Yikes ... is everyone but the DNC talking withdrawal ???

the Captain's been thrown overboard and the first mate's been knocked unconscious ... the good ship Democrat may be heading for the rocks ... somebody over there at DNC HQ better wake up in a hurry ... this isn't my usual rant about the insanity of continuing military operations in Iraq ... this is about politics ...

the DNC, at least according to their website, continues to highlight the "we can't just pull out" meme ... perhaps it's just the leftovers from the election ... if so, it needs updating ... does the DNC think they can go back to sleep until 2006 ???

so now, Congressman Coble (R-NC), a close bush advisor, is calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Congressman Leach (R-IA) seems likely to join him ... without a doubt, these are trial balloons being floated ... regardless of bush's original intent in invading Iraq, like establishing a military foothold in the region to control the oil, the current situation has deteriorated so badly and the military efforts have been such a visibly obvious failure, the republicans may very well be considering a "declare victory and leave" strategy ...

even if they wanted to stay, they may very soon be confronted with what's called the "Phillipine option" ... the main idea of this is that the new Iraqi government after the election may very well tell the U.S. to get the hell out ... so perhaps the republicans are planning a more politically viable exit ... they will cite bush's great courage in standing up to Saddam and toppling him ... they will cite how we were able to bring free elections to the people of Iraq ... and they will blame the Iraqis for failing to "stand up for themselves" after all the excellent training they received from America's brave men and women ...

and the Democrats ??? will the DNC take to the streets to argue for continuing the fight against the "insurgents" ??? the Democrats will be left with no cards to play ... their failure to stand as an opposition party will make them totally irrelevant as bush hordes all the credit on one of the major issues facing our country, facing Iraq and facing the rest of the world ... as we peek into DNC headquarters, it's clear the lights are out and nobody's home ...

don't think republican supported withdrawal is a possibility ??

read this (subscription required to the NY Times):

Hot Topic: How U.S. Might Disengage in Iraq

<snip>

But the president's optimism is in sharp contrast, some administration insiders say, to some conversations in the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon and Congress. For the first time, there are questions about whether it is politically possible to wait until the Iraqi forces are adequately trained before pressure to start bringing back American troops becomes overwhelming. Some senators are now openly declaring that Iraqi military and police units are not up to the job.

<snip>

In classified strategy sessions, other administration officials say they are asking whether the sheer size of the American force, now 150,000 troops, is fueling the insurgency.

By last fall, the Pentagon had drafted contingency plans to begin reducing the American presence in Iraq as early as July 2005. But senior military officers say no one's picking a date now, and that any withdrawal depends on what happens after the elections, the security situation in Iraq, and the ability of Iraqi forces to secure the country.

One possibility quietly discussed inside the administration is whether the new Iraqi government might ask the United States forces to begin to leave - what one senior State Department official calls "the Philippine option," a reference to when the Philippines asked American forces to pull out a decade ago.

Few officials will talk publicly about that possibility. But in a speech on Oct. 8, Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, who had just completed a tour as commander of all marines in Iraq, said, "I believe there will be elections in Iraq in January, and I suspect very shortly afterward you will start to see a reduction in U.S. forces - not because U.S. planners will seek it, rather because the Iraqis will demand it."

<snip>

i was dying for a major discussion on this ... what could be more critical than analyzing the political implications of this major policy issue ... tough to compete with the popular name calling threads ...

sheesh ...

i'll bet if i changed the headline to "Moderates Suck" or "Kerry's a jackass" there would be tons of responses ... unbelievable ...

there are few things Democrats should be considering more than this right now ... and we just go merrily along getting closer and closer to the shoreline ... unbelievable ...

anyway, thanks for the feedback ...

I got an "action alert" e-mail from the DNC the other day. I sent them an e-mail back basically telling them to shove it and that I need to see some action out of them before they ask me to volunteer for them again. IMO, they ought to beg the Republicans and "Undecided Voters" to do the party's work for free because those two groups seem to be the only groups the democratic party focuses on anymore.

They (meaning most of them, but not all) are so intimidated by the Republican machine that they have become paralyzed by the fear. They have ignored their loyal followers and alienated people like me because they are so obsessed with appearing bi-partisan and cordial to the Republicans. I've been defending their behavior for years because I know the Republicans are formidable opponents but it's almost becoming pathetic and just...sad.

But what's even more sad to me are the implications of our representatives standing idly by, ignoring our pleas for action, and watching while this administration has their fun toying with our economy and the environment, sending our children into unnecessary war, feeding the hatred that could result in future attacks on us, threatening the constitutional rights of many people, and so much more.

Fighting against the policies of this administration is "the good fight", it's the right fight. If there was EVER a time for the Dems to take off their gloves and give it their all, it is now. But they just constantly let me down by their inaction and whimpiness

I'm writing all this to preface my comment to your OP. Which is basically that I don't have even the smallest amount of hope or expectation that the democratic leaders will do anything to jump in and do what we think they should do where Iraq is concerned. I would honestly be happy to see you or anyone else post a reply that contrasts with my opinion. Hopefully I'm just being cynical.

you're killing me here ... i want so badly to give you the big pep talk ... i hear your sense of hopelessness and want to fire you up to get involved ...

but you're right that we have not been very successful ... and it's hard to see much of a response from those who represent us ...

still, "keep on keeping on" is all we can do ... if it's any consolation, the little spark i cling to is that we are all still committed to our cause and we have a very energized base ... there really is a groundswell from the grassroots right now ... no one has "just gone home to lick their wounds" ... we're angry ... we're increasingly organized ... we're still in the game ... the game isn't over until we give up and walk off the field ...

clearly we have a long uphill battle ... but there are still signs of life ... and hope ... being cynical is really OK ... you read the news and make your own assessments ... but cynicism is not OK when it's used to justify inaction ... nothing lasts forever ...

DK had. . .


dp

this was a very interesting exercise ... i've never argued the "political side" of this issue before ... i'm opposed to the military madness in Iraq for all sorts of reasons that should always come before the political considerations ...

but that doesn't mean the political considerations should be ignored ...

i wonder if the Democratic Party has boxed itself into a corner here ... the "sales pitch" will be very easy for bush to make if he withdraws ... i'm not sure the Democrats "can get there from here" ...

wouldn't it be comforting to know that someone over at the DNC is developing a political strategy on Iraq as we speak ... don't count on it ...

Bush the lesser will get no pity :nopity: from anyone on the left as his whole world comes a tumbling down starting with Iraq. He won't get his Social Security reforms either. His party is starting to see the foolishness of their inept "leader" and they are rebelling.

Ha!

i hope you're right but i'm not so sure i agree ... i think most
Americans want out at this point ... i'm afraid the credit will go to whoever brings that about ...

the sales pitch is: got rid of Saddam, disrupted Al Qaeda operations in Iraq (many Americans still believe this is where the 9/11 terrorists were operating from), brought about free elections, brought our troops home safely because a prolonged war would have been an undue hardship on military families, returned billions to the Treasury to help reduce the budget, and did all we possibly could to train the Iraqis to take care of themselves ... in addition to all that, bush will call for massive humanitarian aid ... what a guy ...

maybe it won't sell ... who knows ... but it's clear the Democratic Party does not have a "sales pitch" of its own ... at best, they come out of this without losing anymore ground ... i don't see how this becomes a win ...

Bush'll pull out because his gov't puppets will demand that we do, right after the "elections." That's one option I'm sure he's taken the utmost care to preserve, should he need it.

Dubya knows that Poppy's big mistake was ending his war too far from the presidential election. Now that he's drawn maximum benefit, he can ditch Iraq before it becomes too big a liability. Then in 2006, he'll start sounding the klaxons over the Iranian Threat.

If, in fact, it is okay with Halliburton that we pull out before they get the maximum benefit from their "contract."

The pukes can't win without a war going on. Cowboy should push for that bad old communist China and its friend North Korea. Bad China. Antidemocratic and all. Killing children in Tianamen Square with big tanks. Oh, and the source of our cheap labor, I forgot.


:evilgrin:

i just don't see that happening ... probably not N. Korea either ...

the American people are fed up with war ... i think it would be very tough to sell right now ...

sooooo, about a year before the 2008 election, just as the Democrats are trying to form their primary field, we start hearing bad news from Iran ... those nasty fundamentalists are trying to infiltrate Iraq ... they have nukes and refuse to cooperate with the U.N. ... and those towel-headed clerics are probably in cahoots with Al Qaeda ...

"we could be facing another terrorist attack at any time ..."

this is what worked for bush ... there's no way in hell they won't setup the same structures next time ... but to start a new war now is very politically risky ... Americans are really tired of it ... the "make America safe" argument needs to be refueled ...

time to shut down operations for awhile ... but they'll be back when it serves them ... i've got 2007 in the pool ... and i'm sure they can smell the Iranian oil fields all the way from Washington ...

I thought most politically active people realize that selfinflicted damage is the most lethal kind. And that being loud or claiming righteousness doesn't constitute action or leadership. Happily, people inside the DNC have some grasp of that.

That being said, the stuff presently being 'discussed' has been obvious since last summer. Bush scheduling elections with no hope of the civilian security existing in Iraq for anything resembling an equitable election was _understood_ to mean cut-and-run was being prepared for.
As a matter of fact, there was an Israeli assessment leaked in the fall of 2003 that said Americans had already lost the war politically, lost all support of the Iraqi people, and military efforts could only drag out the inevitable defeated withdrawal. That was a sober and accurate assessment, and it had a predecessor in the Pentagon Papers showing the U.S. had likewise politically lost Vietnam by 1966.

As the opposition Democrats only pay a penalty for changing their stance on some issue, such as Iraq, if the stance is based in sanctimony and arrogance. Every time you demand that the Democratic Party behave with sanctimony and arrogance, as you unwittingly do here, you help the Republicans. Every time you demand that the Democratic Party behave with humility and circumspection, and the wisdom not to lunge at the obvious but make it do the work for us by itself, you help our cause.

The last time I checked we had a monkey in the White House and a guy named Terry and his remoras running our "strategy".

Clean house. Get Dean in there. Stop playing geographical mix and match. The truth is there. Dean seems to be one of the only ones that will say it.

"I thought most politically active people realize that self-inflicted damage is the most lethal kind."

oh, i just love that line ... you probably expect me to disagree with it ... i don't ... in fact, that was the whole point of my post ... self-inflicted damage is exactly what the Democratic Party's "leadership team" is doing to the Party ...

you think you've provided some great insight that it's been known for a very long time that bush's Iraq policy could never succeed ... many believed this long before the fall of 2003 and the Israeli assessment you referenced ...

and then you chose to label a post designed to call attention to the very obvious "non-strategy" of the Party as "sanctimony and arrogance" ... well, that's great ... your problem, and you do have a problem, is that you conflate the genuine desire to help the Party by waking it the fuck up with helping the republicans ... do you really believe that when bush "cuts and runs" the Democrats will come out on top ??? if they have a case to make, they should be laying the groundwork now ... i hear nothing ... their website still shows the same tired old policy of "internationalizing" the military solution ... is that what the Party plans to proudly tout when bush starts his withdrawal marketing campaign?

and this little gem you offered was beautiful: "As the opposition Democrats only pay a penalty for changing their stance on some issue, such as Iraq, if the stance is based in sanctimony and arrogance."

did you even read my post? top level military people and key administration advisors are providing REAL INFORMATION, not "sanctimony and arrogance", that the policy is failing ... and you advise Democrats to do what? ... to stay the course ??? to rigidly adhere to a policy that the American people clearly see is catastrophic? that's your sage counsel? no, god forbid, we should choose the best path for the country ... god forbid that path coincides with what Americans want ... nope, wouldn't want to be, what was the term you used, "lunging" about changing course ... what you confuse with arrogance is anger ... i hate the dehumanizing destruction of Iraq that the Party still condones ... is it arrogant to cite the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqis? is it arrogant to believe the U.S. military presence is making things much worse for the Iraqi people?

you want "sanctimony and arrogance", read this and then tell me what the Democratic Party has to offer to the guy who wrote this article ... here's the link: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0107-34.htm

you say the Democratic Party displays "humility" ... hah ... how about admitting they've been dead wrong about condoning continued military operations in Iraq ??? admitting you've made a mistake when the facts are so obvious is humility ... staying the course so that they aren't seen as "lunging" is immoral ... and as for "circumspection", feel free to drop me a line sometime when the Democratic Party stops "circumspecting" and starts fighting for a policy that reflects the facts ...

So, it seems.

The media will not report what happens in Iraq and the middle east after that. Dems will argue and say we should stay in and we'll seal our loss in 2006. The Repubs gain nothing by staying in. They aren't concerned about stability, only about winning.

Bin Laden gets to claim a victory, "He drove the US out of Iraq!"

Bush gets to claim a victory, "He secured democracy in Iraq."

GOP gets to claim a victory, "We won the WH and senate seats."

and we lose an issue that the rank and file were on the right side of from the beginning.

thanks for that brilliant leadership, DLC.

and will be held no matter what, IMO. Yes, Bush is going to claim victory.

When the media asks, "Has Iraq become a democracy, Mr. President?" He'll respond, "They voted in a free and fair election. That's democracy in my book." /smirk

When the media asks, "What will you tell the American people about the 1500 soldiers who have died, Mr. President?"
"Those brave men and women gave their lived in service to their country. They removed a brutal dictator from power and peace is blossoming in the Middle East. Thank you very much!" (exit stage right)