Comments

1. ruttersramblings
   April 10th, 2007 | 3:32 pm

   Kerry’s little mis-spoken-ness didn’t mean anything? Kerry has a plan for Iraq? Geez guys, you and Bill Maher are so way off. John Kerry said in the last presidential election that he had a plan for getting us out of Iraq. When asked what it was, he said he would only reveal it if he was President. Guess what, he still hasn’t revealed it.

   The Republicans may be bumbling through Iraq, but at least they are making choices. The Dems position on the war is simply “opposite of whatever Bush says.” Name one person who has a “solution” other than “bring the troops home.” A REAL, viable solution. There aren’t any. Instead we get petition after petition of cutting off funding or simply ending the war.

   The elections these days are not voting FOR a candidate, they are voting AGAINST the other candidate.

2. wjmaggos
   April 14th, 2007 | 4:27 pm

   Kerry messed up a joke about Bush, and his opponents pushed the meme that he was making fun of the troops. And the media ran with it. That is an example of the larger argument that we were making, that the news seems to care more about ratings than reporting reality. And I consider that a serious problem, and it is also the reason why neither Kerry nor Bush were pushed on how to really fix the problem in Iraq. But since you bring up some other issues, I will volunteer my thoughts if you don’t mind.

   There have been many different proposals by various Democrats for changing direction in Iraq, and numerous Republicans have criticized Bush on his approach. While I would love some more specific policy with an honest assessment from the Democratic establishment in general, one big issue is that Democrats have no reason to trust this president. His honesty or his ability to execute. All attempts by Democrats to effect policy change in Iraq have been greeted with comments about being “against the troops” or constitutional arguments that Congress is not be allowed to micromanage the war effort. In this environment, it is impossible to see how anything except cutting off funding, which Congress does have the right to do but may constitute political suicide, can have any effect. I believe this is Feingold’s position, that since Bush is committed to his strategy and unwilling to make necessary changes and the strategy is making things worse, the only option is to stop it. But if there was a possibility of getting different policy in place, here is what Id like us to do:

   While I strongly opposed going to Iraq, I feel we should stay and commit to massive changes in policy. We need a draft to provide the necessary manpower to execute anti-insurgency tactics successfully, with a long-term strategy of connecting on a human level between troops and the people of Iraq. Think “Lawrence of Arabia”. We need to pull out all US-based contractors, and have that work be done instead by US military personnel and unemployed Iraqis. This helps to address the issues of waste of our tax dollars, the lack of accountability that has led to abuse and disrespect of Iraqi civilians that leads them to resent us more, the feeling many Iraqis have that we are there for corporate economic self-interest, the poverty and desperation of unemployed Iraqis, the lack of investment many Iraqis have in the future of their country, and the disgust on the part of some of our troops when they see much better paid contractors. There needs to be a full public accounting of our past actions and future plans for our relationship to the country and the region, with corrections and adjustments that commit us to the development of freedom and democracy and economic self-determination of the populace. Declassify the CIA records, stop the building of permanent bases, and do whatever we must domestically to end our dependence on foreign oil. For too long, strategic and economic interests external to the region have dominated. We must admit this, and provide proof that we will do all in our power to prevent this from occurring in the future. In addition, we need to publicly break our close relationships with the undemocratic and plutocratic leadership in the region, and then go beyond and demand positive change on this front.

   There is more, to be sure, but it is really about reclaiming who we still claim to be. It will require deep sacrifice, but we are in a bad place. Much of this should have been done as the proper response to 9/11, but I feel Bush pushed us in exactly the wrong direction. So it will be harder now, but perhaps the need for this drastic change of course will now be easier to understand.

   But I also agree that our elections have become about voting AGAINST a candidate, and not FOR a candidate. That is why my main focus has been DFA and making the Democratic party something worth voting for.

Post your brood here:

You must be logged in to post a comment.