Well, Bush can no longer say "Democrats have no plan for Iraq"...

[Human Torch]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/09/04/dem-leaders-send-bush-new_n_28676.html

Today top House and Senate Democrats wrote President Bush urging him to change his Iraq policy. The letter proposed four changes, which included a phased redeployment of US troops, disarming militias and positioning the US Military as a counter-terror force. The democratic leaders also told Bush that "to demonstrate you recognize the problems your policies have created in Iraq and elsewhere -consider changing the civilian leadership at the Defense Department."

The text of the entire letter is included below:

September 4, 2006

The President

The White House

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

Over one month ago, we wrote to you about the war in Iraq. In the face of escalating violence, increasing instability in the region, and an overall strain on our troops that has reduced their readiness to levels not seen since Vietnam, we called upon you to change course and adopt a new strategy to give our troops and the Iraqi people the best chance for success.

Although you have not responded to our letter, we surmise from your recent press conferences and speeches that you remain committed to maintaining an open-ended presence of U.S. forces in Iraq for years to come. That was the message the American people received on August 21, 2006, when you said, "we're not leaving , so long as I'm the President."

Unfortunately, your stay the course strategy is not working. In the five-week period since writing to you, over 60 U.S. soldiers and Marines have been killed, hundreds of U.S. troops have been wounded, many of them grievously, nearly 1,000 Iraqi civilians have died, and the cost to the American taxpayer has grown by another $8 billion dollars. Even the administration's most recent report to Congress on Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq indicates that security trends in Iraq are deteriorating, and likely to continue to worsen for the foreseeable future. With daily attacks against American and Iraqi troops at close to their highest levels since the start of the war, and sectarian violence intensifying, we can only conclude that our troops are caught in the middle of a low-grade civil war that is getting worse.

Meanwhile, the costs of a failed Iraq policy to our military and our security have been staggering. As you know, not a single Army non-deployed combat brigade is currently prepared to meet its wartime mission, and the Marine Corps faces equally urgent equipment and personnel shortages. Lieutenant General Blum, the National Guard Bureau Chief, has stated that the National Guard is "even further behind or in an even more dire situation than the active Army." Your recent decision to involuntarily recall thousands of Marines to active duty to serve in Iraq is but the latest confirmation of the strain this war has placed on our troops. At the same time, the focus on Iraq and the toll it has taken on our troops and on our diplomatic capabilities has diverted our attention from other national security challenges and greatly constrained our ability to deal with them.

In short, Mr. President, this current path - for our military, for the Iraqi people, and for our security - is neither working, nor making us more secure.

Therefore, we urge you once again to consider changes to your Iraq policy. We propose a new direction, which would include: (1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection; (2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year; (3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort. These proposals were outlined in our July 30th letter and are consistent with the "U.S. Policy in Iraq Act" you signed into law last year.

We also think there is one additional measure you can take immediately to demonstrate that you recognize the problems your policies have created in Iraq and elsewhere -consider changing the civilian leadership at the Defense Department. From the failure to deploy sufficient numbers of troops at the start of the war or to adequately equip them, to the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, to disbanding the Iraqi military, to the failure to plan for the post-war occupation, the Administration's mistakes have taken a toll on our troops and our security. It is unacceptable to dismiss the concerns of military personnel and their families when they are affected by the consequences of these failures, as the Secretary of Defense recently did in Alaska by suggesting that volunteers should not complain about having their deployments extended. While a change in your Iraq policy will best advance our chances for success, we do not believe the current civilian leadership at the Department of Defense is suited to implement and oversee such a change in policy.

Mr. President, staying the course in Iraq has not worked and continues to divert resources and attention from the war on terrorism that should be the nation's top security priority. We hope you will consider the recommendations for change that we have put forward. We want to work with you in finding a way forward that honors the enormous sacrifice of our troops and promotes U.S. national security interests in the region. We believe our plan will achieve those goals.

Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader
Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader
Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip
Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee
Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee
Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee
Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee

[bluestateguy]

1. It's not the Democrats responsibility to have a plan

Not until 2008 when we have a presidential election. You can't run a war or stop a war from Congress. Yes, you can apply political pressure, but Bush actually is the "decider".

[Human Torch]

2. It's not their responsibility, but it's become his selling point

It's all just Karl Rove smoke and mirrors bullshit. BUT...it "energizes the base" and sways God-knows-how-many voters, so a move like this pretty much knee-caps Junior until he can come up with another angle.

And he will, we KNOW that.

:patriot:

[gully]

23. No, but we do which is great.

eom

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. Yes it is.

The point of an opposition is to provide viable alternatives.

