Democrat Strategy for future

[Apeman81]

Fox News was running a piece concerning the democrats position on the War on Terror and percieved problems they are having with impressing the people that they can handle this situation.

The Democrat Strategist, Elaine (did not catch last name) stated that we will see an vast improvement soon, as the mid term election will provide the democrats with an opportunity to criticize Bush's "firm record" of actions over the past few years. This, she believes, is what the democrats need to turn the people around.

I want to ask the democrats, and those that favor democrats, if they feel this is a sound methodology of winning over the people. To me, saying that your way of handling the war on terror is to criticize the president will do nothing to help their case. If alll we hear is carping, what does that do to tell us what they will do to address the issue?

What are the democrat's plans for fighting terrorists?

[bishop]

the democrats' plan is to win back power - iraq is a ploy. but if i were to guess what their iraq plan would look like, it would probably be little different from bush's "plan".. that is, neither one of them really have a plan - it's completely incoherent and adhoc.

[brien]

Quote by: Apeman81 Fox News was running a piece concerning the democrats position on the War on Terror and percieved problems they are having with impressing the people that they can handle this situation. The Democrat Strategist, Elaine (did not catch last name) stated that we will see an vast improvement soon, as the mid term election will provide the democrats with an opportunity to criticize Bush's "firm record" of actions over the past few years. This, she believes, is what the democrats need to turn the people around. I want to ask the democrats, and those that favor democrats, if they feel this is a sound methodology of winning over the people. To me, saying that your way of handling the war on terror is to criticize the president will do nothing to help their case. If alll we hear is carping, what does that do to tell us what they will do to address the issue? What are the democrat's plans for fighting terrorists?

Far be it from me to speak for the Dems but I will offer some observations.

The Dems seem to be in disarray and confusion on the national scene. Howard Dean is an embarrassment to main streamers. He does more to alienate people from the Party than any other single issue on the table. Hillary is a chamelon who "blows" with the wind. Drunken Ted and his sidekick Chris Dodd, can't wait for happy hour as their clocks all have the number 4 on them. Nancy Pelosi talks in circles. And the recently elected Berek Obama doesn't seem to know where to turn for guidance. They are all fighting in the Captain's tower on the Titanic.

I don't see any difference in either Party's approach to fighting terrorists. I can't find one clear cut approach to doing anything but escalating this war.

[bishop]

really, the dems are just as clueless on iraq as the republicans and bush are.. sad thing is that none of them (save the few with some balls) have the courage to admit that they have no plan and that the best course of action is to withdraw.. but, as pointless as this is to say, i doubt we would be where we are today had gore won the election..

[Apeman81]

Personally, the term "clear cut plan for war" is an oxymoron. The only thing that such a plan does is exemplify the adage " The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft a-gley.”

However, political campaigns are far easier to affectively plan. I agree that the current leadership in the party are heading in the wrong direction. What to do about is the question. What can be done?

As a republican, a strong, unified, principled opposing view is required to keep one's own mission clear. Both parties have strayed, and will continue to do so if the opposition's only game is to complain and point fingers without counter proposal.

[RickSp]

The only things that the Democrats lack are brains, a spine and an ounce of integrity. The Republicans are merely liars and scoundrels.

[bishop]

the problem is that there has been no plan since bush hatched the idea of invading iraq.. (unless you think wolfowitz's and cheney's promises of reconstruction funds coming from oil, and happy iraqis with flowers and candies as being a real plan.) we've screwed up virtually every step of the way. the ONLY real success that i can see have been the elections - too bad they haven't resulted in any semblance of stability or national unity in iraq.

the kurds, sunnis and shiites still all have their own, seperate agendas. the insurgency has not weakened. public services like water and electricity still aren't anywhere near where they should be (i think they're still worse than pre-war conditions in several parts of iraq). we have iranian meddling with the shiite majority, al qaeda meddling with the sunnis, and the kurds look more and more like they're running their own seperate country. shiites and sunnis are attacking each other every single day and is proof that there is a budding civil war in the country. our guys patrol the roads every day to clear up ied's - which are simply replaced the very next day. iraq has lots of separate militias, beholden to warlords like al-sadr... the iraqi economy is doing horribly with ridiculously high levels of unemployment and a currency that's just waiting to crumble. our heavy handed tactics like the destruction of fallujah, along with torturing iraqis at abu ghraib have helped turn at least 50% of the iraqis against us.

