NAVIGATION MAIN MENU

COMPENDIUM LIBRARY/TWITTER MONITOR
VIDEO GALLERY
Economic News
Newsbrief Archives
Democrat Leadership Twitter and Realtime Feeds
Cabinet twitter and realtime feeds
North America weblog
International weblog
Democrats twitter directory
Latest Government Jobs and Public Tenders
Jobs Matrix
Global Travel Information
Pop Entertainment Forum
Start Portal


Please make a donation to support upkeep of the daily news journal, back archives, twitter feeds and the compendium library.










Democrats Focused on Plan for Iraq« Thread Started on Feb 23

Daily newsbrief journal for February 2006, also see http://www.usdemocrats.com/brief for a global 100-page perpetual brief and follow twitter @usdemocrats


Democrats Focused on Plan for Iraq« Thread Started on Feb 23

Postby admin » Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:41 am

Democrats Focused on Plan for Iraq« Thread Started on Feb 23, 2006, 10:40am » --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Democrats Focused on Plan for IraqPosted by Tim Tagaris on February 21, 2006 at 11:19 AM read source: http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/02/stra ... ep.phpFrom the Boston Globe:Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries. The concept, dubbed "strategic redeployment," is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007...Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman, has endorsed Korb's paper and begun mentioning it in meetings with local Democratic groups. In addition, the study's concepts have been touted by the senator assigned to bring Democrats together on Iraq -- Jack Reed of Rhode Island -- and the report has been circulated among all senators by Senator Dianne Feinstein, an influential moderate Democrat from California. This common sense plan puts Democratic ideas squarely at odds with the Republican three-year plan of crossing your fingers and hoping for the best, a nifty public relations plan for success, and asking people to serve their country by placing U.S. Senate campaign bumper stickers on the back of cars. The current course staked out by President Bush, which completely ignores reality and military commanders' advice on troop levels, is no longer an option. That's why the majority of Americans now feel the war was a mistake and disapprove of the way the president has handled the prosecution of the effort. And that's to say nothing of the majority who also believe the president deliberately misled the American people on WMDs and Iraq in the run-up to the war.Comments - 18Show Comments and Trackbacks» « Hide Comments and TrackbacksA new book published by the #2 Iraqi Air Force general, General Georges Sada, has alreadt stated that the chemical WMD components were sold to Syria in 2002, and transported in 38 civilian aircraft flights with the seats removed in yellow metal barrels with poison markings that went absolutely undetected by American intelligence sources despite spy satellites able to read an automobile license plate from outer space. Neither the failure of the Bush era intelligence sources or the continued Democratic views of this major failure in American intelligence seem to benefit at all from these revelations of an Iraqi general who made major military decisions for the military of Saddam Hussein. However, it should be noted in another issue that with the destabilization of Iraq since the Iraq War and elections in Iran, Palestine and Iraq that didn't turn out well for U.S. interests in the region, any withdrawal of a U.S. presense in Iraq in the near ture will only slide the state more towards militia abuses or more religious control, or towards more involvement of Iran in undermining the state. Given the increasingly volatile situation with Muslim "cartoon" riots in many states, and increased friction between the Muslim and Western worlds, it is very difficult to figure the proper course of the U.S. in the Iraq region at this point, without further creating more destabilization. Some sort of a peace conference call between major Islamic and WEstern leaders would seem to be a better proposal to call for at this point, and any major changes to the military or Iraq policy very carefully constructed at this point so as not to encourage more regional destabilization of the MidEast. Some may think that Iraq is the major MidEast concern of the U.S. right now. It is not. Preventing a slow slide towards WWIII with a massive Muslim world vs. Western world conflict should be the primary concern. PROGRESSIVE VALUESPosted by PaulHooson on February 21, 2006 at 12:03 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------You can pass this around:Picture from BBC: ABRAMOFF with BUSHThis is not a "Photo-OP" picture. You'll have to scroll down to find it.This is Abramoff as a member of Bush's Presidential Transition Team in November of 2000.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/ameri ... 