Ok, here's an idea:
1. Stop doing police work with our army. They can't do it right anyway,
don't know the customs or the language, and just kill too many civilians
in the process.
2. Pull our army back into a few large bases in Iraq. It'd prevent a
power vacuum, protect the oil, and keep Iran from invading.
3. Let the Iraqi solve their own problems. We are NOT the world's police
force. So what if their civil war becomes more violent?
---
from the June 19, 2006 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0619/p01s01-uspo.html
Do Democrats need to be united on Iraq?
Their varied opinions on the war cloud message for fall.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON
Democrats are known for speaking in many voices, and the past week was
no exception: Even as the party released its plan for governance, should
it retake control of Congress in November, its lack of unity on voters'
top concern - the Iraq war - took center stage.
As expected, the House Republicans' resolution favoring staying the
course in Iraq without a timetable for withdrawal passed easily last
week, including 42 votes from Democrats. And when Democratic
congressional leaders held a press conference Friday to discuss their
"New Direction for America" platform, they faced as many questions on
Iraq - not mentioned in the plan - as on the issues that were discussed,
including healthcare, energy, and the minimum wage.
House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D) of California noted that the
party had already discussed Iraq in its "Real Security" agenda, released
in March, but then confirmed what politics-watchers already know: "We
don't even have a party position on the war. We don't ask members to do
one thing or another."
The question is, will that matter when voters select a new Congress this
fall? Will it be enough for Democrats simply to be the party out of
power - and therefore not responsible for an increasingly unpopular war
- or will they suffer politically for their inability to craft a unified
plan for Iraq?
Independent pollster John Zogby says the Democrats do have to come
together on Iraq to be effective this fall. "The war is the elephant in
the living room," he says. "The Democrats need to have a firm position."
Control of the House and Senate will be decided race by race, of course,
but the ingredients are in place for a nationalized election - the type
of midterm in which a wave of voter discontent with Congress and
President Bush could sweep out normally safe incumbents. The party's
activist, liberal wing wants a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, while
Democratic centrists - such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York -
resist the idea. Her rejection of a timetable drew scattered boos when
she spoke at the liberal Take Back America conference here in Washington
last week.
Some political analysts argue that the lack of Democratic unity on Iraq
won't hurt the party come November.
"The Democrats ... don't need a position; all you need to be is someone
who didn't do this," i.e., support the invasion of Iraq, says John
Mueller, an expert on war and public opinion at Ohio State University in
Columbus.
Professor Mueller cites history as evidence: "Eisenhower's plan to get
out of Korea was, he was going to go visit it. Nixon's plan to get out
of Vietnam was secret.... In those cases, what they did was punt. They
didn't come up with any systematic plan, and they almost certainly
benefited in both cases."
Those examples point up how much easier it is to present clear policy
choices in presidential races, where the nominee becomes the de facto
head of the party and sets the agenda. The example of 1994, when an
insurgency led by GOP backbencher Newt Gingrich put forth a clear
message and stunned the nation by ending the ruling party's control of
Congress, may be impossible to repeat - but that does not mean the
Democrats cannot retake Congress in their own way, analysts say.
Democrats argue that by holding an intraparty debate on Iraq, they are
behaving responsibly and serving the public good. "Democracy is about a
debate of ideas," said Simon Rosenberg, head of the centrist
organization NDN, speaking on FOX News Sunday. "We have fulfilled our
patriotic role here."
Mr. Rosenberg agrees with Senator Clinton that setting a timetable for
withdrawal is the wrong way to go on Iraq. John Podesta, head of the
progressive think tank Center for American Progress, also speaking on
FOX News Sunday, said he prefers a timetable that gets US forces out of
Iraq by the end of 2007.
"It would be better if the Democrats were unified around one plan, but I
think it's responsible ... that this debate take place," Mr. Podesta said.
But "seriously, unity isn't everything," he continued. "the Republicans
are unified in no change of direction, they're unified on ignoring the
facts on the ground, they're unified in no accountability.... They've
showed no sense of challenging the president as he's made mistakes, and
that will be the issue when it comes to November."
Bob Borosage, co-chair of the Campaign for America's Future, which
hosted the Take Back America conference, argues that, in a way, the
House Republicans' floor debate on the Iraq war last week created the
impression that the Democrats do have a party position on Iraq.
"The Republican position was, we're going to stay the course no matter
what," he says. "The Democratic position is clearly not that. I think
that probably in the end helps Democrats."
Mr. Borosage says the politics of Iraq boil down to a question of
character, for challengers and incumbents. "People are looking to make
sure you're taking it seriously...."
.
|
