Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do you think it is important that Democrats are united behind one Democratic Plan for Iraq?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:12 PM
Original message
Poll question: Do you think it is important that Democrats are united behind one Democratic Plan for Iraq?
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 08:13 PM by Clarkie1
Why or why not?

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. So far my answer to the question is winning big time...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
21. Just goes to show
That most here don't know of the one democratic party plan.

Or that there will ever be one plan.

If you ask the question should we get out of Iraq just as soon as possible, then watch how the answers come in.

The very idea that we should play along with the bushco plan of staying in Iraq is not going to get you many affirmative responses. Or that our military should continue to play any role in the fiasco, as Clark has suggested, is not going to get you a favorable response. Try it.

Post up what you think Clark has proposed and see how many folks like it. I'd bet only a few Clarkies will rally round that idiocy, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. Not! Getting behind one plan ( Patriotic Cooperation ) has made Impeachment
a fairy tale concept ,allowed Shrub to ruin the economy ,except for the 1% and gave us the job of Policing a country under the guise of a war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I think there are some general principles Dems can agree on.
Regionally diplomacy, talking to friends as well as perceived enemies, avoiding an overreliance on the military to solve a political problem, Iraqi oil is for the Iraqis, no permanent bases in Iraq, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Oh positively ,but one plan isn't necessary to realize the same goal..
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 08:25 PM by orpupilofnature57
Peace not profit which is why it's both cool and http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/09/03_...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
36. I don't know any Democrat that disagrees on that
Many Republicans seem to as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. Though apparently not popular, I think its somewhat important.
I mean I love the fact that our people are diverse and debate, but at the same time its good to show that we can get together behind something, especially regarding war. There is a strong sense that an enemy that is not united is weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. I agree. Disorganization is a liability come election time.
Plus, a united plan is much more likely to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. d) impossible for democrats to unite behind one of anything. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
38. I disagree...
but I guess that just proved your point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monktonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
6. Also not popular....
but I think we could at least unite behind one thing.

We dont have to be ditto heads to all get behind something so important.
Geeze its a frickin war after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I am of the opinion Democrats should endorse the ISG recommendations.
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 08:35 PM by Clarkie1
But that doesn't seem to be popular around here. I think it would be a brilliant political move.

Those who want immediate withdrawl or a timetable need to understand that they can't achieve that with this administration. That doesn't mean they still can't or should not advocate for that if that is their opinion, but it seems to me the ISG recommendations are something all Democrats could endorse as something we agree would be better than the current policy.

That said, they are the ones setting the policy, not us. The most important thing is we hold them accountable; that does not require agreeing on the best hypothetical plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Bush is going to stick it to the Democrats on the ISG
this is what I heard from the author of Fiasco, a book critical of the Iraq war. He told MSNBC that Bush was going to ask for more troops for a big push in Iraq, and that if the Dems refused to support him, he would blame the Dems for "losing Iraq."

Not even the generals in the Pentagon want more troops, they know it is futile!

I will point out that the GOP has a long track record of accusing people of their own FUBAR policies. Who lost "Korea" or "China" or "Vietnam"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Because it's Getting behind something so important ,instead of Examining
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 09:17 PM by orpupilofnature57
something so important and obviously STUPID , got us in Iraq instead of Shrub Impeached in his first term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
9. I though the President was suppose to come up with the plan.
He's the prezz, isn't he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. He's Ted Knight's grandson in 'Caddy Shack'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
13. The only plan that counts is the one that will bring all the troops home ASAP
We can't afford 2 more years of this war. It is obscene!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. What does ASAP mean to you?
As soon as physically/mechanistically possible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. As soon as it is logistically possible to do so... leaving all the equipment behind
much of which is in dire need of repair anyway.

Or we could wait a little longer and then watch our troops having to fight their way out of the country.

I rather they leave now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. Well, that's not going to happen for at least two years.
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 09:52 PM by Clarkie1
If it does happen that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. We will be evacuating the Green Zone by chopper before the end of 2007
The political issue of 2008 will be who lost the Middle East to anarchy and chaos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
16. VERY important.
because this quagmire is going to be dropped right into our lap in January. We need to TCB, ASAP. Appear competent and confident, and maybe some hearts and minds will follow. If we come into this with our fingers ready to point at each other, all we'll be doing is inhereting the GOP's burden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
17. I reject your premise. We ARE united behind one plan.
Exit.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. What does that mean?
Immediate exit?

No permanent bases?

What?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Let me spell it out for you...
E-X-I-T. Exit. As in "not endless occupation." The rest is detail. But we do all agree on the objective.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. O.K., then that would mean no permanent bases or other military presence. nt
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 09:49 PM by Clarkie1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
20. getting the policy right is what's important ...
there's not much virtue in a unity that prolongs the madness in Iraq ... it will serve neither the political aspirations of Democrats nor the best interests of this country nor the best interests of the Iraqi people if Democrats remain "unified" (or relatively unified) behind a "we can still fix this mess" program ...

even in getting the policy right, it is not necessary that all Democrats are onboard ... there should be no political punishment from the voters for a party open enough to welcome a spectrum of views ...

in the end, it's getting the policy right that's important ... truthfully, there hasn't been much of that ... Democrats seem so fearful about "imagined political consequences" that i don't believe most them feel free to step away from the pack and lead the country in a new direction ... we've seen one or two republicans "get out of line" recently; it would be nice to see a convert or two from our side ...

so, my answer to the question is fundamentally "no" ... unity is not necessary and the relatively unified position we're seeing today is not just bad politics (it appears too "defensive" and "reactive") but a poor policy call as well ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Unfortunately for the next two years it's the administration that needs to "get the policy right"
If only it were up to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. well, yes ... and no ...
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 09:58 PM by welshTerrier2
bush may ultimately be able to retain control of US Iraq policy but that shouldn't let the Democrats off the hook ...

frankly, i don't hear too many people speaking out about the Democrats' solid vision and clear-headed leadership on Iraq ... what i do hear is bush broke it and this is his baby ...

thus far, most prominent Democrats have been unwilling to advance a clear and bold new vision on Iraq ... i think the American people would respond very favorably if someone did ... we're all sick and tired of this war and i think most Americans see the Democrats as fundamentally refusing to get in bush's face ...

in the end, i think that it's not just the administration that needs to get the policy right; it's the Democrats too ... on my scorecard right now, i have bush at minus 100 and the Democrats at zero ... that's just not good enough ... Democrats, whether they have ultimate power or not, have an obligation to lead and to offer a better vision than they have thus far ... it's not just about outcomes but is also about leadership and education and values ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. But Democrats are not going to agree on a specific policy.
Whether it's Kerry's Plan, Kucinich's Plan, Lieberman's Plan (wait, never mind that's Bush's "plan"), or anybody else's plan. There are, however, things we can agree....more diplomacy, no permanent bases, etc.

I think Americans would appreciate Democrats suppoting the ISG reccomendations. I think that is something we can all agree at least is a step in the right direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. the ISG? no thanks ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #23
37. But you know who will be blamed for future failures, dontcha?
You guessed it! The DEMOCRATIC Congress and Senate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
27. It depends on the plan...
If it's the Lieberman plan, the hell with it. If it's Murtha's/Kerry's/Feingold's plan, yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
28. I think once we have a nominee, it'd help for other Democrats in the public eye
to support, or perhaps defend, or at least not loudly criticize, his/her policy.

Kerry's Iraq plan wasn't identical to everybody else's, but other Democrats were able to discuss it, support him as our hoped-for new Commander in Chief, and explain his views fairly even if their own differed somewhat.

Until then, I think a range of ideas and debate are a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
30. not important....
....the only plan I'd like Dems to be united on is the plan to resist joining bushco in Iraq under any circumstance and to get our troops out Now!....

....if we get associated with the failed, fascist Republican war in Iraq, we'll politically own it too....

....now if for some reason our fearless Dem leadership is considering joining or is drifting towards joining bushco, let them do it sooner rather than later....

....for I'll have to make other arrangements for '08....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
31. No.
Firstly, it's not our war. We didn't break it, we are not in charge of it, and we don't own it. Secondly, I'm not sure there even is a solution at this point. We need debate and discussion more than we need to unite behind a probably unworkable plan. The soonest we would take over responsibility for Iraq is two years from now, and God only knows what things will look like by then. We need to maintain a flexibility that unifying behind a single plan would not provide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
34. There is no one plan anyone can agree upon...
not even the Repubs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
35. This is not possible
There is no plan that all Democrats will agree on unless something is written that is so vague and amorphorous that it is useless except as a slogan.

Consider that even Kerry and Clark, who respect each other and do agree on much, do NOT agree and the difference is on a point that each feels is key.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 16th 2014, 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC