The Iraq question for 2004: "How the hell do we get out of Iraq?"

[Junkdrawer]

What happened to the Niger Uranium Lie issue? Well, it's kind of like the Gulf of Tonkin issue in Vietnam: it's kind of interesting and a scandal and all, but when troops are being shot and/or killed almost every day a bigger question looms. So we will inevitably leave behind the “Why the hell did we invade Iraq” question and move on to the "How the hell do we get out of Iraq?" question.

BTW: What was our exit strategy? Unconditional surrender? OK, we won. Now, what?

[Brian Sweat]

1. Withdrawal has always been a sticky situation.

That is why it is always important to look for all of the exits before entering a potentially hazardous area.

This is one of the real failures of congress and the media. They should have insisted on an exit strategy before going along with Bush's war.

[Jacobin]

2. Until we admit why we are REALLY there, the exit strategy will be

in controversy.

We are there to steal their oil. Accordingly, just check out the decline curves geologists publish for these wells and you can see when we will be out, from the repuke side.

Organizing a democracy? A fantasy. The Dems who are silly or deluded enough to bite into that one will i suppose want to leave when they are debating in town hall meetings using Roberts Rules of Order (translation: never).

So, I would disagree that the debate over why we are there is over.

[Junkdrawer]

5. I think we're there to control the oil, but I won't quibble...

But I also think we'll never get a straight answer on the whys from this administration. Politically, it is probably better to focus on the "how do we get out" issue. Let BushCo try to defend staying in a meat grinder while we offer practical ways to get our troops home.

[PurityOfEssence]

3. Simple. 1) remove all oil; 2) leave

don't give 'em any ideas, though...

[jpgray]

4. We had no exit strategy. Why else provision for four US bases?

Seriously, all the Democrats need to get behind UN leadership of any Iraqi reconstruction. The best case would have Arab countries contributing forces for peacekeeping. Egypt and Syria have helped out before, and if we give up on occupation and a permanent US presence, they may help again.

In any case, it would bring most troops back right away without abandoning Iraq, and we wouldn't have the bullseye of "imperialist occupier" on each US soldier. Once that happens, the rest can return. The US should NOT take a leadership role in recontruction, the UN should. It's the only way Iraq's future will be remotely legitimate.

[keek]

6. #1 Kick the Shrub's behind back to TX in '04

#2 Elect Gov. Dean who will work to repair our broken reputation with our allies and eventually get UN peacekeeping forces in, which will include people from all over the world including other Muslims. AND, we start a massive movement to rapidly develop renewable energy technologies and make us less dependant upon Iraq's oil, which should be controlled by the Iraqis and the oil money it gets should go directly to rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq so that the US doesn't have to flip the bill.

Then, maybe Bush's vision for Iraq might actually become reality, however it will never happen under his watch.

[damnraddem]

7. That's the topic my local peace group is debating this month.

My position: Pull the U.S. troops out, ask the UN to send in peacekeepers, and have the U.S. fund this UN task. We made the mess, so we need to pay to clean it up; but we cannot trust Dubya's thugs to clean it up. The UN has the expertise. They should be in charge.

[Junkdrawer]

8. I think more and more Democratic candidates will be going...

to your position after the August break. That is unless there's a new terror attack.....

[Junkdrawer]

9. Kick

:kick: