They showed a clip of Hillary Clinton giving her “They Got Nukes” Speech on the senate floor. Now you can go google up all the stuff you want but that does not alter the fact that Hillary Rodham Clinton said on the floor of the Senate “I have seen the intell and they got nukes.” Paraphrasing here.

I like Kool aid by the way.

And secondly that still does not answer the question.

What is the Democrats plan after they make us leave Iraq?

See my post at 9:28.

I am simply asking what is the Democrats plan?

All any of you can do is google Bushs failures.

Google me the Democrats plan then.

There are think tanks out there you say pull out now(CATO) and don’t go in (2002 OxfordResearchGroup). Our MSM ignores these people for the likes of Gaffney and Perle, and these idiots hve been proven wrong.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7424

Escaping the Trap: Why the United States Must Leave Iraq

by Ted Galen Carpenter

Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of seven books on international affairs and a coauthor of Exiting Iraq: Why the U.S. Must End the Military Occupation and Renew the War against Al Qaeda (2004).

Executive Summary

The U.S. military occupation of Iraq has now lasted longer than U.S. involvement in World War II. Yet there is no end in sight to the mission.

Staying in Iraq is a fatally flawed policy that has already cost more than 3,000 American lives and consumed more than $350 billion. The security situation in that country grows increasingly chaotic and bloody as evidence mounts that Iraq has descended into a sectarian civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. Approximately 120 Iraqis per day are perishing in political violence. That bloodshed is occurring in a country of barely 26 million people. A comparable rate of carnage in the United States would produce more than 1,400 fatalities per day.

That reality is a far cry from the optimistic pronouncements the administration and its supporters made when the war began. We were supposed to be able to draw down the number of our troops to no more than 60,000 before the end of 2003, and Iraqi oil revenues were to pay for the reconstruction of the country.

Even worse, Iraq has become both a training ground and a recruiting poster for Islamic extremists. U.S. occupation of Iraq has become yet another grievance throughout the Muslim world and has exacerbated our already worrisome problem with radical Islamic terrorism.

It is time to admit that the Iraq mission has failed and cut our losses. The notion that Iraq would become a stable, united, secular democracy and be the model for a new Middle East was always an illusion. We should not ask more Americans to die for that illusion.

Withdrawal will not be without cost. Radical Islamic factions will portray a withdrawal as a victory over the American superpower. We can minimize that damage by refocusing our efforts on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but there is no way to eliminate the damage. Even superpowers have to pay a price for wrongheaded ventures.

Whatever price we will pay for withdrawing from Iraq, however, must be measured against the probable cost in blood and treasure if we stay. That cost is already excessive. We are losing soldiers at the rate of more than 800 per year, and the financial meter is running at some $8 billion per month. With President Bush’s announcement of a “surge” of 21,500 additional troops, the pace of both will increase.

Worst of all, there is no reasonable prospect of success even if we pay the additional cost in blood and treasure. We need an exit strategy that is measured in months, not years.

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/iraqbriefing.php

Iraq: Consequences of a War
Professor Paul Rogers, October 2002 Report Cover

The briefing paper, written by Professor Paul Rogers before the invasion, predicted that war with Iraq would:

* Result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
* Lead to substantial regional instability, and increased support for al-Qaida.
* Draw US troops into urban warfare in Baghdad.

Even on the ‘best-case’ outcome of regime destruction with minimal loss of life, Paul Rogers concluded that the effect of replacing Saddam Hussein with a client regime would be deeply counterproductive. He argued that a pro-American regime in Baghdad would be seen across the region as a puppet government through which the US seeks to control Iraq’s oil, currently four times the size of total US oil reserves (including Alaska).

He predicted that this would be a ‘gift’ to al-Qaida and other paramilitary groups who have longed claimed that the United States is in the Gulf solely because of the region’s oil reserves. Support for such groups would rise, with an increased risk of further paramilitary attacks on the US and other states involved in the war.

The report concluded that destroying the Iraqi regime by force was a highly dangerous venture and that alternative policies should be urgently developed.

Unfortunately, it proved to be correct.

Let me assure you that patronization will never work.

Whatever plan the Democrats have…..it will certainly be better than the republican “easy act to follow” game plan. Maybe, we will just declare that “there are no more Jihadists”.

There is no war on terror, just criminal acts and American over reaction.

Can’t hang yer excuse hat on that one can ya?!

Not necessarily. The premise here is that the Democrats are going to force us to leave Iraq.

Then I ask you simply.

Then what? Whats the plan.

Stop deflecting this to Bush. You have convinced me his plan is totally and absolutely 100 percent dead wrong (not really but thats the premise of this exercise.)

So now what. What is the democrats plan?

I agree with you. George Bush’s huge failure was in not allowing the Democrats to play an active role in this war on terror. In Iraq and Afghanistan.

This war on terror affects us all. But. You are articulating your personal point of View. I want a plan.

Lets say its march 2008 and we are no longer in Iraq.

What is the democratic leaderships plan for the war on terror. For foreign policy. What is Hillarys Plan? What is Obamas plan. What is Nancy Pelosis plan?

