Iraq: Who Has the Right Plan?

[Daseal]

On a semi-side note. One thing I've heard rumors of is that Hillary, if elected, would make Bill Secretary of State. Say what you will about Clinton, personally I thought he was an excellent president. Bill Clinton as Sec. of State would do wonders from our currently destroyed foreign relations.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by BigSKINBauer

Well i am for obama too but in that question clinton came off as way more experienced than obama did. She said that she would have to have someone look into the meetings so they would be on her terms basically.

So she dodged the question then? I think the problem that I have with a lot of the Dems is that they all seem so indignant that Iraq has become such an unpopular war, after they voted for it in the first place. The only viable candidate who didn't is Obama and he also seems like he has the most levelheaded approach to the U.S.'s withdraw from Iraq.

Hillary says she won't apologize for voting for the war and I don't think she should. That's the right move, otherwise, she's just going to look soft. The problem I have, though, is that I don't like her plan of setting a date ahead of the bipartisan Iraq study group's expectations...what was the group assembled for if no one intends to listen to it?

I, personally, don't think we should have gone in in the first place. However, the fact that argument's done because now the troops are there and there's nothing we can do about it. At this point, the best case scenario would probably be some sort of phased withdraw and I think the study group proposed some of the best ideas.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by Daseal

On a semi-side note. One thing I've heard rumors of is that Hillary, if elected, would make Bill Secretary of State. Say what you will about Clinton, personally I thought he was an excellent president. Bill Clinton as Sec. of State would do wonders from our currently destroyed foreign relations.

That's a great point. Also, what I think would be a great move for both of them would be for Obama to join her as the VP. Personally, I favor Obama and will probably not vote for Hillary, however, polls show her having a commanding lead and that does not bode will for Obama. At this point, I think it would beneficial to each side for Obama to be "on deck" as the VP. It would quash all of the "he doesn't have enough experience talk," and if Hillary's (potential) presidency went well, he would probably be heavily favored to win the nomination in 2016.

[SmootSmack]

I've heard she is looking to make him an ambassador of goodwill or something like that. Not a Cabinet position. Cynics say what she really wants is to give him some "made-up" job just to keep him out of Washington. Not unlike when President Lisa Simpson gave Bart some BS job to keep him away from the White House.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Although I stand to the left on most issues, I certainly do not on Iraq for seveal reasons.

#1. The Dems Are Political Cowards When It Comes to Iraq
Aside from Kucinich, I think the Democratic candidates are cowards.
They do not want to push for "victory" (if victory is indeed even possible) because the public would oppose continuing the surge. They do not want to withdraw immediately, because that would lend credence to the perception that Democrats are wusses. Instead, they opt for plans that leave our troops out to die for a cause that the candidates themselves have all but abandoned. I disagree with Kucinich, but at least I respect him for having political courage.

#2. The Dems Reasons For Leaving Iraq Are Ironic
I often hear the Democratic candidates saying, "our troops should not be involved in Iraq's sectarian civil strife," or "our troops have done their job, but the Iraqis have not, and it is time to withdraw our troops from Iraq's civil war." These very same candidates argue that we need to get involved in Darfur, are likely glad that we intervened in Kosovo and Bosnia, and probably wish that we had gotten involved in Rwanda. On that count, the Dem candidates are full of it, dumb, or both.

Until I hear a decent plan from someone else, I will continue to support McCain or Rudy when it comes to Iraq.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Although I stand to the left on most issues, I certainly do not on Iraq for seveal reasons.

#1. The Dems Are Political Cowards When It Comes to Iraq
Aside from Kucinich, I think the Democratic candidates are cowards.
They do not want to push for "victory" (if victory is indeed even possible) because the public would oppose continuing the surge. They do not want to withdraw immediately, because that would lend credence to the perception that Democrats are wusses. Instead, they opt for plans that leave our troops out to die for a cause that the candidates themselves have all but abandoned. I disagree with Kucinich, but at least I respect him for having political courage.

#2. The Dems Reasons For Leaving Iraq Are Ironic
I often hear the Democratic candidates saying, "our troops should not be involved in Iraq's sectarian civil strife," or "our troops have done their job, but the Iraqis have not, and it is time to withdraw our troops from Iraq's civil war." These very same candidates argue that we need to get involved in Darfur, are likely glad that we intervened in Kosovo and Bosnia, and probably wish that we had gotten involved in Rwanda. On that count, the Dem candidates are full of it, dumb, or both.

Until I hear a decent plan from someone else, I will continue to support McCain or Rudy when it comes to Iraq.

Pretty much agree with you all the way on this one.

Since Vietnam, Democrats haven't really been able to shake the wuss stigma. Iraq certainly re-enforced that one.

Also, props to SS on the thread. It's been a while since we've had some well thought out threads like this one.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Daseal

On a semi-side note. One thing I've heard rumors of is that Hillary, if elected, would make Bill Secretary of State. Say what you will about Clinton, personally I thought he was an excellent president. Bill Clinton as Sec. of State would do wonders from our currently destroyed foreign relations.

Like he did wonders by selling the Chinese secrets for DNC donations or how he helped North Korea get their nuclear programs started? Oh yeah, and there's those bin Laden and Hussein guys he dealt with too.

He had his 8 years, let's move on before he can do MORE damage to our nation.

[Beemnseven]

I find it interesting that there is anyone who would listen to the plan of a politician (Republican or Democrat) who was in favor of invading Iraq in the first place, and then trying to tell us what will happen if we leave prematurely.

Why should we believe anything that pro-Iraq war people are saying when they've been wrong about EVERYTHING from the start?

Ron Paul was right from the get-go. His plan is to get the hell out. I like that idea best.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I find it interesting that there is anyone who would listen to the plan of a politician (Republican or Democrat) who was in favor of invading Iraq in the first place, and then trying to tell us what will happen if we leave prematurely.

Why should we believe anything that pro-Iraq war people are saying when they've been wrong about EVERYTHING from the start?

Then you pretty much need to discount everything the Dem candidates (save Kucinich) say about Iraq.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Buster

Like he did wonders by selling the Chinese secrets for DNC donations or how he helped North Korea get their nuclear programs started? Oh yeah, and there's those bin Laden and Hussein guys he dealt with too.

He had his 8 years, let's move on before he can do MORE damage to our nation.

he cant possibly do more damage then this president has resided over. and smooty, great work. and thanks for putting the effort into it. i guess I'm along the lines of Mr Edwards. a gradual with drawl, with money still available to the troops that remain. but i cant believe the American public isn't in an uproar over the mini vacation the Iraqi Parliament was just on. 3 weeks because " its too hot?" what about our boys sleeping in the desert? president bush should be outraged over this, and not a peep from the white house

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dmek25

he cant possibly do more damage then this president has resided over. and smooty, great work. and thanks for putting the effort into it. i guess I'm along the lines of Mr Edwards. a gradual with drawl, with money still available to the troops that remain. but i cant believe the American public isn't in an uproar over the mini vacation the Iraqi Parliament was just on. 3 weeks because " its too hot?" what about our boys sleeping in the desert? president bush should be outraged over this, and not a peep from the white house

Does no one realize that our Congress takes the whole month of August off every year? And the reason they started doing this was because Washington in August is too hot? I agree, the Iraqis need to work harder but the point is somewhat diluted coming from supporters of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who have done sqaudoosh for the last 6 months and are about to fly off in their government jets to Nantucket or Cape Cod or Bohemian Grove or wherever they go to do whatever it is they do.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Does no one realize that our Congress takes the whole month of August off every year? And the reason they started doing this was because Washington in August is too hot? I agree, the Iraqis need to work harder but the point is somewhat diluted coming from supporters of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who have done sqaudoosh for the last 6 months and are about to fly off in their government jets to Nantucket or Cape Cod or Bohemian Grove or wherever they go to do whatever it is they do.

what makes a legitimate point diluted? if its something you don't agree with? right now, it should be all about the Iraqi government taking care of THEIR country, and getting our soldiers out of harms way. was it agreed upon they would go on vacation? if it was, our boys should have been granted alittle hiatus, too. the Iraqi Parliament holds their sessions indoors, in air conditioning. meanwhile, our troops suffer in 100 degree heat. who cares who made the point? and i can guarantee you, when our congress takes their break, old W. will be sitting in Crawford, at the ranch, vacationing right along with them

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dmek25

what makes a legitimate point diluted? if its something you don't agree with? right now, it should be all about the Iraqi government taking care of THEIR country, and getting our soldiers out of harms way. was it agreed upon they would go on vacation? if it was, our boys should have been granted alittle hiatus, too. the Iraqi Parliament holds their sessions indoors, in air conditioning. meanwhile, our troops suffer in 100 degree heat. who cares who made the point? and i can guarantee you, when our congress takes their break, old W. will be sitting in Crawford, at the ranch, vacationing right along with them

Hypocrisy dilutes it. For Democrats, who have done almost nothing legislatively and are about to take a month long vacation, to criticize Iraqis for doing the same thing looks a little silly. Reid and Pelosi could stay in town and work. One would think they would feel compelled to do so based on the constant and hysterical claims they make about the danger posed to the Republic by George Bush. They won't though. Again, I think the criticism is valid but I just don't want to hear it from anyone in our congress because they haven't accomplished a whole lot lately either.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Does no one realize that our Congress takes the whole month of August off every year? And the reason they started doing this was because Washington in August is too hot? I agree, the Iraqis need to work harder but the point is somewhat diluted coming from supporters of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who have done sqaudoosh for the last 6 months and are about to fly off in their government jets to Nantucket or Cape Cod or Bohemian Grove or wherever they go to do whatever it is they do.

I can understand the Iraqi government taking 2 week of vacation, but 4 weeks? To the naked eye it seems politically motivated to whale on the Iraqis for taking that much time off. From a principle standpoint, however, the Iraqi government shouldn't take that much time off. We're taking about people tasked/entrusted with rebuilding their country. Sure, the US congress is taking 5 weeks of vacation but they have the luxury to do so. It's not like our officials are taking a vacation in the middle of 9/11, which is practically what the Iraqi government would be doing.

As for Pelosi and Reid, they are not the ones bitching and moaning about working more hours.

[dmek25]

what a shame. they have to work 5 days a week. and thanks for the back up, saden