How can the Democrats come together over Iraq?

[bklyncowgirl]

The Democrats released their "New Direction" plan and sadly, there was not a word in it about the most pressing real issue facing Americans today. That omission has not gone unnoticed.

I am afraid that the Democrats are going to blow another one. By failing to develop a consensus on the war, they are going to allow themselves to be painted as weak willed, mealy mouthed cowards who are divided between conniving collaborators and cut and run antiwar activists. Unfortunately there's more than a little truth to this idea gives it legs.

The Democrats have to come out with some sort of resolution on Iraq that most Democrats can agree on or at least live with and is understandable and palatable to the American people.

How to do that when it seems that people on all sides of the issue have dug themselves into trenches and refuse to budge is the question? I don't have the answer but it seems to me that if they fail to confront this issue that once again they will lose even though the country is eager for change.

[NewJeffCT]

1. We don't have a consensus on DU

about the war. There is the immediate withdrawal crowd, then the Murtha re-deployment plan, and then a strict timetable a la Feingold...

[Catchawave]

4. I like the Murtha plan

Which would certainly test the theory about our military occupation fueling the insurgency. I'm clueless as to why Bush won't buy it :shrug:

[NewJeffCT]

7. my tinfoil hat theory

They want to run our military into the ground, so they can use a mass amount of mercenaries in the future that are not bound by military law and are much less subject to Congressional oversight. (I refuse to call them "contractors" or "security contractors")

Their excuse will be, "the War on Terror requires new thinking and a new strategy where we are just as ruthless as the terrorists. The US military is good in a stand up war, but not the assymetrical warfare of the future." Or, something like that.

:tinfoilhat:

[Catchawave]

14. Not a bad theory :)

I think our military is over there to protect Halliburton's interests :tinfoilhat:

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/logcap.html

[cynatnite]

2. Dems are pretty well united against the war and calling it a mistake...

with the exception of a few.

It's the getting out they don't agree on. The repubs are banking on the 'staying the course' slogan.

[HardRocker05]

13. Dems: Stay the course while we criticize the course endlessly. This in

itself is a problem and gives voters the unmistakeable message that dems are weak, can't make up their mind, continue to try to have it both ways, and are unable to take a stand on the most pressing issue facing america. Who the heck is going to vote for that?

[bklyncowgirl]

15. Salvage the situation should be the Democrats talking point

Whether you agreed with the war to begin with the truth is that because of the Bush administrations incompetence, arrogance and corruption that America is headed for defeat unless we change the course.

Most Americans want to get out of this war with a situation in Iraq that is reasonably stable and that leaves some of our national honor intact.

The Bush administration has showed that it is unable or unwilling to change.

I believe that it is within the capability of the Democrats to come up with a plan to salvage the situation--and salvage is what it would be. If they can somehow agree on a few key points they can do this.

[pooja]

3. Republicans can't even decide

but their leader asshole says stay the course and they have to stay the course, even though at home in their own state they may have to tone it down.

War is a funny thing. I think that we have made such a mess over there that if we do leave, then what will be left.... but I think we need to pull back and become defender of the civilians and leave the offensive to the Iraqi govt and its enforcement. They need to begin taking over the role of quieting the country.

[still_one]

5. they won't

in fact the
"so-called" democratic advisors do not even want to bring Iraq up until after the elctions

[mmonk]

6. Because some democrats in power think

political calculation trumps the truth. While sometimes, political caluculation is necessary, some of that calculation involves dishonesty and some of it involves supporting a destructive foreign policy that will end (or already has) the US postion in the world as a leader.

[Donkeykick]

8. Oh Boy!

This is going to be a hard one. I agree but disagree with you too. You see we (democrats) didn't totally dictate this wars in and outs--the GOP did. Now unfortunately when and if we take 06 + 08 that quagmire is ours; and then guess what? You got it--we're going to have to clean our children's room for them!

When Dubya wanted to get into this thing--of which we found out that we didn't need to get involved with anyway--he at least started to do the right thing about wanting a major collective support; he didn't get it so he went in and scattered the enemy and is now assuming a temporary, vacillating stranglehold on Iraq. No matter when we leave, the enemy will be able to take control quite easily upon exit. I guess that Dubya should have listened to all those Generals instructing him about restructure, huh.

My only hope is that the World's leaders will be able to see that they will not be dealing with Dubya when a democrat takes control in 08, and the world will jump on to the bandwagon and assist us in cleaning Dubya's mess for him.

So either way you look at this, we're (citizens of the USA) not going to have a magic wand solution to this problem where Dubya should have listened to all those Generals to begin with. No matter who gets this problem handed to them in 08, they are going to find no short term solution to it.

[kentuck]

9. No.

Democrats are never united on the "war" issue. It is a loser for the Dems and the Repubs know it. Americans will not support an anti-war Party. That's what the Repubs want the poeple to think of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately.

[Donkeykick]

11. It has gone beyond that.

Most Americans, although quite patriotic, are still getting weary of this Iraqi debacle, and they want someone to at least start coming up with a real solution to this. Lets face it--we can't live there.

[cali]

10. By uniting under the 'change the course' banner

Yes, it means different things to different people, but I think it would strike a chord with the electorate. Staying the course is a dangerous mantra for repukes. We can box them in with this frame, and we should.

[bklyncowgirl]

12. That's a good slogan. Here's a few ideas

Change the course:

This war was a mistake. Democrats who voted for it made a mistake in trusting in the judgement and competence of the Bush admistration. (Now was that so hard?)

Call for Rumsfeld to be fired and replaced by someone with war fighting experience.

Call for a focus on the broader war on terror and the need for international cooperation to do it--make it about Bin Laden and his network of terror.

Say that the incompetence and overreaching of the Bush administration has left us with no good alternatives in Iraq.

Counter "Cut & Run" with "Stay & Bleed"

Call for a plan for VICTORY.

Come up with a plan with both benchmarks for Iraqi success and target dates for American troops to withdraw. Better yet--if we can't get together on the details--repeatedly call for Bush & to come up with one. WE CANNOT JUST STAY & BLEED.

Democrats are doing this already. What they should do is get some unity on the way they express these things. Is there really so much difference between say the Kerry, Feingold and Murtha plans and can't conservative's worries about adhering to a timeline for withdrawal if things don't go well be dealt with.