The democratic policy could be more accurately described as:

"Recognize that the war is lost due to inept bungling by republican leaders, and accept that reality as the basis of our decision making."

as opposed to the republican strategy:

"Pretend things are still salvageable, base decisions on the need to maintain the IMAGE that things are still salvageable. (at least until the election) blame democrats for realizing that we've lost the war."

So you mess everything up and refuse to admit it, and that's called a "Platform of Victory"?

Up is Down! Left is Right! White is Black!

I'm trying to understand point #4.

Besides being the entire "secret" plan put forth by John Kerry 2 years ago, what exactly would an "summit" of international origin be doing to "preserve Iraq's sovereignty" ? The usual point of these sort of meetings is to eject outside elements from other nations. If Iraq is really having a "civil war," such a meeting would have no purpose, except to add international distain to any further deployments of US troops to the area.

So point #4, seems to say that besides doing a "cut and run," we will also negociate an international "kick in the ass."

I'm 100% confident in the results too. But they are not what you think they will be.

In November, we will have been engaged in Iraq longer than our entire participation in WWII. We will have been in Iraq longer than the entire period between the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor to VJ day in 1945.

Can anyone say we have made the same kind of progress? Can anyone say we are heading for a decisive good result?

The reason is that the President choose this war without an honest motivation. When the going turned against us, he did not have support to take the steps needed to win it.

Here's what it will take to "win" (subjugate) in Iraq: 1. a draft for the army to raise 250,000 young people willing to die in Iraq. 2. taxes raised enough to properly train, equip, and deploy these people. 3. conservation or rationing of gas to counter the inevitable price gouging. 4. clawback of the tax giveaways already given to the wealthiest.

If you don't have the stomach for these 4 things, then you are on a plainly losing trajectory in Iraq. The current force level (increased to 140,000 recently) is barely keeping a lid on the growing civil war.

1) My thoughts were the same as yours, Mark... HOW is this different than what we've been doing???

2a) Hey, bad guys! Your wait is almost over. Just a few more months, and you can resubjugate the Iraqi people.

2b) Hey, Iraqis... remember Viet Nam? This is how we really make this situation the same as then. Now it's your turn to be on the receiving end of mass murder... soon, there will likely be hundreds of thousands fewer of you. Just remember, please... it's the American liberals and their worldwide allies, not the American conservatives who you have to thank for this gift.

3) The first part sounds like what we're doing now. The second part sounds ridiculous. Just what differences from the current constitution will constitute fair sharing of power and resources? I seem to remember the government being rather inclusive.

4) Nice thought, but please tell me how you're going to get people/countries for whom a primary goal (openly stated or not) is to oppose the US so that it not have more political power in the international community than they do to play along. So far, that hasn't happened, and I not for lack of trying. Just stating you want it to happen doesn't mean it will.

We propose a new direction, which would include: (1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection; (2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year; (3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort.

we'll run on a platform of victory

i'm asking because it seems too easy to say that the answer to a problem is to pursue a "plan for victory" when no details are really presented (just rhetoric - which of course we all know is of no use in the battlefield).
the dems are always bening unfairly painted by the right as having no alternative plan. but when presented with the plan laid-out above versus your statement of "having a platform of victory" i'd certainly opt for the former.

Platform of victory? Which side's victory are you rooting for - the Sunnis or the Shiites?

If Iraq is the central front on terrorism, and the safety of the U.S. depends on success there, then when we leave Iraq are we leaving our security in the hands of the Iraqi army?

To Bill Biddle... It was shortly after September 11th, 2001 that I realized that the fight against Islamic tyranny would take the rest of my life, and then some. (I'm 53.) I personally feel it's a fight worth having, because I am unwilling to live with the alternative.

If you are unwilling to engage in this animating contest against Islamic fascism, then go in peace. We ask not your arms, nor your counsel. But surely, posterity will not remember you. But posterity will remember those brave men and women who put it all on the line to give us the opportunity to freely write words such as these without the fear of retribution from Allah's Islamic minders.

---Tom Nally, New Orleans
(PS: I'm paraphrasing Samuel Adams above...)

The democrats message to the Iraqi people: "DROP DEAD".

The democratic policy could be more accurately described as:

"Recognize that the war is lost due to inept bungling by republican leaders, and accept that reality as the basis of our decision making." agh

There are two elements to this strategy:

1. We've lost the war
2. Its Bush's fault

The logical conclusion to this is...surrender...that's what losers do.

Thanks for clarifying the democrat strategy for us all.

The democratic policy could be more accurately described as:

"Recognize that the war is lost due to inept bungling by republican leaders, and accept that reality as the basis of our decision making." agh

There are two elements to this strategy:

1. We've lost the war
2. Its Bush's fault

The logical conclusion to this is...surrender...that's what losers do.

Thanks for clarifying the democrat strategy for us all.

"(2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year"-Democrat Surrender Monkeys

Versus reality which is clearly spelled out in President George W. Bush's speech at GOP Bloggers:

"We know what the terrorists intend to do because they've told us -- and we need to take their words seriously. So today I'm going to describe -- in the terrorists' own words, what they believe… what they hope to accomplish, and how they intend to accomplish it. [..]

They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a "Caliphate" -- where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology.[..] This caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. We know this because al Qaeda has told us.[..]

We know what this radical empire would look like in practice, because we saw how the radicals imposed their ideology on the people of Afghanistan. [..]

they've made clear that the most important front in their struggle against America is Iraq -- the nation bin Laden has declared the "capital of the Caliphate." Hear the words of bin Laden: "I now address… the whole… Islamic nation: Listen and understand… The most… serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War… [that] is raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He says, "The whole world is watching this war,"

"and let the American people decide."

They already have Mark, they have decided they want to get out of Iraq, duh!

phnxbmed says
> There are two elements to this strategy:
> 1. We've lost the war
> 2. Its Bush's fault
>
> The logical conclusion to this
> is...surrender...that's what losers do.
>
> Thanks for clarifying the democrat strategy for us all.

Both of the elements you present are true. We have almost completely lost the military struggle in Iraq. We lose 60 servicemen and women each month; iraqi civilians are dying at a rate of 100/day in sectarian strife; our own generals are saying in public that the situation is worse than it's ever been.

That means that "stay the course" is a losing strategy. Do you understand? Things will not magically improve, if only we can catch the 5th, 6th, 7th #2 Al Qaeda man in Iraq. Our army is losing a conflict that is gradually, slowly, inexorably escalating in scope and intensity.

Stay the course just keeps our army stuck in the meat grinder. A patriot who supports our troops as the democrats and as thinking republicans do, would not want this. So why do you advocate it?

Probably because you are not intelligent enough to think for yourself and analyze a failed strategy. If President Bush says we have to stay the course, then we should. But what is President Bush is having trouble admitting he was wrong? Wrong in the whole futile venture? Wrong to attack a country that was unconnected with 9/11, that had no WMDs, and that posed us no threat? What then?

There are only two things we can do in Iraq now that will improve the situation:
1. Go big. Reinstate the draft, and flood the country with 250,000 more troops to keep it in lockdown until we can search house to house and forcibly disarm all militias.

OR

2. Declare a spurious victory and get out now before we lose more men in an unwinnable conflict.
As a previous respondent asked, when open civil war breaks out, do we support the Sunnis or the Shias?

Both of these alternatives are politically very unpalatable to the Decider and his band of foolish advisors.

So all they are left with is "stay the course" - a slowly worsening security situation which in two years time, when we have lost another 1000 soldiers, will simply dump the now much worse problem into the lap of the next President. And it all costs $9BN every month.

