Which "plan" are the Dems going to use?

This morning, I got two verrrry interesting articles brought to my attention.

First, Big Dog notices this article in the Boston Herald, which says:

President Jalal Talabani said Thursday that he had been assured by Democrat congressional leaders during a recent visit to Washington that they had no plans for a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Talabani, a Kurd whose post is ceremonial, said Democrats also backed the idea of placing U.S. troops in bases while putting Iraqis in charge of security in and around cities.

"They all told me that they want the success of Iraq's democratically elected government and continued support for the Iraqi people to defeat terrorism," Talabani said about his trip to the United States in late September as many were predicting the Democratic congressional triumph in Tuesday's midterm elections.

"One of them (a Democrat leader) told me that any early withdrawal will be a catastrophe for the United States and the world," Talabani, speaking from his northern hometown of Sulaimaniyah, told the Dubai-based Al-Jazeera satellite broadcaster.

Big Dog's pithy comment is this -

Now America, do those of you who stayed home or gave a protest vote feel foolish yet? The damned Democrats were telling the Iraqis the same thing Republicans were telling you. They were told that America would not leave Iraq any time soon (what Bush has said all along) and that leaving Iraq too soon would be a disaster which is the same thing that Republicans have been saying all along. The Democrats lied to you about the war in order to be reelected. Very soon now they will be saying that we can't come home as soon as they thought because Bush screwed everything up. You will know the truth. They had no intentions of leaving early. They only said it to get your votes. You elected them to office and they will do the very thing you rejected Republicans for.

But wait! Maybe the Dems didn't lie... Well, not to the votors, anyway. Cold Fury has this:

I know that I said that it has to get worse before it gets better… but sweet sufferin' Jesus, does it have to get this bad, this fast, before it gets better?

The Dems are bringing in George McGovern as an advisor on designing an unnecessary pants pissing shrieking retreat phased withdrawal from Iraq.

The Breitbart article to which CF refers says

George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential candidate, said Thursday that he will meet with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June.

If Democrats don't take steps to end the war in Iraq soon, they won't be in power very long, McGovern told reporters before a speech at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

"I think the Democratic leadership is wise enough to know that if they're going to follow the message that election sent, they're going to have to take steps to bring the war to a conclusion," he said.

So, dearlings, which is it going to be? Are you going to screw Talibani and Iraq, or are you going to screw the votors?

BOHICA.

Comments

[Jackson Landers]

1.

With Rumsfeld out and Gates in, we're going to hold our fire for a moment.

The truth is that war strategy and military decisions (aside from the basic question of whether to go to war) should preferably come from the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense. It is only due to years of what we see as gross incompetance that Democrats resolved to start making some decisions for Rumsfeld and shoving them down his throat. However, Gates gives us pause. He could really be a good SecDef. We have high hopes and think that he is an excellent nominee. We're going to hold off momentarily and give him a chance to examine the situation in Iraq and articulate a new approach. We'd rather not undermine his authority by dictating policy to him.

Were Rumsfeld remaining, there would be a huge public discussion among the Democratic party about exactly the issues that you are describing. But we're going to give Gates a few months to show us what he's made of. We honestly don't want to have to go in there and cut the legs out from under the President on military decisions. This is us giving Bush a second chance.

See how wonderful a little cooperation and bipartisan power-sharing is? The Democrats taking Congress prompted Bush to bow to public pressure and replace Rumsfeld with someone really great and competant. This made Bush look good, it gets us a new Republican secretary of defense who is going to do a great job and now it also has the effect of Democrats backing off of the administration just long enough to give Bush a second chance to prove he can get us out of Iraq. This is win-win all around.

I don't know how long it's going to last, but I'm feeling better about our chances of winning in Iraq and better about the potential ability of Bush to lead the country than I have have before.

[Kat]

2.

Jack, I'm very glad you're optimistic. I hope your optimism proves out, but at the moment...

I don't have a problem with Rummy resigning per se, but I still think the timing was execrable, and our troops (gads, I've GOT to find that link! I thought I'd marked it...) aren't too thrilled.

Rusty Humphries has this on his front page today:

Today in the mess hall, where there is usually jovial conversation, there was silence, long faces, and broken spirits... Everyone, to include all American soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen, Iraqi Nationals, Bulgarian Soldiers, etc, etc... was speechless, tired, demoralized and stunned.... all ate in erie silence.....

