Dems' exit plans are now dead - what should they do now???

[welshTerrier2]

Today's passage of the Frist-Warner substitute for the Democrats' Plan for Iraq marked an important milestone in the debate on the war ... While I did not at all agree with the Democrats' plan because it failed to end the war in a timely manner, it nevertheless was far better than the republican plan ...

the Democrats proposed LINKING "troop redeployment" (they can't even call it "withdrawal") with the achievement of certain benchmarks such as the number of Iraqi troops that are trained ... the vote in the Senate rejected this idea of LINKAGE ... Senate republicans easily defeated the Democratic proposal ... instead, we are left with little more than a request from the Senate for bush to report on the progress of the war once every quarter ... there is no mention of any plan for troop withdrawal; there is no mention about a speedier end to the war ...

i have remained fairly quiet about Kerry's plan since he introduced it in the Senate ... i had all kinds of objections, and a few positives, but figured i would just let it run its course ...

i strongly support immediate withdrawal ... the problem i had with Kerry's plan, even beyond the timeframe issue however, was that i saw it as a "diluted compromise" between immediate withdrawal and "stay the course" ... what i mean by "diluted compromise" was that i did not see any chance of political support for his plan ...

i see two forces being the dominant players on Iraq ... even if there's merit to what i see as the "middle of the road" approach, i.e. the compromise approach, i never believed it was politically viable ... so again, there are two forces in play on the war; not three ... one force, bush and the republicans, will sing and tap dance and market their madness ... they will never voluntarily leave Iraq ...

the other "force", whatever its current strength is or is not, is the anti-war movement ... and it is a movement ... i see a country that grows increasingly disgusted with this war everyday ... i think it's building into a huge tidal wave ... Democrats cannot force the republicans to do anything on the war inside the halls of Congress; they just don't have the votes ... but they do have the American people and the political risks the republicans face next year if this war continues ...

what has happened today with the rejection of the "let's give it another year" approach was inevitable ... all of the congeniality and collegiality between Levin and Warner doesn't change the "what is" ... the reality is that if Democrats want this war to end before another 2000 Americans die in Iraq, it is time to call for immediate withdrawal ... as i've said before, "sensible centrism" on this issue is DOA ... maybe the US should not be as polarized as it is and there should be room for middle ground arguments like Kerry's and Levin's ... but that is just not the real world ...

to build Party unity, to support the calls from the American people for an exit from Iraq ASAP and to put an end to the madness and the continued loss of life it will bring, it's time for the Democratic Party to call for immediate or near-term withdrawal from Iraq ... we should get our troops out of there as quickly as we safely can ...

what do you think Democrats should do now regarding Iraq ???

[aquart]

1. Out NOW.

We're never going to achieve "benchmarks."

[blm]

2. I don't think so. Even Tom Hayden said the plan is most doable to get both

left and right support and in good conscience.

The problem I believe is that too many Dems sat on their hands waiting for some groundswell on the plan, but media wouldn't allow it to happen.

There are also too many Dems looking to make impressions as "national security Dems" and had no intention of supporting Kerry's withdrawal plan no matter how appealing it is.

[TayTay]

3. We can't do a single thing about this.

We are not the majority in power at the moment. There is no consistent anti-war movement that is visible. There is strong sentiment on the part of the American people, but there is no movement abroad in the land to translate that opinion into action.

We have to wait until the mid-terms next year. The Democrats can keep pushing the envelope. (Today was a milestone, but it was not the end.)

What do you realistically think the Dems can do without even so much as the power to hold hearings with subpoena power? I don't get it.

[PATRICK]

6. I agree

and to keep pushing the envelope with Dems when they go in the right direction means we should help them get results from these tactics too.

Remaining sour on past performance and whatever we can justly critique in
their present move is not going to change the present powerless situation. The footdraggers in the party need to be fired along as much as keeping the feet of the GOP to the fire. It is not as if a pure immediate troop withdrawal is a real option. If the people want it let them whet their appetite more and more. They'll remember GOP recalcitrance not the initial weak conditions of the Dem initiative. They'll remember the GOP turning tail on the issue, not the Dems lacking unity on the details the GOP can't deal with.

Tee crazy war and crazier political war can join and separate at any time. Let's keep the latter hot and the killing war on termination notice.

[SledDriver]

4. Republicans want another Vietnam

That's the only explanation that makes sense.
They want 50,000 + more young men and women brought home in body bags.

[Not Sure]

10. I agree...

but it's not necessarily body bags they're looking for. They want helicopters and airplanes and humvees and bradleys and missles destroyed. That way they can be replaced at a substantial profit for their buddies. They want our kids to be there forever, making sure nothing disrupts the flow of money out of Iraq and into their pockets. Just substitute "Halliburton" or "ExxonMobil" for "Bell Helicopter" and "Iraq" for "Vietnam" and draw your own connections.

This is the first of the land grab wars to get control of oil. Instead of saying "to hell with oil!" and coming up with a real answer, they'd rather screw as many people as possible for as much money as possible. "Strike while the iron is hot" and if it's not hot, turn up the heat.

This is not a war. Sure, it looks like one. There are soldiers shooting guns and people are dying. This is an occupation, a lockdown of a nation for the express purpose of stealing its resources. It's more like a bank robbery where the criminals hold everyone at gunpoint telling them "don't move!" "keep your hands where I can see them!" and "this will be over soon." Only the bank is much bigger, opening and emptying the vault takes years and the getaway car is a supertanker and a stock portfolio.

These people must be stopped or this will be the first one of these "wars" the people at the bottom of the economic pyramid have to fight for the people at the top.

[second edition]

5. No one here wants to hear this, but the time for a phased out

withdraw is coming. Repubs are hoping that the current atmosphere about the war will dissipate and they are taking a wait and see attitude while at the same time playing lip service to the demands of the public. I do not think people are going to stand for more of "stay the course". The Dem's have proposed a better plan and it was defeated for the time being. The Repubs have "won this battle, but not the war".

[Imagevision]

7. Say what you will -- Kennedy makes a lot of sense to me -- what's Obama's

take on all this?

[electropop]

8. Develop an exit plan for Bush, Cheney, Frist, DeLay, Hastert...

With them out of the way, we can start repairing screwup such as Iraq.

[Lexingtonian]

9. In practice, does it matter?

A major subset of Republicans (the moderates) has IMHO as criterion for success or failure the creation of "freedom and democracy" in Iraq. That's essentially a matter of the constitution just (supposedly) ratified becoming accepted and lived by by all the major players. In whatever humble but serious a way.

I'm not quite sure what it will take in the way of events, but I'd say the success isn't there but the failure isn't evident yet either. It's a matter of months at this point.

Hardline Republicans see Iraq merely as a contest of wills at this point. What demoralizes them is their own side caving.

The reality is that it doesn't really matter what Democrats say or do until the day the Republican moderates are fully convinced of failure in Iraq and hardliners are not. In my opinion. But on that day it begins to matter.

I think arguing all these measures whose point is merely to keep the other side on the defensive isn't worth a lot of investment. Our side should do it, of course. The real question is what to propose when Democrats' opinions are decisive.

IMHO it's more productive to keep peeling Democratic Senators who voted Yes on the IWR over to rejecting it as a mistake. And it's productive to reach a consensus about what is right to do with/in Iraq. I say a 2/3 withdrawal, completely so from Baghdad and central Iraq and letting the bogus 'government' fail. This will result in civil war breaking out; the remaining 1/3 of American troops should operate "safe haven" zones for civilians. The UN then takes over security/protection in the country as one side prevails.

[Donna Zen]

11. The republican war-mongers

will probably have some back-door agreements that apply the Dem. plan. The reason it was turned down was to deny the Dems. credit. The pubs are getting very nervous that the war will get them the election boot.

Either way, the plan hinges on events on the ground, and bush is absolutely incapable of making the moves to make this move. Our current position must be to continue the pressure.

I wish I could say more, but I've got to get on the road.

[Mass]

12. The first thing should have been not to vote for the Warner amendment

Not sure why all but 4 dems voted for that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. The Iraq elections are coming really soon

Realistically no further, more radical, moves are politically viable until some reasonable amount of time after the new Iraq government is formed. Not viable for Republicans, not viable for Democrats.

We can all make fairly sound predictions about the chaos that is likely to erupt in the wake of those elections, but it is impossible to abstractly negate the possibility of a more positive outcome. I don't see either National Party doing anything very dramatic now on the eve of the scheduled election of Iraq's new government. They will need to give whatever new government that emerges at least a month or two to set forth it's own priorities without the United States seeming to act first just when they are attempting to assert their own legitimacy. Of course if a new Iraq government quickly calls for U.S. withdrawal, forget what I just wrote, but I don't expect that is what will happen.

If the new government wants to appeal to nationalistic sentiments, it might take the lead in asking for some plan for U.S. withdrawal. Or it might be so weak and unable to exist on its own that it will negotiate behind the scenes with Bush and then ask the United States to withdraw what ever amount of troops that Bush wanted to withdraw anyway in order to preserve some Republican chances for the 2006 elections. American troop withdrawals will be announced by Bush and American troop levels will come down late Summer at the latest. First to be withdrawn sooner, however, will be the extra troops Bush sent to Iraq this summer in order to provide additional security in the run up to the Iraq elections. Many Americans will lose sight of the fact that these actually were extra troops sent in this year, it will look like the start of a U.S. withdrawal.

We are literally in the shadow of the Iraq elections now, Congressional Democrats will not position themselves at this point in a way that make will make it seem that they have no hope whatsoever that the outcome of those elections might not be at least somewhat promising. Nor will they say anything that could be seen as undermining those Elections. They will be in a much stronger position after a new Iraq government is seated and the after effects of that election begin to emerge. This is the end of the road for the Bush plan, the last major mile post to Democracy for Bush to trumpet as a turning point. There are no more scheduled rabbits for Bush to pull out of the hat. National Democrats will wait for this card to be played, and I think that is what they need to do under the circumstances considering the timing.

They staked out a position today and Iraq will be an issue for 2006.