OK, Mark, what's the plan then?

Bush said stay the course before he didn't say it, right? (Read: He denied ever saying "stay the course" when he said it more than two dozen times)

So now that Americans have demanded at least a *change* in course, what do you propose to meet the undeniable will of the people?

Wade

One thing not often discussed about Iraq might be the most critical in the long run. We are currently training the Iraqi army how to defend itself. I assume, Mark, that you think this is a good idea. I don't.

Remember who is in charge in Iraq--the fundamentalist Islamic Shiites. The Iraqi army is a Shiite army. The Shiites under Al-Sadr (make no mistake who is in charge here) are terrorists. Just because the Sunnis are also terrorists doesn't mean it makes sense to train the Shiites.

Mark, if you think that Iraq is going to be a stable ally of the United States in the long run (even if we were to succeed 100%) is really, really foolish. They are Shiites, natural allies of Iran, and terrorists. Please don't say I'm not giving the Iraqi people enough credit by calling them terrorists--the people aren't, but their leaders are. Just look at the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam of Reagan's deal with the Taliban to get a glimpse of what we are in for in the decades to come. And we are training these terrorists with the best army in the world--OURS.

So, why is teaching Shiites how to shoot straight a good idea?

Mark, your earlier comment re: Calling for resolutions in the House and Senate that affirm the will for America to be victorious in Iraq need to be brought up on a regular basis.

What would be at stake given a premature pullout from Iraq must be brought to the forefront, early and often.

Look Mark, quit this crapola about "Leftwingers are giddy at the prospect of engineering an American defeat in Iraq". You winger Bushbots have got away with that Rovian demonizing nonsense for far too long. I should think that last night's results would have convinced you that no one is buying that absurdity anymore.

To engineer an outcome in Iraq that will lessen the damage caused by this ill-advised invasion is going to be difficult. As I've said here on B4B many times before, there are no good options here, thanks largely to A) having done Bush's folly in the first place, and B) failing to properly plan for the aftermath. But the very first step towards formulating the least bad of the bad options available is to finally admit reality: "staying the course" is a strategy for neither victory nor security.

In the end, however, as you rightly point out, prosecuting this war of choice is Bush's job. There is nothing democrats can do to forcibly alter the commander in chief's decisions. He is the president. If he accepts the will of the voters and seeks out other less disasterous avenues out of the mess he's created, great. But if he decides to cling to his boy-in-the-bubble neo-con fantasies of he and Rummy sitting triumphally astride a transformed Middle East... well, it's up to him.

the undeniable will of the people

It's interesting how Republicans win narrowly, we are told that "51% is not a mandate", but when Democrats win narrowly, it's the "will of the people".

He may still have all those powers Mark but he will have to carry out those efforts without the hindrance of Donald Rumsfeld who has submitted his letter of resignation to the president and George W Bush has accepted it. Maybe now, ser, there can be progress.

Giminy Crow, you don't actually believe the Democrats are slathering at the mouth to engineer a loss for America do you? How much rhetoric juice do you have to swallow to fall for that poppycock!!? Even if Bush is an ignorant, small-minded, fool, I would never accuse him of TRYING TO LOSE! That's so arrogant and ignorant it's beyond description. The Dems may not be the most cohesive, or well-guided bunch on the planet, but they've certainly done better recently than the GOP or the Pres has!! Maybe we'll fnally get some fiscal responsibility around here, and start whittling down our 400 BILLION a year budget deficit, or the 8 1/2 TRILLION dollar national deficit!! The Republicans have done an attrocious job, and re getting what they deserve, even if the Dems aren't...

Wade,

The plan is the plan we've always had - midwife democracy and train security forces sufficient to defend the Iraqi government. As President Bush has said this morning, defeat is not an option in Iraq - we MUST win.

Now, what tactics to use? That is a more flexible thing and, given reality, we will have to work with Democrats on this - but I think that at least 30% of the Democratic caucus WILL NOT vote for a scuttle in Iraq. If push came to shove, a majority of the House will back President Bush in fighting to victory in Iraq...Bush has to give a little, but so does the Democratic leadership.

My preferred course of action now is to increase US troop levels in Iraq - we can do this by then giving assurances to the Democrats that we'll commit to issues they consider important in homeland security and perhaps some give on some other pet Democratic issue; the purpose of a troop level increase is not primarily that we really need more troops (I don't think we do), but as a clear signal to the enemy that we are not giving up.

Mark:

It is interesting that you now advocate compromise and to "give a little" now that Americans have returned to some sanity and put adults in control of government.

Also, it was John Kerry in 2004 that ran precisely on the notion of putting 40,000 more boots on the ground in Iraq. But you were more fixated on that silly "flip-flop" nonsense.

It really angers me that roughly a week before this Democratic victory the neocon nitwits jumped ship like drowning rats. And now Rumsfeld, having run the Iraqi war straight into the ground can just walk away and leave a stinking heap for the rest of us to clean up.

