Can't there be another strategy?

[mediaman007]

Our Democratic leaders must be slow. How can they not challenge Bush* and Cheney's mishandling of the terrorists. They've let B/C* define the Republican strategy as the only choice.

Its as if Bush* and Cheney control all of our assets and if they are voted out, the military will quit, the generals will go home, satellites will crash, the military/industrial complex will shut down, and the CIA and FBI will retire. This is B.S.

The Democratic leaders have been unable to bring any kind of discussion about our country's assets. The military, the FBI, the CIA and the arms manufacturers will not shut down. The Democrats have to challenge the leadership and convince the public that all of our nation's defensive assets will still function.

Just isn't it possible, that there are more ways to deal with terrorism than send the Bush/Cheney regime into a china shop?

Sorry, but I can't understand why the leadership isn't being challenged. Maybe the guys who mishandled "Katrina" have done the same thing with our military, the FBI and CIA for five years.

[Generator]

1. Maybe the Dems

aren't really an opposition party. Just a thought.

[mediaman007]

2. They have certainly allowed Bush*/Cheney/Rove to control the debate!

[bryant69]

4. Just a thought. Hmmmmm

Not a thought worth much consideration, though. Along the same lines as "Maybe the Dems are brain eatiing zombies. Just a thought."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Totallybushed]

3. You have a good point.

It's not very useful to be *against* the Bush, or any other policy, for whatever reasons, moral, legal, practical, or otherwise, unless you can articulate a clear and effective alternative. It's no good to say, "We'll do it better", unless you can state HOW you will do it better.

This the Democratic leadership has failed to do, at least I haven't a clue what their plan is. It should be so easy. Clearly the Bush policies have failed. The world is is far worse shape than it was before 9/11. More people have died from terrorism than previously. But how will we make it better? Obviously, the American military wasn't invading Muslim lands prior to 9/11 so that wasn't the cause. How do we stop terrorism?

When the Democrats can answer that question, and answer it all together (another problem for the Dems), then they will retake the White HOuse for a well-deserved stint at the levers of power. Hopefully before too much damage is done by The Republicans.

[lgn19087]

5. What are your suggestions nt

nm

[Totallybushed]

7. Well, I could make a number of them

ranging from "get out now" to "bomb the bastards back to Hell", and everything in between.

However, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm not a leader of the Democraic party. While I have an opinion, of course, it's not relevant to the discussion.

What is relevant is that a specific response be decided upon, and articulated, by the Democratic Party, as a whole. And that they then sell that response to, first the base of the Dem party, and then the American people, showing how and why it is better than the current asministration policy.

It will take considerable doing, but I see no reason why it can't be done. No doubt, not everybody will be happy with the proposed solution, but most reasonable people can be persuaded to a reasonable alternative, I believe.

[lgn19087]

8. Well I'd like to hear some of them

The Democratic party certainly needs direction and a "plan". However, I don't really know of a good plan for them to take. What are some actionabale, realistic suggestions for policies that could be implemented?

[Totallybushed]

9. All right.

I don't know how feasible this is, but I know the administration doesn't like the idea, so it can't be all bad ;-)

I think Iraq should be broken up. Let each go their separate way. This would cut down tremendously on the sectarian violence, and we wouldn't have to be using troops to stop it.

Then withdraw. To satisfy the war-mongers do it with a stern warning that planning of terrorism in the future (I'm not saying terrorism was occurring in Iraq to begin with) would be dealt with severely.

Trying to hold Iraq together is a losing proposition for any one, not just the USA, without mass murder like Saddam is now on trial for. Let them go and assume responsibility for their own lives.

Now, I realize that this idea has a lot of faults. Is it worse than the current Bushco policies? Maybe, maybe not. But it is a specific proposal that I think would be better. I'm willing to listen to whatever the Dem leadership thinks is best, and so are the American people.

But it has to be specific. That's my point. Do you have any specific proposals, yourself?

[lgn19087]

10. Honestly, no

and I think thats a large part of the problem we're having. On this site, for instance, there are a thousand posts ridiculing Bush, but very very very few of them contain any practicable suggestions whatsoever. I simply don't have enough background in that region of the world to make a quality assessment. My only two ideas are similar to yours- 1. just cut it up, pull most of the troops out except for maybe a small rapid reaction force to maintain some sort of presence in the country or 2. simply let the different factions battle it out. The kurds are selfsufficient in the North. Why not just pull back into the bases and let the battle it out? It would be costly and bloody, but maybe at the end there will be a loser and a winner.

[Totallybushed]

12. Now I'll play devil's advocate

on my own idea. What about the moral dimension? We went in there and tore the place apart, don't we need to stay and put it back together again. Or at least pay substantial reparations. Should we just stand by as people murder each other?

You can maybe see where I am going with this. Any policy is going to have some positive effects and some negative effects. How do you balance them out? Which is the best policy? Maybe Bush's policy is the best one, after all. (I don't really believe this, but play along).

What I'm trying to say is that Bush, for all his faults and the deficiencies of his policy, at least has one. The Democrats don't, as far as I can tell. Maybe this is a RW talking point, or something, but it nevertheless remains true: You cannot fight something with nothing.

As the election gets closer, the Rs will point this out continually. It's a hole in the Dem campaign that is going to need to be plugged. IMO.

[lgn19087]

13. Great points, all

And far too many on this site are unwilling to point out this glaring weakness. Hopefully it's something that can be solved---I fear it is not.

[Totallybushed]

6. delete, response to wrong post.

.

[IChing]

11. How about getting some NDP commericals on the air now?

Pointing out why this election is important? So many issues that could be put out.