Last night, while we watched the press conference with the President, there was utter discust, and the common feeling amongst us all that we soldiers are now the loneliest people on Earth.... we fight an enemy over here, and we have a country full of enemies to go home to that are our countrymen. We watched President Bush say his own political funeral, our commander and chief.. as well as ours..... He tried so hard to spin it, but... well.. there is no way to soften such a morale blow.

While you sit and Monday morning quarterback what we work so hard to do for you out here, just know that the spirit of your team is wounded..... YOU liberals, you America have done a great job of demoralizing us... Thank you.

Do us a favor though, when we do come home, spare us the ceremony....... We all now know that it is a bunch of crap, and what you think of us.......

I hope you're right. But if our troops come home in "non-defeat" (for lack of a better phrase), and if all those "little people" who counted on us for support in their bid for freedom lose out in the end because they got shafted... Don't expect me to ever give a democrat the benefit of the doubt again.

When you have people like Durbin, Kerry, and Murtha and then Kos, Moore, Streisand, and their ilk insulting and slandering OUR TROOPS, who are fighting and dying, whether the war is "right" or not... Well, please excuse me when I take whatever "your" side says about the war with a huge grain of salt.

Webb might be better - you've said he is, and I'm going to give him the chance.

But if the Dems hurt our troops... I will vote for Mickey *blinkin* MOUSE before I give another Dem the time of day.

-- Kat

But I sure as hel

[Jackson Landers]

3.

There is no monolithic opinion among our soldiers stating that the liberals have now abandoned the troops. Many Republican soldiers are looking at it that way because they are in fact partisans while many Democrats are thrilled that Rumsfeld is out and the Dems took Congress because they are in fact partisans. One soldier sent an email to Rusty Humphries saying that his friends are bummed about what happened. Well, that is pretty far from proof that the troops as a group think they've been abandoned.

Let's see what the Baker commission has to say and let's give Gates a chance to show us what he can do. If I was going to say one thing that is true of what nearly every Democrat thinks about the war it is that they think that the present course has been a failure and that a new approach is necessary. If this administration can just manage to do something differently that gets good results then we'll be happy. We're not going to nitpick the specifics too much so long as America is succeeding.

When Bush first took office, I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a long time even though I didn't vote for him. Same thing with his cabinet. I read every word that came out of Rumsfeld's mouth, admired the audacity of his force transformation plan and had to smile every time he gave a press conference all the way through the invasion of Afghanistan. We should give people a chance once the election or confirmation is over. I'm going to give Gates a fair shake, I'm going to give Bush another chance and I hope that you'll give Reid and Pelosi a chance as well (although I'm still hoping that the conservative Dems will elect someone else as Speaker).

By the way, George McGovern is about as irrelevant as you can be in modern American politics. Tied with Barbara Streisand. Most Democratic voters nowadays have only a vague impression of who those people even are and certainly don't care what they have to say. A few Congressmen will politely meet with him on account of his former status, but he is hardly an opinion-maker or leader. The only way that we would have pulled out by June would be if Bush gave up on the war entirely and used his executive power to end it. Which I tend to doubt will happen.

[Kat]

4.

Will you explain to me, then, Jack, why Mr. McGovern is "meet[ing] with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June."? And why people like Streisand have been lionized by the press for their political statements?

I understand that the military is not monolithic - my husband is retired Navy, and I loved my "job" as Navy wife. Nevertheless my point stands. If Iraq *IS* "Vietnam," it will only be so if we cut and run. Somehow when we leave (and YES I want our troops home soon!), it must be in such a way that our military and its reputation are unstained with the label of "retreat," and the world needs to have a concrete example of "No better friend, no worse enemy."

To be perfectly honest (paleo-con that I really am), I would love for us to stay home and let the rest of the world to go to hell in a handbasket. I guess that makes me somewhat of an isolationist. However, I realize that a) that's not too realistic, and b) that goes very much against the American character (for which I am grateful).

But I want our military to be so strong, so good, so well equipped... and SO FEARED that no one would ever dream of deliberately targeting the United States for terror of the uncompromising price we would make them pay.

If we leave Iraq hanging, if we leave with any taint of defeat, we will appear weak, and we WILL be less safe.

If Gates is confirmed, I hope - see? I'm still hopeful! - that he and our new Congress can pull this off. But... politicians (yes, I'm including Repubs, too) being what they are, I'm skeptical...

-- Kat