I hope that a good plan can come from this wehereby Iraq is put back together and headed toward a free, democratic society. We liberals do not want to lose Iraq any more than you do Mark. But it's time to face reality and perhaps cut our losses and hope for the best. I don't know. The American public has been in the dark for too long as to the real state of affairs over there.

So let's first put all the cards on the table and have an honest look at the situation before anything else. And let's not forget for one second that this disaster is all of Republican's making.

PS: I also hope that Democrats never *ever* treat the minority Republicans as bad as they treated the Democrats when they were in the minority.

Wade

Your politically divisive rhetoric is an example of why the Republicans lost so much this time. Most Americans want to return to America as one country, and end the partisan McCarthyistic accusations, such as suggesting Democrats are in league with terrorists. It is time for America to be governed again from the center, rather than the extremes, and to end one-party government. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was reelected by such a large margine because he demonstrated he could rise above his past partisanship and work with a Democratic legislature. That might be a lesson for other Republicans.

Bush's long overdue decision to cut Rummy loose is the first "unifying" step he's taken in 6 years. Watch for more signs of the likely split between Cheney and his boss. An independent Bush might still have a chance to salvage a decent legacy. More of the same and he goes down as about the worst president in history.

And Mark, enough of the RW garbage. Can you name an American pol who has ever actually called for our defeat in Iraq? I doubt it. Do you realize how silly such accusations sound?

Bigfoot -

"...but when Democrats win narrowly..."

"Narrowly"? Huh? Other than our two narrow wins in VA and MT, dems in general won quite handily. Overall, they picked up between 30 and 35 House seats. They won control of the House, AND the Senate - both of which looked far out of reach not very long ago.

Meanwhile, for the first time in history, not one single incumbent Democrat lost last night. None. You guys managed to pick up not one incumbent Dem House seat, not one incumbent Dem Senate seat, and not one incumbent Dem governorship.

All in all, sounds like a pretty lop-sided arse whuppin.

Contrast that to the 2000 presidential election where you lost the popular vote and barely won the electoral college by the slimmest margin of 535 votes in Florida. Bush then proceeded to govern as if he had won in an enormous landslide, demonizing democrats as "terrorists" and becoming the most vicously polarizing president in history.

But don't worry - we democrats will treat you better than you all deserve to be treated!

Leftwingers are giddy at the prospect of engineering an American defeat in Iraq

Mark - please stop this rhetoric. I'm a moderate - on my state ballot I had as many "R"'s checked as I did "D"'s. But on the national ballot I voted strongly against Republicans, and even sent money to a few Democratic candidates. The reason for supporting Democrats was due to the fact that for six years government has ignored at least half of the country, and I want divided government so that each side is forced to work together again.

As of January, if the President wants to get his agenda passed he has to compromise with Congress. Similarly, if Congress wants to get bills signed, they have to work with the President. So let's start working together - instead of ridiculous rhetoric like "liberals want the terrorists to win" and "Bush is the devil" that demonizes those who you disagree with, let's find some common ground and work in a civil way with one another.

Mark-

I am ashamed for you that you think that those to the left of you are hoping for America's defeat and would attempt to engineer it. Perhaps once the sting of this defeat wears off you can try and really evaluate if you truly believe something that no one could prove is true. That's my hope, but your hatred may win that battle.

As for troop level, from the beginning there were Democrats saying that Rumsfeld's plan wouldn't work. We had wargames in 1999 that said we'd have trouble even with 400,000 troops, but that less would be disastrous. While many opposed the war's rationale, many like myself wanted, at the very least, to get it done efficiently and quickly. We are mired in a civil war, the foreign terrorists there are a small fraction of the problem. Sectarian violence is the real issue, and every military source confirms this while Bush denies it. Rumsfeld is gone because of a failed policy. Bob Gates, however, could be a real solution to this. I am actually surprised that the president picked someone who was close to his father. That's a good move on his part.

I hope for your sake that you use your obviously considerable intellect to stop the path to Coulterville and start having respect for those with whom you disagree. If you really want the best for America you'll accept that there will always be Democrats and liberals here. We aren't giving our country away to you alone. We have to share it and find common ground. Your contempt for my side makes that impossible, but I will do my miniscule part to show that there is a better way.

Join me anytime you feel like a change.

Mark, your earlier comment re: Calling for resolutions in the House and Senate that affirm the will for America to be victorious in Iraq need to be brought up on a regular basis.

Yes, because nothing says "we are serious about the issues this country faces today" than demanding that government be sidetracked on a regular basis with symbolic but pragmatically empty and pointless resolutions. Good call!

Mark said:
"While President Bush's ability to initiate policy will be restricted, he still retains the power to carry out existing policies - and that means that over the next two years, he has the ability to both finish the liberation of Iraq and deal with the Iranian threat."

Does Bush really have the ability to finish anything?

1. He started Afghanistan...regressing.
2. He started Iraq..........out of control.
3. Axis of Evil.............both Iran and N Korea are doing better now than before.

It seems that Bush picked the weakest member of the Axis of Evil and through inept policy choices has our soldiers bogged down in the middle of a civil war.

This election was about opening your eyes and seeing reality...please reconsider your position.

Isn't the average loss in the second term mid term 30 house seats and six senate? Not really an ass whooping I would say, specially during a war. Enjoy kissing Lieberman's butt for the next two years.

I really can't help wonder whether this isn't the reason Bush is talking soft and cuddly with the Democrats. I think he's going to give them great reign over the domestic agenda, but he's going to continue to captain Iraqi liberation, tooth and nail. In short, I think he's going to let the Dems screw up the economy in the short run by raising minimum wages disproportionately high, and if as Pelosi promised this happens within the first 100 days, the economy will be headed south within a year, the market will tumble, businesses both domestic and international will look elsewhere to set up shop, and inflation will rise as part of the most predictable wage-price spiral. Bush and Rove are geniuses. They're going to make the most of this predictable 6 year itch.

Wade,

Indeed, the American people have been kept in the dark about Iraq - by the MSM, the Democratic Party and the left in general. And as I said, putting more troops in Iraq isn't a military act, but a political act - it is to show the enemy that we aren't quitting. The "give" is to get Democrats on board - so that the MSM will have a vested interest in telling the truth lest they tar their Democrats.

This is all practical politics - its what we on the right have to do: we have the correct policies, but we executed them poorly and didn't do a good job of explaining them to the people: because of this failure, we were correctly "thumped" as President Bush put it. Our task now is to continue to do our duty - which is the propose and carry out policies which will allow the country to survive the various doses of liberalism you on the left side of the aisle managed to pile on to the body politic.

Doug,

By the fruit shall the tree be known - I can only go on what is the likely result of leftwing policies, and from what I understand of leftwing policies, they constitute a burning desire to see America defeated in Iraq. You can be upset with me all you like, but your actual task is to prove me wrong.

President Bush needs to take the next two years as an opportunity to crush the militias in Iraq-both Sunni and Shia-and eliminate Al-Sadr.

The Sunni Iraqi Kurds have and are demonstrating that Iraqi Muslims are capable of living in freedom and democracy.

Defeat is NOT an option. We MUST WIN in Iraq.

Mark says,

-"we have the correct policies, but we executed them poorly..."

To which policies are you referring here? The DOD's strategy in Iraq?

Morris:

That was the same deal he struck with the Republicans - that's why he vetoed nothing for, what, 5 plus years .... he thought he needed them on Iraq, so he wasn't going to anger them on spending, etc.

As for the Dems protesting that Dem policy is not "We lose" .....

Your caucus did exactly that in 1974-1975, when it abandoned the South Vietnamese.

Your base has followed the same playbook here - claiming Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror, claiming we were lied into the war (reprising the Gulf of Tonkin) ... why, Sy Hersh is even walking around claiming our troops are war criminals ....

Do your so called "responsible" adults repudiate this idiocy? Hardly - they parrot it; attend conventions organized by its purveyors; post on their blogs; speak well of their propaganda movies; invite them to sit in big shot boxes at your convention; and so on ....

Your policy isn't to win, it's to get out.

Your speaker presumtive told Brit Hume: the war in Iraq is "not a war to be won but a situation to be solved."

Hardly sounds like she's interested in victory - or in what happens in Iraq after we leave.

Your Majority Leader Presumptive wants to "re-deploy" to Guam (what, no bases on the Moon or Mars were available?) He says they can always be returned to Iraq if they're needed.

Riddle me this: are there any circumstances in which your caucus - no, never mind that - your Majority Leader presumptive would support sending 're-deployed' troops back into Iraq?

Hardly. If they were "needed", he'd proclaim the battle lost and oppose wasting lives in a losing cause.

If you think your policy isn't "We lose", then find us an example to cling to where the party that quit the fight won the war.

If you can do that, then maybe I'll reconsider my opinion.

I'm just waiting to see what the poor Dems are going to do, now that they have wrangled themselves into a position where they have to do SOMETHING.

For six years, they have been no more than speed bumps. They have blocked progress while bemoaning the lack of progress. They have impeded, stalled, stonewalled, and generally made sure that as little as possible could get done, and then righteously and piously complained that nothing got done----and it was always the fault of the those wascally wepublicans, those demons in charge, and by damn it would sure be different if WE ran things!

So, run things. We're waiting. We're watching.

They ran on two basic platforms: The "I'm more conservative than the Republicans" platform and the beloved "We're Not Them" approach.

So now what? Legislate like the conservatives they pretended to be, and incur the wrath of the radical Left? Suck up to the Pelosi-Schumer branch of the party and tick off the dupes who voted for them because they believed they really were 'moderate'?

Oooh, what's a newly elected Liberal to do?

And now that they have won on "We're Not Them" they will have to show us what they really ARE.

Well, the first and most important thing to do is to ignore, deny, and obscure the simple hard fact that they only won by convincing people they were conservatives. Because the true underlying message of this campaign has been that the only way to win elections is to be conservative, or at least learn how to act conservative. And this is a very dangerous thing for the American public to realize and ponder upon.

So the first act of the Dems is to pretend that America was really ready for a Liberal government, and really knowingly elected one. This will involve some immediate and desperate rewriting of history, as the psuedo-moderates shed their disguises to show us the realities of the Liberals underneath. Just watch---they'll by out-Kerrying Kerry, when he claimed that he didn't know that military force really meant military force. They'll be backtracking on every moderate or conservative thing they ever said, promised, or even hinted at, in the stampede to portray this election as a victory for Liberalism.

Then they can worry about how to convince that American public that the "change" they promised is more than just a six-letter word. Because we are all waiting, and wondering. What change? When? Where? How? We haven't heard an idea for six years. It's been all anti. Anti this, anti that, anti pretty much everything. So what are they FOR?

Sure, we're going to have more health care, more drugs for less money, more money, more more more more. It's the Big Rock Candy Mountain, all over again. But so far no ideas on how this is going to happen, who is going to pay for it, and how it is going to be structured. Promises, yes. Ideas, no. Plans? Not hardly. Plans tie you down too much, limit your tap dancing when things go wrong, make it too hard to blame The Other Guy. Nope, no plans.

There will be some typical Liberal shell game efforts, where they try to confiscate some assets to hand them out to others, but we are smarter than we used to be about the smoke and mirrors of just moving assets around. We've seen the economic benefits of lower taxation, and we've seen the disasterous effects of the multi-generational welfare state, a la New Orleans/Katrina. It's going to be harder to convince us that what the are handing out is really Shinola.

So go for it, Dims. Show us your best stuff. But keep in mind, if you don't have anything better that what's we've seen so far, we're not impressed.

"I can only go on what is the likely result of leftwing policies, and from what I understand of leftwing policies, they constitute a burning desire to see America defeated in Iraq."

Mark,

If you really believe this then you are so blinded by your hatred that you've lost touch with reality. Even your beloved presidet doesn't believe this nonsense.

To suggest that ANY of our leaders want us to be defeated is insane. Same goes for the fools who say Bush caused 9/11.

What many of us wonder is, what is a victory? At what point will we have won in Iraq? We can never be victorious over terrorism, since terrorism can happen anytime anywhere. We can't ever stop all the terrorists or kill them all.

Iraq IS a civil war and we're in the middle. Now, how do we solve it? Leaving immediately is one option, and it's a bad one. Staying and dying is another that sucks equally.

This issue is not as cut and dried as you say. You come off like a simpleton when you spew that rhetoric without thinking. What needs to happen is what happened today. Bush brings in a Scowcroft pragmatist. I applaud the move, even though it's late, and think that Bush made a good choice. The Democrats will work with him. But we're not going to let Bush get away with "stand still and die"

Your accusations are baseless and rooted in hatred for your own countrymen. I sometimes think that if you had a choice, you'd put a bullet in my head before Bin Laden's, since you seem to not care if he lives or dies.

Doug,

You work from a false premise - the story you've read about Iraq and especially the Iraq you've seen on television bears no relation to the actual Iraq...you've been sold a bill of "Iraq is a disaster" goods. Would you like to know what is going to happen?

GW and the Donks will get together and there will be some sort of announcement of agreement on Iraq - that our forces will stay until the Iraqis are capable of defending themselves. In 9 months to a year as the Iraqis take full control of their security situation, Democrats will claim that but for their confrontation with President Bush, none of this would have happened - but the plain fact of the matter is that all that is going to happen is a continuation and completion of the already successful plan we've had for post-liberation Iraq all along.

You, unfortunately, will buy this - but historians 100 years from now will set the record straight...we on the right will never get you on the left out of your Alternate Universe on Iraq...you're too far gone in to it. On the other hand, we don't really give a darn what you think about it...we've been doing the right thing and we'll continue to do the right thing, and we'll win this war in spite of your foolish efforts to undermine it. It's our duty, and we'll do it because we love - this country, this world, you...

Jim Oliver: "Mark, if you think that Iraq is going to be a stable ally of the United States in the long run (even if we were to succeed 100%) is really, really foolish"

actually no ... Japan and Germany where both America's bitter enemies 70 years ago. Thanks to American blood and American money they are both respectable countries.

Name one war of the same scale that was 'better' than the war in Iraq.