Here is what I heard during the 2006 campaign. A Democratic pundit said the Democrats do have a plan for the war on terror.

Okay what is it.

To attack Terrorists wherever they are and pull out of Iraq.

Arent their terrorists in Iraq.

Yes, but we illegally invaded that country.

Okay so you are proposing to attack Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon?

Yes if that is where the terrorist are.

Wouldnt that be illegally attacking a country?

Not if the UN agreed to it.

So you are going to get the UN to agree to allowing the US attack Pakistan?

Yes if you do it right.

I see.

Need I say more?

So, how ya going to stop the truk we drove off the cliff from crashing into the bottom? What’s you plan? Nothin’, ya got notin’.

And our future is in his president’s hands.

You are clueless. The democrats have no plan.

They have a strategy to take over control of this country, but they have no plan for Iraq, for terrorism for foreign policy.

You vehemently complained about no oversight of Bush because he controlled all 3 branches of government. Now you are begging, pleading, and working diligently to obtain that which you despised.

Absolute Control of the senate, house and Presidency.

And you call Republicans Hypocrites.

Im just asking a question and you guys have NO answer.

The democrats are going to make us leave. What transpires after that will be your fault.

5 years is the republicans fault. The next 2000 will be the democrats fault.

So again I ask what is your plan?

You have none. The only plan you have is to bash Bush. To scream insults to unfurl unadulterated Venom as in Shauns letter to Pearle.

Just give me one little bit of a plan. Just one Tidbit.

Anyone?

Democratic Plan- Is as it has been stated MANY MANY TIMES.

and that is….

AGREE TO GET OUT OF IRAQ BY MARCH 2008

Or no more money for your war.

Its Over

Times Up

End Game…(play now)

You Lost

Taxes going up to cover your debt mess

You have two choices; Surrender your sword or commit Hari Kari with it, (the later prefered).

lastly- Since you like to rub our nose in how tough you think you are…Don’t expect sympathy.

He is right in his assertion that US intervention has sometimes worked (Bosnia). However, he sidesteps the issue of when and how.

Intervening in the ME is always problematic, but Bush I averted disaster by stopping at the border of Iraq. He, at least, seems to have understood that upsetting the apple cart in one region of the ME can throw the entire Muslim world into chaos.

He is making excuses now and spinning dreams of ‘if only’, instead learning one single thing from the current disasterous situation.

Dick Armey originally thought the idea was crazy, but was instructed by Bush that he needed to remain loyal to the WH- he later said it was the worst vote he had ever cast.
It just is what it is-Congress should have asked the hard questions- but everyone in the country was in post 9/11 uber-patriotic mass hysteria, and defeating anyone who voted against Iraq or the Patriot Act (just ask Max Clelland) was like taking candy from a baby. A vote against it with Rove around would be political suicide.

You have hit on an aspect of this tragedy that awaits the careful analysis of a first rate historian: Confronted with the unmitigated disaster that Perle and other architects of the war created, Job One became not extricating the U.S. from the mess but lashing out at their critics. Sure, politicians and policy makers have inflated senses of self, but the arrogance of this gang is truly mind blowing.

What is doing real harm to America, however, is that those in charge of running the Iraq war think just like Nobody. Whether we leave or stay Iraqis will continue to be killed in their thousands. According to General Petraeus himself, this back in the days when he was prepared to speak openly and honestly, between 300,000 and 400,000 troops would be needed to quell the insurgency.

Don’t be fooled for a moment, Nobody, like the present administration, has no interest in saving Iraqis from slaughter. His real dread is that those who spoke out and advised against invading Iraq will be proved correct if American troops are withdrawn.

Upping US casualty rates is bad for sure, but not as bad as the left getting to say we told you so. And that, my friends, is patriotism Republican style

I have always cared more then you can imagine.

I have never claimed what we are doing in Iraq is right. I have made the case for continuing until we get it right. However the winds of the Left seem to be winning out so now Im simply asking the Question.

What is the democratic plan?

Do you know WA? No one else here seems to have a clue. If they do they are keeping it a secret from the rest of us.

ROTFL

You don’t have any choices left. You party can’t lead, it’s to stupid to cut bait, so get out of the way! No never mind, we’ll just shove you out of the way.

Want more sobs?

Nevertheless, Congress shall bear its share of the blame -especially those who continue to support the effort without a shred of conscious thought or introspection for the disasterous repercussions of their decisions. They at least should have heeded the warning signs about trying to democratize a region we were so dismally ignorant about. (and still are)

No. He wants you to blame HIM for the Mess in Mesopotamia, (others appearing in order of need shall come forth as required), not neoconism, not George W Bush and the Bush family and certainly NOT the republican party. The later being by the vote…since well….its the only thing you can do to blame anything or anyone for this awful horror and obviously that “thoughtâ€? must be diffused by any means.

Don’t count on it blockheads. After thirty years of relative peace, (Gulf war not withstanding), this horror hits us full face and the shuck’n jive hypocrisy surrounding it…..Will Not Stand.

Hundreds of Thousands have died because of republican incompetence and payday is coming. I guarantee it.