Are Congressional Democrats determined to force a cut and run strategy in Iraq?
815227
I am curious about another aspect of the "phased" redeployment plan before Iraq is stable. \n\nWhat is this going to mean in respect to the safety of our troops on the ground in Iraq when we start pulling some out before the country is secure? It seems pretty obvious that as we start redeploying these troops out of Iraq that the ones that are still there will become more vulnerable to attacks from insurgents. If so, then do those that are temporarilly left behind in Iraq become more expendable? We have heard non-stop how losing 3000 servicemen and women falls directly on the shoulders of our President. If our troops become more vulnerable because of the "phased" redeployment, how can that be justified? How can we avoid putting our men and women greater risk?\n\n I see Democrats making dots but I just don't see the Democrats connecting the dots in regards to the situation in Iraq. Their logic seems contradictory if you ask me. \n\nI agree with you, we need a new direction but making rash statements and decisions isn't the way to accomplish this.
924188
I think Nancy Pelosi has some great leadership skills and will help set  a direction for the Democrats. I am and Independent who dislikes both parties but voted for Democrats this time as it is a time for a change. Whether it will be positive remains to be seen. I have not heard of a specific direction and program agenda that they have. I do hope for the sake of the nation both parties can get us headed in the right direction. Enough of the scare tactics by Bush regarding national security. Lets actually see what can be done here not abroad to make use safer. I don't care whether Iraq stands up as a democracy or goes down the toilet. They will tear each other up based upon 2000 years of violent history and sectarian violence. Typical third world mentality. We should not abandon them but we do need to start withdrawing.
942621
Good question. I think so, unless Bush is too stubborn. He has his own study group now to get a competing view. And, you know how Bush's advisors tend to give him the answers he wants. \n\n"Bush Initiates Iraq Policy Review Separate From Baker Group's"\nhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111401095.html\n\nand there's a Pentagon review as well\nhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/11/world/middleeast/11pentagon.html
724816
You must think the liberals and democrats are fools they know you can't  remove the troops immediately but I'M sure they would try to change the down road policy of Rumsfeld and try something else my own opinion is get rid of Rumsfeld and put in someone who knows the region and the people and let him try to get the different fractions together where there talking to each other and maybe it will stop some of the violence. You have to remember even if they win some seats It probably will not control the congress or senate so it will probably be status quo and still Rumsfeld policy.
848012
There isnt any.\n\nIf you want to pay higher taxes vote Democrat\n\nIf you want to pull out of Iraq and make Iraq a haven for terrorism and basically hand it over to Iran and show America as weak vote Democrat\n\nIf you want a party that wants to reduce the size and effectiveness of our military vote Democrat\n\nIf you want leaders you do not understand the real threat of terrorism vote Democrat\n\nIf you want a country run like the city of San Fransisco vote Democrat\n\nand on and on
798235
That is a trick question!\n\nThe democrats don't have a plan
782584
that's a good question....Bush Sr. was criticized for cutting and running by the democrats and now they want Jr. too do the same...damned if ya do damned if ya don't politics
300179
I believe the Democrats will pick up 10 or so congressional seats and 1-2 senate seats.  Republicans will still control Congress but the Senate will be deadlocked 50 -50 making it difficult for Republicans to push their agenda through. Watch for all Republicans to distance themselves from the President who will go from lame duck to dead duck. Republicans will start harping on Iraq and Democrats will try to take the lead on fighting terrorism and the economy and will be criticizing Republicans for a record deficit, high oil prices, poor Iraqi and Iran policies, and corruption. The Presidential hopefuls will all be trying to balance themselves On the fence --- in other words, politics as usual
838719
Yes. An exit strategy. It will go something like this. We give Iraq a time-line to get their government "in gear" and running, telling them it's their responsibility to get the violence under control. A year passes, nothing changes. Now the onus is on them instead of us. We give them a few more months and tell them if no changes, we start withdrawing our troops. Nothing changes, still uncontrolled violence everywhere. Around April of 08 we start pulling our troops out, and then both parties can place the blame on Iraq for not gaining control of their own country, dismissing any part they had in starting the cause of the violence.
746083
is democrats plan sooo bad that they won't even campain on it?
797167
First, the reason you haven't heard one way or the other about a set democratic  plan is because it has been the strategy of the democrats to sit back and let Bush hang his party... so far this has worked. After all, they are not in control of any of the 3 branches of gov. so really, what can they do right now?\n\nAs far as a plan after they regain some authority, this is what I have heard:\n- For some reason, Bush didn't want nor ask for much international support in Iraq. I have a theory as to why he wanted to unilaterally control it but that is not an issue atm. Point is that democrats plan to begin to rebuild international support and try to bring in other nations for assistance in Iraq to get the burdern off of us solely and to get it resolved.\n- Howard Dean on PBS said today that the democratic party plans to target outsourcing in order to at least freeze the flux of jobs going overseas at an enormous rate. \n- He also mentioned healthcare stating that under Bush the number of insured has increased from 45 million to 48 million then stated they plan to work on that as a priority.\n- He also mentioned they plan to repeal the tax cuts for the rich that Bush awarded BUT, and this got my attention because I had not heard this, they intend on a NEW TAX CUT for the middle class.\n\nThose are a few things I recall off the top of my head. Hope that helps.
1068906
The Democrats are quick to criticize - but have nothing to offer in their defense.  They complain and criticize - but don't provide an alternative answer as to what they think will make things right,  John Kerry introduce an initiative to get our troops out of Iraq by the end of this year - Only 13 people - including Kerry voted for this measure.  As the saying goes, they need to think out of the box and come up with a reasonable solution - otherwise they can forget about retaking congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008.
757009
Its funny, I read an article that said around seventy percent of Americans do not believe the Dems have any plan for Iraq, which is funny because they were voted in simply to punish the Reps on their plans in Iraq.  I love how the libs now rejoice over Pelosi, like she is some war hardened general destined to fix Iraq in the first 100 hours.  She is a San Fran lunatic that yanks funding for the ROTC because it doesn't incorporate gays, and people think she's going to fix Iraq?  Her priorities are outrageous!  Ah well, the Dems wont do anything but gridlock, they don't have the 2/3rd majority to enact the war powers act, so really they have VERY little control over Iraq.  Sorry for the rant
831893
Draft is a dirty word the liberals like to float and try to get their way. You see, after watching the hearings, all I can say is that if the democrats push and get us pulling out without full completion, then we better be ready for the payback. they like to blame all the insurgent and infighting on our actions and by being there. \n\nThey only think of pull out, cut and run and if we do that, we will, within about a year or less, begin to have attacks on our streets, and of course, that gives the liberals ammunition to say " Bush did it", when it was their policy all along.\n\nWe cant let Congress or opinion polls run the war on terror like we did Viet Nam. Over 54000 people died cause we had on and off bombing of the north, and a bunch of fat head politicians trying to run the show from DC.\n\n\nEvery war we have ever fought, has left troops in a foreign country. Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Korea and Japan, so why not Iraq as a normal tour of duty??\n\nBut before we do anything, lets give the military and the people there a fighting chance to be democratic and have freedoms like we enjoy. We already got rid of the dictator and killer they had running the show.\n\nGive the leaders the tools, get in there, do the job, then get out.
806938
I think I understand what your asking.  Now that Democrats have control of congress and if the next election is successful for them.. what will happen?  I don't know that answer, but hopefully the next two years will have brought Iraq the independence it needs to govern and protect itself form the insurgents.  So that if we do pull out more aggressively all of this wont have been for nothing.
886784
Bush has finally recognized that to "stay the course" is not a good strategy. Hatred begets hatred. Bigotry begets bigotry. Killing begets killing. Rush Limbaugh is living proof that people will follow evil wherever it goes. \nWe are NOT in Iraq to bring democracy to that country. We are there for three - and only three - reasons:\n1. The Bush family has had a personal vendetta against Hussein ever since the days of Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was criticized for not "finishing the job" and ousting Saddam back then;\n2. The huge U.S. military-industrial complex needs to boost sagging profits, therefore needed another 'war'. Ever since WWII, industrialists realized how profitable war could be, and bought up every politician, hired pricey lobbyists, and formed special interest groups to encourage and promote 'war'. Thus, the U.S.A. was involved in the Korean Conflict; the Cuban Missile Crisis; the Cold War; Vietnam; and Desert Storm. It was time for another major 'war' so that the military-industrial 'fat cats' could get fatter;\n3. Dick Cheney wants all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands so that he and his Exxon-Mobil buddies can get richer and richer and richer as they feed American motorists' dependency on foreign OIL. If we wouldn't drive $60,000 gas-guzzling SUVs, we wouldn't have to share the blame for killing 655,000 Iraqis and 2,800 U.S. soldiers with George W. Bush.\n\nQUESTION: If we're really expecting to withdraw from Iraq any time soon (Bush says 2009), WHY is the U.S.A. building the largest embassy in the world on a 104-acre site in downtown Baghdad overlooking the 'new' puppet Iraqi government installed by the Bush administration?\n\nQUESTION: If we are really interested in bringing democracy to all the dictatorships ruled by evil despots, WHY aren't we sending troops to Darfus and all the other countries reigned by these cretins??? Because those other countries have no OIL!!\nSo, we allow the genocide, rapes, and murders to continue unabated, because the U.S. has no interests to protect.\n\nPREDICTION: Before spring, 2007, Bush handlers will order him to invade Iran (if they can come up with a plausible excuse that ditto heads will 'buy') for the very same reason we're in Iraq: rich fields of easily-accessible OIL.\n\nPREDICTION: If it appears that a Democratic landslide in imminent in November, 2008, the Bush handlers will fake one more 'terrorist attack' on U.S. soil (this time in the Midwest, perhaps Chicago or St. Louis). Then they'll order Bush to declare martial law, claiming that a change in administration would not be in the best interests of national security. This gives Republicans time to groom Jeb Bush for the Presidency.\n\nRepublicans don't care how many tortured, injured or dead bodies there are; they've already been responsible for the deaths of 655,000 Iraqis and 2,800 U.S. soldiers. Until they can suck every drop of OIL out of Iraq's sands, Republicans won't give a damn about the body count. What's more important: OIL money or human lives???  Even Donald Rumsfeld said, early on in the 'war', when asked about civilian casualties: "STUFF HAPPENS!" Such a smug, insensitive remark only demonstrates how calloused this administration is, and how it has absolutely no remorse for all the dead bodies it's piled up.\nThe 'Republicrats' will create enough gridlock in the next two years that NOTHING will be accomplished (except a bunch of adults behaving like spoiled, rotten children). Meanwhile, the killing will continue and we American motorists will continue to drive gas-guzzling vehicles fueled by the blood of Iraqi citizens and American soldiers.                                        -RKO-
143274
I think your "question" is more of an editorial than a question, but here is my cynical prediction:  Iraq is not Bush's highest priority--Republican Party power is far and away his highest priority.  If the American voters don't perceive progress in Iraq by midsummer 2006 and Karl Rove's ultra-sophisticated polling detects it's hurting Republicans in the November elections, a pull-out will begin.  Before the election there will be small but massively publicized pull-outs, and the "liberal" press will cover them heroically, like Americans coming home from World War II.  Some major troop reductions will be announced for late 2006 and 2007, and there will likely be a freeze on rotations, like no units that have done a tour in Iraq will be sent back.  All this will be orchestrated around the election for maximum news coverage.  After the election I wouldn't be surprised if the pull-out schedule is delayed.