You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Chief Senate Dem to Request Iraq Exit Plan
2005-01-31
In a pre-State of the Union challenge to President Bush, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid intends to call Monday for the administration to outline an exit strategy for Iraq. Reid plans to raise the issue as part of back-to-back speeches in which he and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi will sketch outline their differences with Bush on two issues likely to dominate Congress' work this year, the war on terror and Social Security. ``The president needs to spell out a real and understandable plan for the unfinished work ahead: defeat the growing insurgency, rebuild Iraq, increase political participation by all parties, especially moderates, and increase international involvement,'' Reid will say, according to his prepared remarks. ``Most of all we need an exit strategy so we know what victory is and how we can get there; so that we know what we need to do and so that we know when the job is done.''
Bush keeps telling you, but he uses such simple words it flies right over your pointy heads: we'll leave when we're done and the new Iraqi government asks us to leave.
Apart from Iraq, the Nevada senator's prepared remarks include a broader criticism of Bush's foreign policy, and accuse the president's actions of falling short of the words he used in his Inaugural Address earlier this month. ``There is a gap between saying to reformers that the `United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors,' and an administration that stands by in virtual silence as Saudi dissidents disappear,'' one portion of Reid's speech says.
If you want to come out in favor of deposing the House of Saud, just say so. That would twitch the surprise meter.
Bush is scheduled to deliver his State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress and a prime time nationwide television audience on Wednesday. While he is expected to discuss Iraq, and the national elections that were held on Sunday, he has signaled he intends to make Social Security a focus of his speech.
Posted by:Steve White

#22  I have seen in my lifetime the South go from "The Solid South", i.e, solidily Democrat, to Solid Republican. I personally know many Democrats who voted for The President because their party no longer has any place for anyone who doesn't agree with the "Party Line". I have voted Democrat and Republican and it just seems to me that most Republicans, regardless of what the screechers say, do welcome a lot of different viewpoints. These Democrats could not stomach Kerry's transparent pandering to every group he spoke to. They saw him as a shallow, political entity who had no position on anything except "International Community". They resent being called stupid and insane by their fellow Democrats and I doubt they would ever vote for Hillary. She showed her true Socialist colors in the past election.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2005-01-31 8:13:00 PM  

#21  "The Democrats have no position now. They had no position throughout the campaign. They stand for nothing, unless Bush does, in which case they stand for anything." #18 Sam

Yes.
Posted by: Carlos   2005-01-31 6:28:41 PM  

#20  Thanks Sam.

Yep the Democrats need some reasoned focus for their foreign policy. Enter the new Chairman of the DNC - John Dean.
Posted by: Hank   2005-01-31 3:04:22 PM  

#19  Damn, Sam! *wipes tear* That is a beautiful, and spot-on, summary!

*Applause*
Posted by: .com   2005-01-31 2:54:45 PM  

#18  I think Hank (#11) hit on the reasoning behind the Democratic foreign policy - the Brer Rabbit policy. There is no other reasonable way to explain it. How else could they get to a point where they say every single administration decison is wrong. If they used x number of troops, they should have used x+y. If they disbanded the old Iraqi army, the old army should have been the main stay of the new security. If they pulled out of Falujah, they should have gone in. If they went into Falujah, they were too brutal and were going to incite the Arab street. If they transferred power, it was too late. If they did it earlier, it was too soon. If elections were set in January, it was too late, unless it was too early. If there is no exit time table, there should be. If there is an exit time table, it is too long if it isn't too short. The election is sure to be a disaster and success is hugely important. Now, the elections were no big deal, and the Sunni turnout was light. Woe - things are still terrible, all this talk about freedom.

The Democrats have have no position now. They had no position throughout the campaign. They stand for nothing, unless Bush does, in which case they stand for anything.
Posted by: Sam   2005-01-31 2:51:10 PM  

#17  I like the sound of that, GT. Now that I'm a NV resident - at least for the moment - I'll do my part if I'm still around when he comes up.

Can you picture the ritual where he was "crowned" Minority Leader and they gave him the hemlock Kool Aid? Amazing that this quiet little mouse, from whom I had never heard a single word, is now a regular SocioFascistIslamoBat™ and quoted every day on the news as if his words suddenly mean something?
Posted by: .com   2005-01-31 2:48:06 PM  

#16  How about the chief Dem presenting an exit plan from Senate?
Posted by: Glerens Thimble7529   2005-01-31 2:41:39 PM  

#15  Good lord, is that the Democrat "Topic of the Week"? Last week it was Dr Rice. What's it going to be next week?
This groupthink is REALLY getting old....
BTW, where's the exit strategy for Europe and Korea while we're at it, Harry & Nancy?
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2005-01-31 1:59:52 PM  

