Pelosi on Iraq: We broke it; we have to fix it

It is clear, even to many bush supporters, that our current policy in Iraq cannot succeed. The number of troops we have there cannot bring about a "stable" Iraq ...

Kerry, Pelosi and others have argued that more troops are needed, be they American, NATO or otherwise.

A group called "Win Without War" states that we must:

Set a Date for the Withdrawal of Our Soldiers. Win Without War is calling for a "date certain" for withdrawing all American troops from Iraq and an end to the military occupation of Iraq. In a newly released statement, Win Without War states that "there is no military solution in Iraq."

The left is being put in a most uncomfortable position on this issue ... exported American militarism, against the will of the U.N. and the broader global community, can only weaken the U.S. and prolong the hatred among Islam nations toward the U.S. ... our troops are dying; innocent Iraqi citizens are dying ... we are swelling the ranks of Al Qaeda ...

still, we must win back the White House ... and so, I quietly go along to get along ...

the bottom line is that there will be civil war in Iraq and no U.S. policy can change that ... what is the vision we're being sold? if we stay long enough, we can stabilize Iraq until the Iraqis themselves can achieve what we currently cannot achieve??? the presence of our military is making Iraq less stable, not more stable ... the ranks of insurgents are growing on a daily basis because the U.S. is occupying Iraq ... adding more troops may "lock down" Iraq in the short run; but it can only lead to even less long term stability there ...

so for now, I continue to support a candidate who is publicly espousing a policy that makes no sense ... my support for Kerry will not change ... I can only hope that he finds a politically viable way to recognize the realities we are facing in Iraq ...

there is no real military solution which remotely envolves us. It will have to be an Iraqi solution if that is possible. Military bases and presence there just keeps the violence going.

adversarial attitude toward her. Tim demonizes Democrats while patting Republicans on the head. He stinks.

The main reason to think that Kerry is going to do better than Bush in Iraq, either in stabilizing it or in knowing when to say "when" is that Kerry is smarter, or more to the point, this administration is clueless. I doubt there has ever been anyone stupider or more self-delusional running a super power than the people who are now running the US. The problem comes in when Democrats are asked to articulate their solution to this very volatile problem. It doesn't seem enough to just say, "We won't be stupid.", but it's the real answer, along with "The whole world hates Bush." The fact is that Bush has created an untenable situation in Iraq and the next administration probably has to do something to correct the course.

I don't see how Kerry can realistically state exactly what that's going to be too far ahead of time, which is a real problem. He can't issue a five point plan, because if elected he won't take office until next year. Those points can be shot to hell by then. I don't think he does favor total and immediate withdrawal, but even if he did it would be seriously irresponsible to state that now. What I am sure of is no matter where he stands personally, and I'm not going to try to read his mind, he's keenly aware that a continuation of what's going on now will not be tolerated either by his constituency or the opposition.

I have made very similar arguments myself ...

The right and their media puppets love to say that there is virtually no difference between Kerry's position and bush's ... Russert even read a snippet from a NY Times column that gave details of both plans to show how similar they are ...

But raw competence, as you've so articulately pointed out, cannot be ignored ... nor can bush's alienation of the U.N. and the broader global community ...

after criticizing "old Europe", cutting those who disagreed with him out of economic opportunities in Iraq (the real reason we went there), ignoring the U.N. vote, ignoring the intelligence on WMD's provided by Blix and the IAEA and on and on, external definitions of policies and plans is no longer the issue ...

bush is the problem ... he has no credibility with other nations from which he now seeks assistance ... what plans he now offers becomes meaningless ... he will not be able to implement any plan he proposes ...

i continue to have both hope and faith that Kerry will do the right thing in Iraq ... still, it's disturbing that he is squeezed between pragmatic politics and pragmatic policy ... i find statements of buidling up troop strengths in Iraq to be most disquieting ...

during the olympics in Athens Greece?

There is no way of knowing at this point what the situation will look like in January of 05. It is, to say the least, mercurial and changing every day. Unfortunately, IMO, from the outset it was clear that the situation would eventually devolve into either another strong-man regime or an Islamic theocracy. The best possible outcome would be an Islamic Republic but that is only an outside chance.

Right now, with the changes taking place, Kerry would be foolish to write any plan in stone. It will all depend upon how badly these Bush nitwits and their Dr. Strangelove staff, fuck it up between now and 1/05.

solution. He takes action for veterans. He is not just a lip service guy. Bush reports in the media how he cares for service people while under the radar he cuts their pay, benefits, and veteran benefits too. Kerry at least has a heart.

So far he seems determined to "find a solution" to continuing the occupation of Iraq in some form or other, keeping the U.S. military bases there, building the monster embassy, and so on. Why can't he acknowledge that the problem includes the invasion and occupation themselves, and any "solution" must invlolve an end to the occupation and an end to U.S. colonial designs on Iraq? He doesn't have to outline a plan for ending the occupation-- as others have pointed out, the situation is too fluid to propose any specific plan this far in advance-- but he needs to articulate his objectives as including cessation of the occupation as soon as possible.

on edit: not to threadjack-- although my reply was to a specific response, one need only substitute "Pelosi" for "Kerry" to make that reply relevant to the original post. Dem leadership is incredibly tangled up on the issue of Iraq and seems completely unable to articulate a clear opposition. This weakness is going to gut the Party-- it panders to the centrists and independents who have little real loyalty to the party, while outraging the left, who would be fiercely loyal to a strong progressive opposition party. Pelosi should know better.

first, not to worry about threadjacking ... the base post discussed not just Pelosi but Kerry as well ...

now, having said that, i do not agree that this issue is going to "gut" the party ... nor do i agree that Kerry's Iraq position is "outraging" the left ... nor do i agree that centrists have "little real loyalty to the party" ...

i consider myself to be very far to the left ... and as I stated, I am totally behind Kerry ... bush has got to go and that's that ... i do not think Iraq, or any other position Kerry has taken, whether i agree with him or strongly disagree with him, will change my support for him ... i don't like his called for more troops in Iraq, but he has to do what he has to do ...

your view that Iraq is tearing the party apart does not seem correct to me ... the Democrats haven't been this unified for 30 years or more ...

what we will face in 1/05 is not yet known. It is silly to write in stone an ideological plan when the situation in Iraq is changing every day. The more rational approach, rather than ideology, is to focus on what we want to leave in Iraq ... what outcome we desire. Then deal with reality as it exists when we get there, some 7 months in the future.

means, you say you're sorry for your mistake, you hand the owner an agreed upon sum of money, and you get the hell out of the store before you do further damage.

unfortunately, Pelosi still believes there is a military solution ...

she's not calling only for reparations; she's calling for more troops ...

who are doing the calling for more troops, send their kids, grandchildren, cousins, and whoever else, including themselves, over to Iraq.

those who applaud the troops and speak of their great sacrifices but will not go and will not send their own to be among that number ...

Memorial Day is a day for remembering the hypocrisy of those who hold the levers of power ...

that those in DC and high places, go first since they are the ones calling for more troops. Plus, those who don't want to go do not do well in the military. It's time for the people to wake up and do as they do in other countries, get on the streets immediately. Has anyone noticed the other countries hitting the streets immediateley when something happens instead of planning whatever a couple weeks, months down the road.

we'll have no chance of getting them to protest ...

you have to walk before you can run ...

But you certainly don't sit on the floor, busting up the shards with a hammer. Lil George is apparently hoping that by atomizing what's left of Iraq, the particles will randomly form themselves into a workable nation.

on the issue of iraq.
what kerry will do -- even with increased numbers of american troops -- is significantly internationalize the effort to stabilize iraq.
kerry fully expects to see a larger central european presense on the ground working with iraqis to improve the security position there.
the problem is -- can even greater international participation help with the growing threat bush has created with this invasion?
can greater international participation make the iraqis feel differently about their immediate future?
iraq may not just pose a threat to the u.s. but possibly to western sociaty at large.

why should anyone go die for you stupid politicians?

n/t