how do we make that situation better? beats the hell out of me. one thing i do know is that talking about withdrawing should be allowed to be a viable option in the debate. the alternative is to continue flying by the seat of our pants, going wherever the wind may take us.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop how do we make that situation better? beats the hell out of me. one thing i do know is that talking about withdrawing should be allowed to be a viable option in the debate. the alternative is to continue flying by the seat of our pants, going wherever the wind may take us.

I find it interestin gthat when John Murtha proposed a phased pull-out, the conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review attacked him. They have changed their tune:

The war in Iraq: Time to move on

We didn't agree with Jack Murtha in November when he called for an immediate withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq. The timing was not right. But the times have changed. This is not retreat. This is not cut-and-run. This is a recognition of the reality in Iraq -- one that has evolved into an Iraqi problem that only the Iraqis now can solve -- and that the paramount world security threat now is Iran. On CBS's "60 Minutes" Sunday night, Jack Murtha predicted the "vast majority" of U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by year's end if not sooner. We hope

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp I find it interestin gthat when John Murtha proposed a phased pull-out, the conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review attacked him. They have changed their tune: The war in Iraq: Time to move on

Easy for Murtha to predict, as it has been part of the plan of attack and reconstruction all along.

You know, it's fine to stammer and yammer the parroting of "no plan. no plan". That just makes one appear ignorant. But to hold another up as the originator of the plan you are refusing to recognize is just silly.

[RickSp]

Bush and his minions had a plan and it fell apart about day 5. Since then they have been bumbling along getting Americans and Iraqis killed needlessly. They let looters raid Saddams weapons stockpiles for months. That was really smart. Then took 18 months to finally start rebuilding the Iraqi army and police force. The reconstruction has been one big con game and there has been no exit strategy. It has been the cluless leading the blind.

You claim this was all part of the plan all along. Yah right. I've got a bridge over the Euphratyes to sell you.

[bishop]

politically, they're all damned if they do, damned if they don't.. if they withdraw and the inevitable happens (iraq falls apart at the seams) the other side will point fingers and blame. if they stay and we keep bumbling around like we have been, the other side will point fingers and blame. these two twats for parties don't really seem to care about the fate of our soldiers, or our country imo.. they just care about themselves and are comforted that there are enough lemmings to suckle on their teats.

i wasn't alive during vietnam - i wonder if the scenario was more or less the same as it is now.

[underbear1]

The simple answer for Democrats in 2008, is Iraq War is a disgrace, and we are not able to just withdraw the troops immediately, much as we'd like to. The previous administration (Bush) left us NO GOOD OPTIONS, but we will stabalize Iraq's new democracy before withdrawl.

You can't make a comparrison to Viet Nam, which really wasn't a strategicly important area, nor did it posess exports our country needed to survive. Iraq is in a VERY strategic region, and we do depend on their oil.We CAN'T FAIL IN IRAQ!

[bishop]

and then the inevitable question - HOW?

[underbear1]

Probably the best way to handle Iraq is to do whatever is necessary to get REAL ALLIES involved as peace keepers, so the stability of Iraq isn't totally dependent on American troops and the Iraq trained forces. They better get the infastructure and economy of Iraq up to par, if they hope to leave a burgeoning Democracy next to Iran, and have any chance of it surviving.

[bishop]

kerry's camp made that a big promise during his campaign for prez.. while it sounds nice, it's a pipe dream imo.

the allies that went there with us have either withdrawn, have lowered their troop levels or have plans to withdraw/lower troop levels.. and it's not politically popular to send your troops into a war that's our modern-day vietnam. one where you have these psychopaths running around blowing themselves up and beheading civilians in the name of their god.

perhaps things can change for the better when bush finally leaves office. maybe public opinion is turning a little sour against islamists and they'd be willing to help. maybe germany may be willing ot help out. that could encourage other powers to help. to me, though, that sounds a lot like wishful thinking.

things over there are going to get worse before they're finally better. can't be certain, but with bush in charge, that seems like a real likely possibility.

[Clarence]

promise to get their infrastucture up. Start from scratch. Get them water electricity sewer. Help them improve thier hospitals. Use our military force only to protect those rebuilding the country. Let them make more of their own choices. Quit medalling in thier politics. Quit swatting at flies and get to work. We need to appeal to other countries for honest help. Not more boots on the ground, but more hands on shovels and hammers. Forget the oil. Go at it with an honest desparate attempt to fix the levy of pain and suffering. Iraqis and middle easterners need to be exposed to the america that helps an old lady across the road without lifting her wallet. There is compassion in america. That's what I heard it used to be like anyhow.

To democrats I say, here's your chance. Let's see what you got. In a team sport, when one isn't performing the other gets a chance. No excuses, wimps!

[bishop]

i like the sentiment, but i don't think that's realistic.

only thing i wonder is whether/not that will be enough to stave off a civil war. we can step out of their affairs and build water/electric plants, but that doesn't mean the sectarians are going to abandon their agendas, hold hands and come together.

sorry to be such a pessimist, but i don't have much confidence in people in that part of the world being capable of sustaining a democracy - which means that they also can't sustain a civilized society..

[RickSp]

Quote by: underbear1 The simple answer for Democrats in 2008, is Iraq War is a disgrace, and we are not able to just withdraw the troops immediately, much as we'd like to. The previous administration (Bush) left us NO GOOD OPTIONS, but we will stabalize Iraq's new democracy before withdrawl.

So you are suggesting that a brutal occupation by a foreign infidel army is a stabilizing force? The occupation is the enemy of stability.

[underbear1]

Quote by: RickSp Quote by: underbear1 The simple answer for Democrats in 2008, is Iraq War is a disgrace, and we are not able to just withdraw the troops immediately, much as we'd like to. The previous administration (Bush) left us NO GOOD OPTIONS, but we will stabalize Iraq's new democracy before withdrawl. So you are suggesting that a brutal occupation by a foreign infidel army is a stabilizing force? The occupation is the enemy of stability.

I am not suggesting our occupation is stabalizing, I was against the Iraq War from the beginning.
What I am facing is this is the situation Bush/ Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Wolfowitz/ Pearl have brought us to. There aren't any good choices left, so I am trying to figure out the LEAST bad choice and dealing with what we have been given by the Neo-Cons.
I think Iran beating it's shields and waving the flag of nuclear war is possibly a warning European, Russian, and Chinese, and Arab leaders will take seriously, and help now in Iraq when in 2003 they said NO THANKS. Those other possible allies against Iran, know that Iraq could easily become a sattilite country of Iran, and make reining in their power hungry leading Iranian mullahs that much harder.

[PatrickHenry]

Scott Galindez has this to say for a Democratic Party strategy: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021006J.shtml

The Democratic Party can regain control of Congress if they unite around the following issues: Supporting Our Troops by Bringing Them Home George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld put our troops at risk by sending them into a war that was unnecessary and that they were not prepared for. The electorate needs to be reminded of Rumsfeld's infamous statement that "you go to war with the army you have." A true leader sends people on a mission with what they need. The current government in power has no responsible leadership. It is time for a change. Fight Poverty and Inequality Katrina showed the great divide between the haves and the have-nots in our society. These divisions are not unique to the Mississippi Delta. All over America, there are poor and neglected communities, and most of them are in communities of color. Democrats should campaign on waging a new war on poverty and racism. Civil Liberties Every new infringement of our civil liberties is another victory for the extremists who attacked us on 9/11. If Democrats make the case that giving up our rights based on fear is surrendering to the enemy, they can win. Corruption With all of the scandals plaguing the GOP in Washington, pointing out that with all three branches of government in the hands of one party, there are no checks and balances is an argument that can resonate nationally. Prescription Drugs This issue is very close to the third rail of politics. Seniors are outraged with the new prescription drug program. If the Democrats propose to take on the pharmaceutical industry and bring down the costs of prescription drugs, they will have a real shot at victory in November. There are scores of other issues, but if a national campaign is run on these issues, Congress could once again be in Democrats' control.