The Democrats need to stamp down on Bush's allegation that they don't have anything to say except "no" by saying "no, do this instead" at every opportunity.

[Pacifist Patriot]

59. I absolutely agree.

What is the point of an opposition if it does not have opposing policies to propose? Never criticize something without having an alternative in mind.

[ComerPerro]

57. Plus, before he attacks the Dems for having no plan, I'd like to see his

because, far as I can tell, the Republicans have no plan at all, rather than, "Well, lets just stay here and hope for the best"

[Jawja]

3. Excellent!

They've done something to counter the "Democrats have no plan" meme. And yes, although, the Democrats should not have to come up with a plan because this is the Bush Cabal's war, they do have to fight the "Democrats have no plan" idea that the Repugs use so successfully to the public.

[Pierre.Suave]

5. having a plan this bad...

is not good.

[kenny blankenship]

9. Unfortunately this plan is obliviously stupid and self-contradictory

but as always, it's the luxury of parties-out-of-power to propose having one's cake and eating it too, if they so wish (and think people won't catch on).

Redeploy troops="get the boys out of harm's way"
Disarm Militias="put our troops in the middle of a shooting war"
The Democrats should be laughed at for insulting everyone's intelligence, but this being DU of course their idiocy and treachery will attract instant praise and defenders.

The proposition of redeployment, ie. "Removing the troops from their visible presence in Iraq" ignores the fact that this idea has been substantially implemented, already and as far as practical, in order to stem the tide of daily KIAs which bid fair to end the Bush Presidency prematurely. Our troops are already mostly on-base outside of Iraqi towns and cities. However even so, there is a minimum deployment amongst the population, or force "profile" if you will, beyond which the occupied country and the security of the based troops in it will totally fall apart--and we are at or near that minimum profile. Rummy has been driven there against his will no doubt, by political imperatives issuing from the White House. The US military's mission has essentially been babysitting a local civil war since the political campaign season of 2004; we are no longer attempting to impose pacification across the whole country, only becoming conspicuously involved when, for example, Baghdad itself threatens to go up in flames. Now then, if you want still less exposure for our troops then you are talking about pulling everybody back inside our bases, resupplying them by air only!, never moving anything or anybody by truck outside the Green Zone or our bases--and shooting at anything that moves on the horizon. However with our troops redeployed, the various factions and players in Iraq will only feel the need for their factional militias all the more. You have to understand that many of these key people and their foot soldiers are playing out a struggle in Iraq that is over one thousand years old; you are NOT going to talk them out of their weapons. With us disengaged, Iraq will then have its decisive internal struggle during which the real shape of the new Iraq is established. Like sausage making, it won't be pretty to look at, and the result won't be something to be proud of either. If as it appears, the only thing that will satisfy Congressional Democrats is for US forces to pull back so far as to be pulled out, the question is--as it always has been--why are we even there? And indeed, why are Democrats advocating policies which assumes the rightness and salvagability of Bush's insane and criminal war? It is not salvagable! Nor is there any moral reason to wish it to be saved!

When Democrats put themselves forwards as the party that can "do what Bush does only better!", I must ask myself why should I not think that they are actually WORSE than he is? Bush is a monster-a madman. But they would do the same murder for profit only they're hypocrites about it.

[madfloridian]

15. No, it is not. You are just wrong.

It is a proper plan, and it is a good plan for the time.

You are wrong.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

17. You said : "you are immoral."

Calling me immoral is a value judgement which you should not be making.

[kenny blankenship]

27. Indeed I did.Those who endorse expedient immorality are themselves immoral

there's no reason not to believe that, allowing for the usual exception that the endorser perhaps means well but is deluded. Since politics is defined as "the art of the possible" (ie, the expedient) expediency and temporizing no strangers to anyone here--but there must be limits. I am absolutely sure that mass murder and criminal invasions of sovereign countries--crimes Bush has heaped upon us collectively and continues to heap on us--are on the wrong side of that line. They were on the wrong side in 2003, and they remain of the wrong side of that line "at this time".

I demand, and it is reasonable for everyone to demand, that the Democratic Party distance itself from these heinous acts of our government which have destroyed Iraq and plunged its people into a living hell, and which have stained the United States with premeditated murder, and mass murder. The Democratic Party has not distanced itself, but rather chosen time and again to latch itself to Bush's insane policy, as a shield against accusations of "weakness"--proving how weak and compliant they really are! I demand that the Democrats denounce Bush's Iraq deception as a violation of his oath of office and denounce Bush's acts of illegal aggression as violations of international law. Continuing his policy in any form or enabling them further by cooperation with the Bush faction is absolutely unacceptable, now or at ANY time.

The only mitigating circumstance in the case of this Democratic "plan" is that it is totally irrelevant, and the plan was most likely proposed by its authors in the full knowledge that it was an irrelevant plan, a self-contradicting placeholder for a real idea--and that the proponents of this plan would never be held responsible for implementing it coherently. They want to fashion a placeholder, a figleaf, to protect them from the charge of having no plan which will get them through the next election. In the best, most charitable interpretation of this plan's appearance, they want to avoid the controversy an honest plan would spark, thinking they can sneak into office by minimizing their differences with the GOP, while claiming to represent an alternative. Well that's ignoble, expedient, shameless temporizing, and when thousands of lives are at stake, American as well as Iraqi, it's also highly immoral. And those who applaud them for proposing this shameless raft of expediency because it looks like a politically advantageous move "at this time" are no better than immoral in my eyes.

[madfloridian]

29. So you just called me "immoral" again?

Not your place to judge my morality.

[butterfly77]

33. It doesn't matter what plan they give...

you will begin talking some BUSHIT. They wouldn't have to suggest a plan if your dumbass president hadn't fucked up in the first place! Whatever plan they give your republiCONS will take parts of it and pretend that they came up with it. This country is not just for them it belongs to us all if these stupid,hateful, evil, arrogant motherfuckers would have listened to the Dems in the first place it wouldn't be as fucked up as it is, the simple assholes are digging even deeper and making it worse!

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. But to take back power from Republicans it does indeed matter

Because part of what will help shift a few key votes from the Republican to Democratic Party is a growing perception that the Democrats know where we are, know how we got there, know where we have to get to next, and know what path to take to get us there from here. Yes, no Democratic plan for Iraq will be enacted by the Bush Government, but Democrats having a unity plan that such a broad range of our Congressional leaders signed off on supports the perception that the Democratic Party is fundamentally united and ready to lead America forward. That will help us win a few more votes and a few more seats in November, and if we win enough seats we regain the majority in one or both houses of Congress and can initiate Congressional Hearings and provide real over sight to the Bush Administration. And that is the next step that we need to take to get us out of this mess, which is why having this plan is so important.

[butterfly77]

38. I agree but some here try to find something

wrong with everything that the dems come up with,knowing that the repugs are in control of everything and are hiding what is really going on and are pretending that all id good.

[madfloridian]

34. I detest someone calling me immoral. You have no right.

I am furious that you are doing this. You have no right to judge my morality. I was called "good german" here by an old time poster several times, and it just stayed and stayed until I am quite sure some believed I was enabling Bush policies.

I will fight you on calling me that. I will call attention to it, and I will neither be called Good German or immmoral. I just won't.

[madfloridian]

35. Definition of "expedient", definition of "immoral" ...for your info.

"expediency"
"Appropriateness to the purpose at hand; fitness."
noun: "n : the quality of being suited to the end in view"

"immoral"
"adjective 1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious."

"immoral"
adj 1: violating principles of right and wrong 2: not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds" 3: morally unprincipled; "immoral behavior" 4: characterized by wickedness or immorality; "led a very bad life" 5: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered right or proper or good; "depraved criminals"; "a perverted sense of loyalty"; "the reprobate conduct of a gambling aristocrat"

I am not immoral in any sense of the word. Expediency is not bad per se, and sometimes it is necessary.

I will await your apology for calling me and so many other good Democrats those terms in a derogatory way.

[madfloridian]

39. Ok, again....stop the immoral stuff.

"Indeed I did.Those who endorse expedient immorality are themselves immoral"

I think this is outrageous for you to say that about us, about me, about others here.

[lfairban]

52. I think there is but one moral way for the Democrats to proceed.

That would be to apologize to those who opposed this war in the first place. We all know that there were plenty of Democrats that supported the president for all the wrong reasons and found it prudent to keep silent while the opposition was being shouted down.

The one thing that everybody should learn from this regrettable situation is that reasonable discourse is necessary to the preservation of a democracy that holds the rights of it citizens dear. That means that the Anti-American actions of all those who enthusiastically led this march to war should be so deeply branded into the American psyche that no one ever again considers such behavior without the fear of being considered the worst opponents of freedom.

2003 should always be remembered as the year we became ashamed of our government and lost all respect for our political opponents who found it reasonable to label us as traitors.

In short, the Republicans should know why we think they are slime.

[gully]

24. Your drawing odd conclusions.

(1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection;

(2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year;

(3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources;

(4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort. These proposals were outlined in our July 30th letter and are consistent with the "U.S. Policy in Iraq Act" you signed into law last year.

It's not a black/white issue - a transition period IS essential as is support from the international community.

[lfairban]

53. I know!

They could convene a focus group to develop a mandate that would act as guidance for a blue ribbon commission. :sarcasm:



I really doubt that you are going to come to any meaningful conclusions.

[Pierre.Suave]

4. Did Dick Cheney come up with this plan?

just asking, cause it sucks.

I have a better plan.

Step 1) jail the administration and have them held accountable for their actions.

step 2) Complete withdrawal from the middle east.

step 3) Redivert the saved funds to research and development of new energy sources.

step 4) Presecute any company that has illegally profited from the "war."

step 5) Elect NEW people to office

step 6) BAN ANY CORPORATE DONATIONS TO ANY POLITICIAN, WHETHER IT BE TO OR FROM A "PAC."

step 7) significant changes in our education system to promote creativity and the ability to think.

There are plenty more, but this is a start.

[tridim]

7. First things first

All those things are certainly important, but getting the hell out of Iraq is job one IMO.

I saw this plan presented on CNN this morning and it played very well. I was very happy to see it.

[Pierre.Suave]

8. which then begs the question...

Why is an immediate withdrawal not a part of their plan?

[madfloridian]

13. Oh, stop it.

My ears are hurting from the chorus here that comes out only when our party does something good.

[Pierre.Suave]

40. I am still waiting...

for our party to do something good.

[madfloridian]

42. Well, you are at the right place...the anti Democratic place.

And I fear it will get worse before November.

[gully]

45. If you're "waiting" why is it "our" party?

Shouldn't you find one that meets your stringent standards?

[gully]

25. Laughable.

THIS is a plan for Iraq, not our voting/educational systems.

[Pierre.Suave]

43. There is only one thing to do with Iraq

so why do we need a plan?

[gully]

44. In your simple opinion.

Do you want the women in Iraq to wear burkas in the near future? I don't, I want to have a "plan" beyond Haliburton making loads of money.

[Pierre.Suave]

46. SO, your plan involves...

staying in Iraq so women dont have to wear Burkas, and ending haliburtons contracts?

Your plan sounds like, stay a slightly different course...

Also, nowhere in my post did I say I want to continue to pay haliburton, infact I specifically stated I wanted to prosecute any company that illegally profited from this war, which in my mind, includes haliburton.

perhaps you need to retake reading comprehension.

[gully]

47. NO, *I* don't have a plan. I'm not a military expert, but many Democrats

are so MY plan is the plan that MY party has come up with, which I think is well reasoned. At this point what I have is an opinion, and my opinion is that the Democratic Plan is balanced. The lack of a Republican Plan is absurd.

Also, if you're going to smear MY reading/comprehension skills you should take note that you did not say "prosecute" you said "Presecute." I'd like to know what legal grounds you'd "Presecute" Halliburton on? Please post the law itself.

I'm taking it easy on you kid, I know you're likely young and idealistic. Either that or you're young at heart, and as such, I'll cut you some slack.

Peace

[Pierre.Suave]

48. So were down to

pointing each others obvious typos?

back to 6th grade are we?

And I will take young and idealistic over being an old fuddy duddy anyday...

[gully]

50. I do believe you started with the "grammar" crap.

This "old fuddy duddy" is done with you.

Cheers

[madfloridian]

6. Andrea Koppel on CNN today sort of was insulting.

First thing she said was that it was more of the same. She had a couple of decent things to say, but they were rendered moot because of the opening statement.

Don't you just love the media?

Now do a search democrats, iraq, plan, and see if you find anything. I just did and could not find the plan at all.

[madfloridian]

10. This is a great idea to put this plan out. Now comes the DU chorus...

Singing.....

"it's not enough."

"it's terrible"

"it's stupid"

"can't those democrats do anything right"

rinse, repeat.

The DU chorus does this very well everytime our Democrats do good things.

[alvarezadams]

11. Sure he can say it. And bet on it - he will.

Since when has the rw spin machine actually relied on facts? I'll bet the family farm that the "no plan" meme will be used ad nauseum for the next few months - and that it will be swallowed by the cogdis brigade like pablum.

[madfloridian]

12. PS, I am recommending this. I hope it makes Greatest page.

Then more people can see what our party has to fight day in and day, never quite able to please anyone.

It's a good plan, thanks for posting.

[madfloridian]

14. 2nd PS....this is how a good thread is killed everytime here...

Just keep tearing the OP apart, and people get tired of trying to defend it. And they walk away and good posts drop like a rock.

[madfloridian]

18. Let's get #5 now.

This is how our Democrats should be fighting, and I am proud of them.

