Liberals, can you answer without pointing fingers?

Question

What is the liberal/democrat plan for Iraq? To pull out and secure defeat for the US? Okay, and then what? What happens after we leave? Are you willing to assume responsibility for the aftermath? Or will you just blame Bush?

What about fighting terrorism? What is your plan for fighting international terrorism? We saw all through the 90's how democrats deal with terrorism. You want to give terrorists constitutional rights and have trials as if they were common criminals. You people are against the patriot act, you're against wire taps, you're against going into countries who harbor terrorists, and then deny everything you said 5 years ago, so what's the plan for fighting terrorism???

Do ANY of you have a plan that doesn't involve blaming Bush, blaming the Republicans, and that ensures victory for the US? Or can I expect another 25-30 answers bashing Bush and calling me a neocon nazi? LOL!

PEACE LOVE AND HAROMONY.....Yeah the Clinton Administration did a bagn up job of capturing Bin Laden and preventing the 911 attacks didn't it!

Answer 1

They really have no plan. They believe that by pulling out all will be good in the middle east. That if we would just talk to the little terrorists that they would like us and we would all live happily ever after.

They are a selfish party that takes responsibility for nothing. They care nothing for the Iraqi people yet their heart was bleeding for the people in Bosnia and worse... for the captured terrorists in Gitmo. When it dawns on them that Iraq has been taken over by Iran and Iran utilizes all of Iraq's resources to gain more power and world wide terrorism continues to escalate they will blame Bush and the world will not trust that the US will stand firm against terrorism.

As for peace love & harmony... During Clinton's administration there were numerous terrorist attacks such as the WTC and USS Cole that were linked to Al Qaida and Bin Ladden yet Clinton chose to let him WALK after being offered to him several times... So Clinton's smoke screen efforts mean little as like the UN, they back nothing they threaten to do.

Answer 2

Pull out immediately and deprive the hajjis of the targets that we are supplying for their training. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded; every day we remain there (utterly unable to change the outcome because the Iraqis are incapable of running their own country) just means more American lives lost and money wasted.

The Patriot Act is a disgrace to the American people. And the irony is that even with the Patriot Act's patent violation of the constitution, the President went around the safety net and put the wiretaps in place without a sign-off from the Attorney General.

If we start denying due process to people we wish to jail or execute, we lose everything that makes America different from the rest of the world. At that point, who cares about the rest of the outcome. (Oh, yes, the sheep are happy because they have lots of zeros in the bank account statement. They have forgotten that they end up with zeroes where their souls used to be.)

The plan for fighting terrorism includes ceasing in training the terrorists: that's the only thing our troops in Iraq can accomplish.

I'm not going to bash the poster. I'd have to spend to much time washing my hands after sullying myself that badly.

Answer 3

The problem is that you frame your question in a way that no one can answer it. It is full of logical fallacies. For instance, you don't define victory. Therefore, how could I tell you a plan for achieving victory? Another example is that you assume "pull out" means "secure defeat." So really you've already answered your own question.

Fighting terrorism and the war in Iraq are two entirely different things to me, yet you have equated them. And yes, I think good intel and good crime-fighting tactics will result in terrorists being imprisoned for the rest of their lives, which is right where I want them. The strategy used against bin Laden has thus far been unsuccessful, and we will never know if a diffrent strategy would have worked.

See? I didn't bash anyone. Well, except maybe you, a little. Articulate your questions better.

Answer 4

There is no plan that will bring a victory in Iraq. NOt from the democrats or the republicans. You cannot stop a civil war. So regardless of whether we get the troops out or leave them in Iraq will be a defeat. So there is no sense in getting anymore of our soldiers killed.

The first step to take in the fight on terrorism (which I am all for, BTW) would to get our eye back on the ball, Al Qeada is on the Afganistan/ Pakistan border. Put your resources there and kill them. There is nothing in this world that lifts the spirits of the radical extremists like Bin Laden killing 3000 americans, then thumbing hi nose at us.

I am not against wire taps with a warrant, the government has no more right to tap someones phone without a warrant than i have to tap my neighbors phone. There is a special court set up. there 24 hrs a day, can issue a warrant in hours. It amazes me that conservatives claim to want smaller government then support the government becoming more powerful.

Answer 5

okay, here we go:
1. get out, find international support for a solution, work with neighboring countries to contain violence.
2. see previous answer.
3, 4. violence would continue like it is now. We could get other countries and groups to control and contain the Iraq grouped.
5. The Iraqis should be the first to accept responsibility for the aftermath.

6. Continue fighting terrorism, especially where it originated for 9/11.
7. see previous
8. you have misinformation about what was done in the 90s, and what democrats support. They support all those things, as long as they are done legally and according to the constitution. But they will continue to fight terrorism.

9. see previous.

Your post is confusing, ranting, and overall lacks consistency and structure. So pardon me if my answers turned out the same way.

Answer 6

Bumper sticker question based on a bumper sticker war.

Your question blames liberals for everything yet insists that liberals not say anything bad about your buds in the White House and Pentagon.

As for your ridiculous question, my answer remains the same: the only way to protect our country from an outside threat is to TIGHTEN BORDER SECURITY. If they can't get in, they won't be here to attack us.

Meanwhile, with our borders wide open, our intelligence gathering experts are saying that al Qaida is, today, no less of a threat than it was when we invaded Iraq four years ago.

So tell me... what is the Republican plan for fighting terrorism? Because clearly, they've done NOTHING.

Any other questions for which the response is painfully obvious?

Answer 7

Expect another 25-30 answers bashing a worthless greedy arrogant president and yes you are a neocon nazi. I will blame Bush for losing the war because he got us into the mess without a plan for victory. What has the patriot act done anyways other than erode our civil rights? And I will point my finger because I am sick and tired of the liberals being blamed for everything when it's the republicans screwing things up.

Answer 8

What aftermath. Like the 80+ that was killed yesterday in car bombs and those who were slaughtered. Our presence didn't help them.

What about the 150 last week murdered. Our presence didn't help them!

We had a plan as far back as 1996 which the Republicans rejected!

Our plan is to leave Iraq and let them stand or fall on their own. Adding money for corporate welfare, getting oil from Iraq while our gas prices go up, and a continuation of getting our troops killed is no plan!

The truth is, you never had a plan, and still don't. Just more of the same!

No thanks! We are not going to change the outcome of a failed policy! We are not going to win militarily. Patreas has even said that!

What is your plan! Bury kids forever? It has been 5 years and it is just getting worse!!!!

You don't know they were terrorist. Many were picked up at roadblocks and during sweeps. They didn't have AK 47's in their hands! If they did, why haven't they been charged in over 5 years.

And Bush had held 2 US citizens, by the military, for 3 1/2 years with no charges? The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is a bill which destroys 4 amendments to the constitution and denies habeas corpus to US CITIZENS!

"Court rules in favor of enemy combatant By ZINIE CHEN SAMPSON, Associated Press
Writer

RICHMOND, Va. - The Bush administration cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it suspects of being an al-Qaida sleeper agent without charging him, a divided
federal appeals court ruled Monday.

"To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the constitution and the country," the court panel said.

In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court.

It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.

He is currently the only U.S. resident held as an enemy combatant within the U.S.

Jose Padilla, another U.S. citizen, was held as an enemy combatant in a Navy brig for 3 1/2 years before he was hastily added to an existing case in Miami in
November 2005, a few days before a U.S. Supreme Court deadline for Bush administration briefs on the question of the president's powers to continue holding him in military prison without charge.

Al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he moved with his wife and five
children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master's degree at Bradley University.
Al-Marri's lawyers argued that the Military Commissions Act, passed last fall to establish military trials after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, doesn't repeal the writ of habeas corpus defendants' traditional right to challenge their
detention."

Answer 9

The liberal/DemocratIC plan is to withdraw from an unwinnable conflict in an occupied country. Instead, the liberal/DemocratIC plan is to focus on finding and hunting down the terrorists who want to kill Americans. At the same time, the liberal/DemocratIC plan involves following the classic liberal American ideals, including constitutional rights and fair trials, which everyone, including terrorists, should be entitled to.

The Republican plan is a dismal failure that will lead to Vietnam-style defeat if we don't extricate ourselves from Iraq.

Answer 10

My prefered plan would be to split the country into 3 parts - for Kurds, Sunni, Shiites.

If not, then pull the troops out anyway. Locate and target terrorist cells. Trying to stop the civil war in Iraq is not the best way to fight terrorism. In fact, it's a terrible and illogical way to fight it.