpit said:
Jimmy! good to hear from ya!

Thank you, sir, good to see you around too!

Actually, I do agree with some of what you said, politics aside. The situation in Iraq sucks and I don't see a clear way anytime soon either. But, unfortunately I think it would be even worse to leave as Iraq would likely fall fully apart. When an administration/country/person decides on a mission such as this, they had better have the cajones to stay steadfast and see it all the way through. Now, of course if hiccups occur they will need to change the course a bit as the war gets altered but I don't think leaving outweighs the good that can actually be done there if completed.

The dems that are very outspoken about this, have you heard of any viable plans from them? I'm just curious if anyone else thinks completely leaving ASAP is the way to go.

My outlook is this: We gave a word to our country and our military. Some of our sons and daughters died trying to make Iraq a better place. I think leaving would be so wrong on too many levels to list. We owe it to those who have made huge sacrifices and 'to me' that is enough reason to stay, but I also feel in the long run it will be better for Iraq AND the USA. I do feel that many dems and non-politicians are not seeing things clearly and have underestimated the strength and time needed to defeat such an enemy. I think we need to be there for a few years to come till regardless of who is in office.
 

Forum List

Back
Top