79.stmText from the BBC page:"Cabinet in waiting As Mr Gore pursues efforts to court public opinion, Governor Bush has been assembling his cabinet, although he has so far stopped short of calling himself president-elect. He has already set up a transitional team, headed by vice-presidential running mate Dick Cheney. And his campaign team has moved its operations from the Bush headquarters in Texas, to be closer to the centre of federal government in Washington. Mr Cheney is seeking private capital to finance the work, after what he called the "regrettable" refusal of the civil service administration to release funds. The civil service has also refused to give the keys of the transition offices to the Republican team, on the grounds that - three weeks after the vote - there is still no clear presidential winner."Posted by LL on February 21, 2006 at 12:39 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------The invasion and occupation was and continues to be a terrible crime. Until the Democrats unify and demand the IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL of all troops from Iraq and NO MORE BOMBING the Demos will be percieved as Bush's lapdogs. Get a clue, you guys! My vote will never go to any pro-war candidate. "Strategic redeployment" is simply another example of the Democratic strategy of "Wherever the neocon Republicans lead, the donkeys shall follow, braying, but following".Posted by voterDouglas on February 21, 2006 at 01:40 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Help a Liberal Democrat beat Joe Lieberman:http://www.nedlamont.com/edit by modPosted by BaronScarpia on February 21, 2006 at 02:40 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you don't like the Republican plan of War Profiteering, and politics of fear, vote for the Good Ol' Solid Democrats instead of the Good Ol' Boys Club?Posted by freeforall on February 21, 2006 at 03:08 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------I think the Iraqis have their own plan. They are going to tell us to get out and then sue for damages in the World Court.What will become of our four new "permanent" military bases? They will become the new Abu Graibe prisons where the Shiite extract their revenge on the Sunnis. What a waste of time, effort, and blood.I'm not sure if strategic redeployment will work unless we can buy an island in the Indian Ocean like the Brits have for an airstrip and permanent base. With all the outsourcing business we are throwing to the Indians, they owe us a nice real estate deal.The fundamentalist Muslims will not tolerate any Christian military presence in any Moslum country. Don't get caught up in the occupation trap the Republicans created.Let's withdrawal to a neutral corner and retool our military as a new kind of high-tech strike force that doesn't need to get bogged down in local skirmishes. And don't let the Republicans off the hook on the whole torture issue. They crossed the line with Gonzales' arguments and have issolated us from the rest of the ... it's the only way to regain our reputation and credibility. Posted by SandyH on February 21, 2006 at 06:09 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Some sort of a peace conference call between major Islamic and WEstern leaders would seem to be a better proposal to call for at this point, and any major changes to the military or Iraq policy very carefully constructed at this point so as not to encourage more regional destabilization of the MidEast.Posted by PaulHooson on February 21, 2006 at 12:03 PMThe Arab League has been offering its plan for peace in the Middle East for ages and the West has never listened to them. But asking them to host such a conference might be a real step in the right direction. Palestine must become a nation equal to Israel. Nothing less will create peace in the Middle East...or Iraq. You're right. Either we make it happen somehow, or we have WWIII.Bush has destablilzed the whole region which had been sitting on a powder keg for several generations. He lit the fuse.Posted by SandyH on February 21, 2006 at 06:18 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------What about the extreme left who want immediate withdrawl? Will they continue to give money to the DNC? I will wait to make my contribution until I see Al Gore make similar statements. Posted by brian111 on February 21, 2006 at 10:03 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------I don’t know much about this conflict and there is much information out there on it. I just have two questions.1) Were the Arab People given the opportunity to decide which government would rule the Gaza Strip and West Bank?2) Could they not decide on some form of bilateral government for all of Israel? Has this even been considered? Posted by Samuel on February 22, 2006 at 01:46 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Iraq is already escalating to the point where we can't handle it. See the news this morning? If the destruction of the holiest Sufi mosque isn't the opening round in a full-scale Iraqi civil(read holy) war, I'm gonna sure be surprised.We either need to get the flock outta Dodge or bring in a UN coalition that includes other Muslim countries to try to settle things down. (Good luck on that option as long as Bush is in charge) The third course would be a few thousand novenas to Saint Jude Thaddeus, to lobby for God's intervention. St. Jude being the patron saint of