#14  I am coming to the conclusion that the Democratic party is where the Republicans were with the defeat of Hoover. At first, the strongest faction wouldn't, couldn't, admit that the US was in a new paradigm--many went to their graves still bitterly opposed to everything the New Deal represented. And then, a "moderate" faction arose, which were later called the "country club Republicans". The "moderates" ascended to power in the Republican party by doing whatever the democrats wanted, not resisting, and getting payback in the form of largesse. This also kept the Democratic extremists in check, taking the marginal vote away from them, moving everything to the center. Finally, the demise of the CCRs and the rise of the Democratic far left happened at about the same time, in the late 1960s. Since then, the Republicans have been in ascendancy, and the Democrats have been in decline. If this theory is correct, what will happen next is that the Democrats will evolve a "near-Republican" centrist faction that will almost always vote with the Republicans. This in turn will exclude both the Democratic far left and the Republican far right from policy making. This evolution may take 20 years, so I hope you aren't in a hurry.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-01-31 12:56:23 PM  

#13  Time for regime change. Get rid of the whole lot: Pelosi, Kerry, Teddy, Reid, Byrdbrain. The Dems should let Obama and The New Hillary step to the forefront and keep moving the party in the direction of sanity and suburban-friendly common sense.
Posted by: lex   2005-01-31 12:40:12 PM  

#12  I still remember Polosi’s “Nightmare” when we threw out Grey Davis. She can’t stand it when people have elections and vote for themselves. Luckily she is from the really red part of California so her seat is very safe. They (the LLL DNC) had to be watching in horror as the results came in and now they are trying to put a negative spin. God bless the brave voters in Iraq for stepping up and being counted, what a blow to Islamofacists!
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-01-31 12:37:06 PM  

#11  The Democrats are in difficult times. They stubbornly stick to their "Brer Rabbit" foreign policy. They don't know what they are for, they just know they are against everything the Bush administration is for and for everything they are against. Their positions can be summarized by "don't" - "can't" - "wrong" - "miscalculation" - "colossal mistake" - "arrogant" - "misleading" - "lied."

I can hear myself telling the story to my great-grandkids. And then Bush said, "please Mr. Democrats, please don't support the terrorists, and legitamize their efforts to intimidate the Iraqis into not voting. Please don't align your selves with the America-hating factions in Europe. Please don't try to undermine the cause for which 1000s of young Americans risk their lives, health and honor, for it might make people free." That was all they needed to hear - the Democrats did these thngs - they supported the terrorists, aligned themselves with the America-haters, and tried to undermined the Iraqi elections. And then Bush won the US election and the Iraqis won theirs too.
Posted by: Hank   2005-01-31 12:02:39 PM  

#10  "President to tell Major Dems to 'Piss Off'"...
Posted by: mojo   2005-01-31 10:56:09 AM  

#9  W should give the his response in the SOTU.

Some have requested that we lay out our exit strategy. Some have asked that we speed it up.

Therefore, we are going to bring the troops in Germany and SorK home faster. After all, they've been there over 50 years.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2005-01-31 10:47:55 AM  

#8  A misstated title, should read:

"Reid and "Deer in Headlights" Pelosi to Share Dummycratic Party's Exit Plan from Political System"
Posted by: Duke Nukem   2005-01-31 10:44:18 AM  

#7  Four more years of temper tantrums so their core base will keep giving them cookies.
Posted by: 2b   2005-01-31 9:08:50 AM  

#6  Harry and Nancy stomp their feet in outrage. Challenge, call, raise, and sketch outline anything you want, you jerks. You have freedom of speech, but you would never help the Iraqi's to gain it.
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-31 8:07:35 AM  

#5  Nancy Pelosi is going to be in on it tells you all you need to know. She is only happy when U.S. Service men are dead.
Posted by: SPOD   2005-01-31 8:02:00 AM  

#4  I wonder if the Z-man asked them to do this or if it is just an effort to tie down the votes in Dearborn. Reid is starting to look dumber than Daschle. Why don't they give the job to Boxer? I see no reason to prolong the agony.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-01-31 7:47:17 AM  

#3  I'll settle for a military victory as a gauge for when we should leave.
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-31 7:36:34 AM  

#2  how about--we leave when we win and the baathist and islamofascists lose--why is that complicated?--did the dems used to ankle bite fdr about his exit strategy for ww11--fer gawd's sake its a volunteer army dude
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI   2005-01-31 4:24:31 AM  

#1  
..we'll leave when we're done and the new Iraqi government asks us to leave.

Seems pretty self-explanatory to me. Now why can't Reid, Pelosi, and their ilk get this through their extra-thick skulls?
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-01-31 1:51:52 AM  

00:00