I heard the Democratic stratagist speak on the news today and I was wondering?

Question

Hillary Conner or something like that, no not Hillary Clinton, but the Democratic Strategist. I have suspected for quite some time that the Democrats are pushing so hard for a troop withdrawal before 2008 so that Bush's plan will fail. She said that they were trying to have Bush set a timeline for withdrawal for later this year or early 2008 by cutting of funds. She also said, when pressed, that after the troop withdrawal the Dems had plans for a “US security force” to stay behind? What would this accomplish? I think that their legislative and publicity moves are to make sure that the Republicans look as bad as possible for the elections. If Bush’s plan works, won’t it mean another 4 years of Republicans controlling the Executive branch? I know that I’m going to get a bunch of wacko answers but for anybody that has something intelligent to contribute; Democrat or Republican, I’d like to hear it. Did anybody else catch this?

Henry: I don't agree with using the lives of soldiers but you have a very honest answer; I appreciate it.

Itrix, you missed the question completely; I'm not blaming anybody.

Pretty good answers so far from those who gave it some thought. I'm fairly up to date and am not enamored with the way things are going on either side. I was just wondering if, because they have no other plan and leaving a security force would be paramount to a suicide mission (I think), that all of this hoopla is just about making sure the 08 comes and goes with no progress in Iraq. I wish somebody else would have seen it. I was actually shocked with the answers Ms. Conner gave.

Answer 1

The democrats have already failed.....our troops! They have tried to undermined everything that our government has tried to do. If they want us to withdraw, then they should have the stones to vote to stop the funding. Otherwise, shut the hell up.

Answer 2

I may not have heard the same statement, but I understand your question. The Democratic party is not acting the way they do in a vacuum. They actually were very successful in the recent election because a majority of people want troops out of Iraq and believe that this Admin. has bungled the whole thing. If the President's party lost power, it is because of his and their lack of connection to the people.

I disagree also with your premise that if we are successful enough to leave Iraq within 2 years that the President will be considered more highly...What will we have won in Iraq...there has been little purpose and it is obvious that if any success is found, it will be the Iraqis that finally did it not us.

Answer 3

The democrats are trying their darnest to not look like the republicans and failing miserably. No matter what anyone says, this congress is not going to do a heck of a lot on the "iraq" subject. Bush clearly has final say in what happens in Iraq, for better or for worse. They are making the Republicans look bad because that is the only thing they really can do at this point. They don't have the votes to impeach, and they can't override a veto. All they are playing for is the next election cycle. Which I think is total BS because our nation really doesn't have the time to wait around for the 2008 elections, we need solutions.

@ Jake, you are right, the dems should of been speaking out on this gun control issue, and they are not. I personally think gun control is long overdue in America, we have the laxest gun control laws and incidentally, the most gun-related deaths for any industrialized nation, both per capita and in pure numbers. I think if the democrats talked this issue up, they could actually gain some voters.

Answer 4

Bush's plan already failed. why are you blaming democrats? That makes no sense. They haven't been in power nor have they made any decisions until January 2007. The GOP ran the government and the war up until then. Please stop this nonsense. That war was a losing battle before the first troop set foot in Iraq. Bush Sr. knew it and so did alot of Americans on the left. Bush doesn't give a crap about what the American people or the rest of the world thinks. He's a rogue president and needs a thumping. bush's plan isn't going to work. It's obvious you know nothing about what is actually going on in IRaq politics. Please do your research before you post.
BTW, the dems won't have to do much to win the elections in 2008. Most reasonable and intelligent Americans know who got us into the war, the GOP and Bush. But apparently that message brought to you by the Nov. 2006 elections was missed by the cons on the board.

EDIT: I read your posting very well and got the point spot on. You said " I have suspected for quite some time that the Democrats are pushing so hard for a troop withdrawal before 2008 so that Bush's plan will fail. She said that they were trying to have Bush set a timeline for withdrawal for later this year or early 2008 by cutting of funds."
That sounds pretty accusatorial if you ask me.

Answer 5

1. Democrats want the war to fail.

2. Democrats do not want the war to be an issue in 2008 because their candidates do not have the spine to deal with it. See what Clinton did in ignoring the problem for 8 years. War hurts their poll numbers.

3. Democrats want to take the White House because the next president will determine the make up of the Court. At least 2 judges will come up (Stevens and Ginsberg).

Answer 6

President Bush's plan has already failed. The US public was manipulated into a situation based on falsifications and the over-emotional reactions of many members of the populace. The contending of political parties can be constructively good but personal attacks limit their credibility and feed the media sensation motivations that again prey on emotionalism. Debating the issues is the constructive way for politics and politicians to maintain ethics and morality in government issues and elections

Answer 7

Get in line, this has been obvious from the start, and the sick thing is that while the democrats say they support our troops they are slowly strangling them with disinformation and funding cuts.

Harry Reid said yesterday that the war in Iraq has been lost, this while we still have combat forces in country. These people are all about themselves and they have no plan other than to try to take control of the country.

It's despicable.

Answer 8

Bush's plan failed in 2003 when he decided to invade Iraq without any evidence of WMD, and forget about bin ladin and Afghanistan. The reason Bush wants to stay in Iraq until after the elections is so his failure can fall on someone else's watch. Your observations make no sense and your suspicions should be more focused on Bush and his wag the dog War!

Answer 9

It would be total insanity for the US to fully remove all military forces from Iraq anytime in the next 10 years. George W. Bush had made damn sure about that.

The force we'll have to commit billions in resources to maintaining and supplying won't be as large, nor will it be in daily contact with situations that conclude with as many as 700 wounded Americans being shipped to Germany every month for medical treatment.

There will be no cut and run. It will be a process of right sizing the force to the job.

We'll need their oil for the foreseeable future. Neither the democrats nor the republicans will deny that simple fact.

Answer 10

Bush's plan has failed, does anyone remember what this war was started for? We got attacked by terrorist, they killed innocent people for our beliefs, we had nothing to do with their war, their beliefs, their way of life. So, we all rallied for retribution on the man who admitted that he caused the twin towers to fall, and a big round of Yes, go get him and make him pay for what he did, we decided we weren't going to let this go without a fight. But, we let the man go, we got turned around by a man who had a personal debt to pay to Saddam Hussein, and now we're in a war that has nothing to do with what we agreed to go to war for in the first place. We've been fed lies, and twisted reasons as to why we no longer have to go after Osama Bin Laden, and now we're doing what?? Exactly what is our goal in Iraq, to kill everyone, the people over there don't appreciate our interference and destruction of thier land, they are in more danger now then they ever were. What are we trying to win, what is the use in us trying to get thier troops to take care of themselves, when most of their troops are working on the side of the enemy. Our men are dying, not for the reason we agreed to, but for some dream that Bush has. If you listen to your own party,
Republicans are questioning our reasoning for continuing this war, just as much as the Democrats are. It's like a dog chasing his tail, he never catches it, but just continues to go round and round, we aren't going to catch all the insurgents, cause the more we kill, the more they kill us and thier own kind, there is not end to this, it just gets worse. And the reason we went in the first place has been lost. I'm sorry but your being conned, and I don't know who Bush is laughing at when he goes to bed in his safe cozy haven each night, the people who actually believe him and back him up, or the people who are trying to get you guys to open your eyes and see what's going on, not just believe what he tells you. It's a shame.

Answer 11

The only real diff b/w plans is that Bushes is combat oriented, whereas the dems would be"security" oriented. The "security force" is a euphamism for our soliders will be under the control of the Iraqi gov, or the UN. This in effect would mean that if our troops were fired upon, then theey couldn't fire back unless Iraqi gov, or UN said they could.