I was just called immoral in this thread because I said it was a good plan for the time.

I have also been called a "good german" here at DU.

Guess it goes with the territory.

This is perfect lesson in how people drive other people away from very good threads.

[bluedog]

19. whats the GOP plan?.stay and die!!!!!!

[gulliver]

20. Sigh. I hate to see the right cause lose for lack of good Rhetoric.

Rumsfeld is not a weak point in their armor. He is bait. Why do you think they have had him out their trying to draw our fire? Same with Cheney.

Rumsfeld and Cheney should not be our targets. They are already acquired and destroyed. Rumsfeld and Cheney need to be our bunkers and weapons with which to savage Republicans. The Dem message is out of step.

I'm sorry. I hate being negative on this. Our people are good and smart, and they have spelled out a very good position here. But it is not good as political rhetoric. It is not good as tactics.

How do we use Rumsfeld's and Cheney's negatives, and contrast it with Dem success? Let the people's own thinking do our fighting for us. Use "enthymemes" and oratory to persuade the people with what they are already thinking. They are already going our way. We need to give them a target.

Example,

"Rumsfeld and Cheney got us a mess in Iraq, but it was the Republican Congress that made it possible. If you want things to go back to being a lot better, vote a straight Dem ticket this November."

This message doesn't attack Rumsfeld and Cheney as primary targets (hoping that they will fall and take the primary targets with them). The proper message (IMO, of course) assumes the listener already has a low opinion of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Iraq and aims the force of the resulting anger where we want it: at the Republican Congress. Then it suggest a solution that is a straight Dem ticket and harkens back to another unstated (but believed by most) assumption that things were better not so long ago under the Dems.

[speedoo]

21. This is the most depressing thread I have read in a long time.

Congressional dems finally unite on something crucially important, and DUers whine about it.

No wonder everything is so fucked up.

[tridim]

22. Everything is so fucked up because of BushCo,

Not the few professional disruptors on DU.

Just ignore them.

[speedoo]

28. BushCo is still in power.

Largely because Americans don't care about what their government does. Johnson and Nixon were removed from office over another illegal war, because enough Americans cared then. They were both far less evil than Bush, yet here we are.

I wish I could dismiss the "few professional disruptors on DU" but they represent to me the tragic lack of organized resistance to this corrupt governemnt.

[madfloridian]

30. I have questions about organized attacks like this.

I see an organized attack against DFA is going on at a supposedly Dem forum, or should I say one that is mostly independent. I think considering the Democrats and groups connected to them as evil is dangerous.

Yes, it is very depressing.

[StrictlyRockers]

26. Sock it to me baby! The Repukes can't govern. They have no plan.

hehe

[Triana]

31. bu$h Can't Read...

...Democrats can have all the plans they want but if dumbass can't read them....

[sknabt]

32. Sure, the Bushies can keep saying it

This is politics, dude. Who says the Bushies have to be sincere or honest in their smearing of their opponents? It hasn't stopped them before.

[MessiahRp]

41. Now if the media would REPORT on the plan...

Kerry announced plans back in 2004 and they were hushed aside as if they never existed to keep the "Democrats offer no alternatives" meme alive.

Rp

[TankLV]

49. They haven't. They won't. S.O.S.

That's the new "meme" (??).

Let's see if the media whores let our message get thru their filters...

I won't hold my breath...

[madfloridian]

51. On a search for "democratic plan, iraq" at google...nothing about the plan

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=democratic+plan,+iraq&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d

From Yahoo News:

One from the WP, and a press release from the party. That's about it.
http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=democratic+plan%2C+iraq&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8&datesort=1&fr=FP-tab-news-t-t500

[FrenchieCat]

54. There were talking about the Dem's letter on CNN Headlines.....

and they actually were reporting on it fairly.

Guess the "talking points" from the GOP has not yet been faxed to most of the New Channels.

I imagine that the media will start ignoring any Democratic Plan ASAP...once they are told what to say, and how to react.

I'll keep a lookout for any news on this! Film at 11!

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Self Delete, posted on wrong thread, but I bumped a good one! n/t

[Cha]

56. Good on the Dems...Everyone needs

to band together to get rid of the Scourge that has infested our Government.

[Pacifist Patriot]

58. Of course he can say it.

When has the legitimacy of anything coming out of his mouth been of any concern to Bush?

[eppur_se_muova]

60. "Although you have not responded to our {previous} letter..."

Doesn't EVERY letter from the Democrats to Bu**sh** include that line?

[AX10]

61. And the media (especially the Cabal "News" Nutzis) won't report...

on it.