I think the country deserves better than that. I object to paying a single dime of taxes to support water, electricity, and a US army in Iraq. So would you, if you had the brains to think independently.

"Hey, Iraqis... remember Viet Nam? This is how we really make this situation the same as then. Now it's your turn to be on the receiving end of mass murder... soon, there will likely be hundreds of thousands fewer of you. Just remember, please... it's the American liberals and their worldwide allies, not the American conservatives who you have to thank for this gift."

Blahahahaha . . . . "remember Vietnam [sic]." Yeah, remember, it’s the liberals that illegally carpet-bombed Cambodia and Laos. It’s the liberals that contemplated using the bomb in Vietnam. So all you Iraqis, make sure you keep Vietnam in mind when thinking about keeping those evil liberals out of your neighborhoods.

It really doesn't matter what the Democrats plan is, if they came up with it it has to be wrong. Unless it's similar to Bush's plan, then they are out of touch with what is going on. Anything other than Bush's plan is wrong. Period, end of story.

Couple questions for the bushbots here:
1. Have the Republicans ever had a bad idea?
2. Have the Democrats ever had a good idea?
3. Is there a singe corrupt Republican?
4. Is there a single Democrat that isn't corrupt?
5. Do you consider yourself an objective thinker?
6. Do you get the point of these questions?

Islamic fascism is a threat to our very existence, a threat that cannot be countered by minding our own business. But, minding our own business led to September 11th.

Yet, as I read the questions posed by James Herold, I'm reminded that many people think the issue is nothing more than political squabbling.

---Tom Nally, New Orleans

Well, Mark, you turned over the Iraq stone again, and the usual critters came crawling out. Soooo predictable.

Hey, guys...quit yer selective references to WW Two if you can't be bothered to actually study that war, from the events leading up to it all the way through. Yes, I know you Airheads don't need real facts, just the bits and pieces Ranty Rhodes dishes out to you. But your selective factoids totally misrepresent the facts of that war, and ignore the lessons we should have learned from it.

I can toss out facts, too. Such as that we have lost fewer military in Iraq in three and a half years or so than we lost in one battle in WW Two. (That would be true of several battles, BTW.) But facts are irrelevant here. Because we are not really talking about Iraq, or the war on terrorism, or the successes or failures of the Bush Doctrine.

What we are talking about here is BDS. It is Bush Derangement Syndrome. It is a deep-seated pathological loathing of a man, based on irrational emotional needs in the haters much more than on the true nature of the man they love to hate. And there is nothing, absolutely nothing, he could ever do that would make any of you find him credible, successful, or even deserving of life in many cases. It is not about Bush, or Iraq---it is about YOU.

You choose a conclusion and then create elaborate theses to support it. Of course that is backward, but you're Liberals, and this is the way you do things. You make up your minds, such as they are, and then construct rationales for your preconceived determinations. And you for damn sure ain't gonna let any facts get in your way.

So I hope your venting of that Liberal spleen made you feel better. I'm going to go try to wash away the creepy icky feeling I get when I expose myself to the bile of Liberalism. I do it because I need to know what is going on, over there on the Dark Side, but I could not live in any of your minds, not for a moment. Those dank, dark, murky places, fact-free and hate-filled, where wallowing in hatred and glorying in negativity passes for thought and reason---too too icky for me.

Thaks, joe bob, for your brilliant illustration of the total ignorance the Left has of the realities of Viet Nam, and of the lessons we should have learned there.

I'll bet you think Kerry told the truth in his sworn statements to Congress, don't you?

Betcha your total "knowledge" of Viet Nam is based on Oliver Stone movies and what you have been fed on Air America.

Ask any of the refugees who fled the killing fields of Viet Nam and Cambodia after we turned tail and ran if you really care to learn anything about the true consequences of the successful undermining of the American will by the radical Left.

Being ignorant is not disgraceful. Being proud of being ignorant is. But you just keep flauting your ignorance, joe bob--your're a credit to the neorads.