things impossible. Was control of the oil industry really worth all this? We are being governed by a bunch of sociopaths.IMPEACH BUSH!!!!Posted by Butte on February 22, 2006 at 10:57 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------See! We have plan after plan at least one a week on different issues? Why can't the Republicans see or hear this? This plan is the best I have heard of. Kerry had a great plan way early in the war in Iraq, but noone picked up on it? Why don't even some Democrats pick up on these great plans our best Officials are creating? Even other Democrats could have some input on them by making suggestions for improving the plan?Posted by freeforall on February 22, 2006 at 11:33 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------I am surprised that noone has taken up the hue and cry over Haliburton(Bush company)sold our troops in Iraq raw sewerage from the Euphrates.This is altogether too hideous. Many in my area say this war was about oil; I say it is about the U. S. Treasury, and 'W' has had fun raping it.tikicatPosted by rikicat on February 22, 2006 at 12:43 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------VoterDouglas, Have you done any investigation in favor of Democrats? We don't need Republicans giving us unity advise? I don't think they have our best interest at heart. I would like to hear some postive suggestions from our brightest and best Democrats! All I know, that all the wars entered while Democrats were in charge turned out successful. Even Vietnam that we were so afraid to withdraw turned out postive! Our Democrats could turn this Iraq war into a success if we were in charge?Posted by freeforall on February 22, 2006 at 12:45 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------I suppose every frustrated Democrat is imagining the perfect theme with which to mount the perfect campaign against the Administration. It occurs to me, given the simple fact that everything Bush has touched has turned to...well, you know...that what we are facing now is nothing more or less than a failed presidency.Posted by rpk on February 22, 2006 at 12:50 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Good For You RPK, Keep Up The Good Investigation and Deeds for Democrats! COME ON BABY LETS DO THE TWIST, LET US TWIST OUR WAY INTO THE MAJORITY IN CONGRESS AND SENATE AND TWIST OUR WAY INTO THE WHITEHOUSE IN '08?Posted by freeforall on February 22, 2006 at 02:12 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------We cannot withdraw all the troops from Iraq for two reasons:1) Politically. The Republicans will accuse us of cutting and running. (No American life is worth risking for political standing, but there is a real reason why we must leave some troops in Iraq.)2) As difficult as this may be to hear, we need to leave some troops in Iraq because they will have to act as the canary in the coal mine. For a quick-strike force to be effective, there has to be boots on the ground in order to know what is going on. One example of this may be the Sunnis need for help against death squads operating under the cover of some psuedo government agency.I hate to see yet another 20-something American lose their life over this f-bomb'ing mess in Iraq, but we can't leave completely. We have to be there in order to have any idea of how close Iraq is to falling into a full blown civil war.If we completely pull out of Iraq and set-up shop in Kuwait we will not have any idea first hand of what is going on on the ground. Sure we'll have our share of paid informants, but didn't they help get us into this mess in the first place?We need troops near major population areas so people who are being threatened or persecuted might be able to contact the American soldiers, who can then act directly or interact with the troops in Kuwait to resolve the issue.This should be a small contingent of troops. Maybe 2500 in each of the 3 major Iraqi provinces.Off on a tangent here...I would like to see some type of American presence, but preferably not with young soldiers. I would prefer to have somewhat older Americans with military experience being the boots on the ground. How we get 50+ year old Americans with military experience to go into Iraq is beyond me.Posted by mc on February 22, 2006 at 11:05 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Older Americans in Iraq? How about Bush, Cheney, their apointees, and all the Republican legislators in Washington for a start. They know everything there is to know about fighting a war and govering Iraq. If you don't believe it, ask them. ;-p Posted by Butte on February 23, 2006 at 12:05 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Butte, Thanks for lightning up the thread. I needed that.Posted by mc on February 23, 2006 at 08:23 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------« Hide Comments and TrackbacksTrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.democrats.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/594
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 82092
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:00 am

Return to February 2006

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron