So What's the Plan, Man?

Boston Herald columnist Michael Graham is all set to vote a straight Democratic ticket on November 7th if the DNC can answer one easy question:

But I think I must have missed a meeting or accidentally deleted an e-mail from Moveon.org, because I still haven’t seen the Democratic plan to fix Iraq and kick terrorist butt. Could someone please point me to the page of Time magazine’s recent “Barack For President” issue with the Democrats’ “How we defeat the woman-beating, homosexual-executing, book-burning, anti-Semitic, knuckle-dragging Islamists who want to kill us” bullet points? Thanks.

Wazzat? You can’t? Comrade, what do you mean there isn’t a Democratic strategy for terrorism? There’s gotta be. I mean - seriously - what kind of political party has no war plan at a time when we’re actively at war? When 135,000 troops are in the field, and where six weeks ago we foiled a plot to blow 10 American aircraft out of the sky?

Hello?

This is the part that the Democrats' cheerleaders in the mainstream press are soft-peddling in their glowing comparisons of the current political landscape to that of the early nineties. In 1994, when Republicans stormed Congress, Newt Gingrich and the party leaders had the famous "Contract With America," detailing, among other things, what they hoped to accomplish in the first hundred days of a Republican majority.

How does the Democratic Party plan to lead if the voters grant them majorities in the House and Senate?
Graham has a clue:

After all, the Democrats’ position on stopping terror can’t be to abandon democracy in Iraq, stop wiretapping, end coercive interrogation and reveal our secret tracking of terror money abroad in The New York Times. That’s crazy.
Yes, it is.

Graham's column is in sync with Jim Geraghty, one of the few people who called the 2004 Presidential election correctly, who also believes that the "security" vote is much more important than MSM analysts are letting on.

Posted by: Bluto at 09:16 AM

Comments

1 Nearly had me UNbookmarking Jawa as I read " Michael Graham is all set to vote a straight Democratic ticket". Make room at that porcelain alter Doc.

Phew. That was a nasty thought. Realizing what stood in his way was waiting for the libs 'war plan' . That's all the Rx I needed to feel better.
Hope it's as quick a recovery for Rusty.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at October 27, 2006 11:49 AM

2 Tell Mr. Graham—when he's done chest-thumping of course—about a thing called "Google." Here's what I found in 45 seconds:

What are some of the plans advanced by Democrats?

Redeployment of forces.
This plan was originally proposed by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) but has
been endorsed by a number of prominent Democrats, including Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). It calls for immediately redeploying
U.S. forces from Iraq, while also establishing a quick reaction force
in the region, most likely based in Kuwait, as well as an
“over-the-horizon presence of Marines.” This plan reinforces the need
to continue U.S. diplomatic efforts inIraq, but stresses that “the
solution to Iraq’s security situation cannot be solved by the United
States military.” “It is up to the Iraqis,” Murtha says. “We cannot do it for them.” Timetable for troop withdrawal.
This plan, proposed by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Russ Feingold
(D-WI), enjoys the backing of twelve Democrats and one independent in
the Senate. The plan calls for a timetable, established between the
U.S. and Iraqi governments, to withdraw U.S. troops by July 1, 2007.
Supporters of this plan recognize that an immediate U.S. pullout, given
the current level of violence, could leave Iraq on the brink of civil
war. The plan calls for a so-called “Iraq Summit,” a Dayton-like
conference that includes leaders from Iraq’s neighbors, representatives
from the Arab League, and officials from the permanent five UN Security
Council members. Kerry has called for redeployment of forces—at least
5,000—from Iraq to Afghanistan to fight the growing insurgency along
its border with Pakistan. “This administration has cut and run while the Taliban-led insurgency is retaking control over entire areas of the country,” he says.Support the president.
This plan is favored by Democrats like Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and
to some extent by centrists like Hillary Clinton (D-NY). of the gravity
of the war in Iraq and the larger terrorist threats faced by the United
States, Lieberman urges a united front. "It's time for Democrats who
distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the
commander-in-chief for three more critical years and that in matters of
war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," he
said in January 2006. Some Democrats up for reelection no doubt caution
against following this course because of the war’s unpopularity among
Americans and the fact that Lieberman lost Connecticut ’s Democratic
primary to a political unknown who ran on an anti-war platform
(Lieberman stayed in the race as an independent). Lieberman has not
ruled out boosting troop levels. It is “likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come,” he wrote last November in the Wall Street Journal.Decentralize Iraq. This option is supported by Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE). Championed by CFR President Emeritus Leslie H. Gelb,
this plan envisions decentralizing Iraq into “three strong regions with
a limited but effective central government.” Gelb writes in a Foreign Affairs
roundtable that uniting Iraq by decentralizing “is not likely to make
most Iraqis happy, but it is a plan that gives each group most of what
it considers essential: re-blessed autonomy for the Kurds, some degree
of autonomy and money for the Sunnis, and for the Shiites, the historic
freedom to rule themselves and enjoy their future riches.” A growing
number of experts say some form of federalized Iraq will likely take
shape but there are different variations of this option. Critics of
Gelb’s plan say the division of oil revenues would be problematic,
particularly given the resource-poor areas predominantly inhabited by
Sunni Arabs. Others say anything resembling a de facto partition,
because of ethnically mixed parts of Iraq’s various provinces, would
only create more sectarian fighting, not less. “None will be satisfied
with a 'Sunnistan-Kurdistan-Shiastan' divide,” writes Judith S. Yaphe
of the National Defense University. “This would almost certainly spawn
civil war. Iraq's Kurdish, Sunni Arab, and Shiite communities are not
monoliths; each has its secularists and Islamists, rich and poor,
oligarchs and peasants.”You can disagree with the assessments of course, as your conservative partisan inclinations will direct you to, but to say there has been no thought or alternatives offered is a bald-faced lie.

Posted by: Gleep! at October 27, 2006 12:26 PM

3 Gleep,

so the Democrat plan is to redeploy to Okinawa.

LOL.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 27, 2006 12:37 PM

4 Keep reading, JC, you made it to one.

Last line from my post: You can disagree with the assessments of course, as your conservative
partisan inclinations will direct you to, but to say there has been no
thought or alternatives offered is a bald-faced lie.


Posted by: Gleep! at October 27, 2006 12:50 PM

5 So I called the Democratic National Committee office in Washington DC and asked to speak to their person in charge of "ethics" and "honesty" in the current campaign.........and they said there was no such person.................. Surprize.........Surprize

Posted by: n.a. palm at October 27, 2006 01:51 PM

6 Gleep: you've picked out some things that individual Dems have said. Where's their grand, unified strategy? Nowhere.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 27, 2006 02:30 PM

7 Gleep:

What you have listed are four different plans. Some want to redeploy, some want to stay the course. Do we really think that the Feingold or Murtha plan and the Lieberman plan (not that Lieberman's a Democrat anymore, of course) are somehow compatible?

That's a strategy?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Posted by: Lurking Observer at October 27, 2006 02:53 PM

8 That may be the case, but given the choice I'd as soon have multiple strategies and possible scenarios to investigate than a single policy that has largely failed up to this point. I'm sure if they came from a Republican, you would too.

Posted by: Gleep! at October 27, 2006 02:55 PM

9 The fact that he would even cite deploying to Okinawa as a possible "plan" says all you need to know about the Democrat "grand strategy."

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 27, 2006 03:11 PM

10 "Largely failed?" When was the last time the US went more than five years without a major terrorist attack?
Hint: it wasn't during Bubba's watch.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 27, 2006 03:16 PM

11 What you have listed are four different plans.

Translated: the Democrats don't have a plan.

Posted by: dcb at October 27, 2006 04:10 PM

12 "What are some of the plans advanced by Democrats? Redeployment of forces."

How long do we keep the necessary ships in the Gulf, and how long do the Kuwaiti's really want us? What about the stupidity of the 'Okinawa' remark? Were we suppossed to take that seriously?

"Supporters of this plan recognize that an immediate U.S. pullout, given the current level of violence, could leave Iraq on the brink of civil war."

Yep! And any time table will be exposed by the NYT if by nobody else, and the Jihadi's will use the timing to their advantage.

"The plan calls for a so-called “Iraq Summit,” a Dayton-like conference that includes leaders from Iraq’s neighbors, representatives from the Arab League, and officials from the permanent five UN Security Council members."

Most of whom have little concern for our strategic security goals, as long as they get what they want. Iraqi oil fields, and Oil for food corruption! The UN is a toilet. The best reason for the US staying a member is to keep the sewage from backing up!

"Kerry has called for redeployment of forces—at least 5,000—from Iraq to Afghanistan to fight the growing insurgency along its border with Pakistan. “This administration has cut and run while the Taliban-led insurgency is retaking control over entire areas of the country,” he says."

He is right to regard Taliban resurgence as a concern, but, Its a global war. Kerry should suggest the draft if he wants me to seriously believe he wants to win. I doubt he has the will to persist in Afganistan, and even if he did, getting enough Dems to agree would be unlikely. Its hard to fund all these entitlements when your fighting a world war.

"Support the president. This plan is favored by Democrats like Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and
to some extent by centrists like Hillary Clinton (D-NY)."

Tell it to the Kos Kids, and see if they will give you permission. The Democratic party, in majority wants to prevent a Bush legacy, unless they can insure it is viewed as a disaster. And they will act accordingly despite the centrists.

"this plan envisions decentralizing Iraq into “three strong regions with
a limited but effective central government.”" and "federalized Iraq will likely take shape but there are different variations of this option."

Well that would sure make things easier for Iran, and make things tense for Turkey. I can see Arab states fearing Iranian, and/or Turkish intervention dumping loads of cash at the Sunni's. Even if I think it could, maybe work, it is not a good looking choice.

"only create more sectarian fighting, not less. “None will be satisfied with a 'Sunnistan-Kurdistan-Shiastan' divide,” writes Judith S. Yaphe of the National Defense University."

She might be wrong, but I doubt it. Regional division would provide a great oportunity to conduct local purges that are effective in disposing of the unwanted. A united and tolerant government would be better.

"You can disagree with the assessments of course, as your conservative partisan inclinations will direct you to, but to say there has been no thought or alternatives offered is a bald-faced lie."

I don't think there was an attempt to lie. I think the ideas that Dems float trying to sound smart, are to weak to merit consideration.
A useful plan, that we can expect Dems to agree on and put into effect, is the issue. Dems can toss out ideas all they want. I don't see a real plan in any of this. And I consider myself one of those independent voters the Dems are counting on, so good luck with that election.

Posted by: Michael Weaver at October 27, 2006 04:52 PM

13 Gleep, "as your conservative
partisan inclinations will direct you to"
And how about the direction that one's common sense directs one?
You and your ilk think you can replace the truth with political rants....
And how you love to hear yourselves rant!
Get a life for God's sake.

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at October 27, 2006 05:59 PM

14 Gleep,
FYI, I'm not even American nor I do live in the U.S., but I have the decency and the intelligence to realize that
a) The U.S. is a force for good in this world and has been so at least since its civil war
b) Anyone who gives d@mn about his freedom and that of his family has a vested interest in the continued strength and preeminence of the U.S. of A. and in the complete and utter defeat of Islamist terrorism.

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at October 27, 2006 06:06 PM

15 "Largely failed?" When was the last time the US went more than five years without a major terrorist attack?

I assume, Bluto, you're not talking about homegrown terrorism like McVeigh or Kazinsky or attacks against US interests abroad (otherwise we have to get into Lebanon throughout all of the '80s, Madrid in '85, Athens and West Berlin in '86, Lockerbie in '88, etc.)

Which means you must mean Islamic attacks on US soil.

So, let's see ... we had the first WTC bombing in '93 and the events of 9/11 in 2001. That's an eight-year span. The last time we had a five-year span before this one, then, was from 1996 until 2001, under President Bill Clinton.

I see your point, Bluto; no matter who's president, we get attacked by terrorists every 5-8 years. And no president by virtue of the fact they are in office or even starting ill-conceived wars with ever-evolving rationalizations can prevent it. Good points all.


Posted by: Gleep! at October 27, 2006 09:29 PM

16 Which means you must mean Islamic attacks on US soil.

So, let's see ... we had the first WTC bombing in '93 and the events of
9/11 in 2001. That's an eight-year span. The last time we had a
five-year span before this one, then, was from 1996 until 2001, under
President Bill Clinton.

Isn't an American Embassy considered to be US Soil? (Re: Embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya in 1998?)

What about the USS Cole Bombing in 2000? (Isn't a naval ship considered sovreign territory?) Granted it was not in a theatre of war, unless you accept that the general war we are all in (speaking as a Canadian here) started before September 11, 2001, so the attack on it would be considered a terrorist attack, yes?

Posted by: CanForce 101 at October 27, 2006 10:10 PM

17 Yeah, as I stated, if we want to talk about that we can get into attacks on US interests by what could only be called terrorists going back to the 1950s.

I made the assumption that Bluto meant attacks on the continental US, because if he was talking about attacks against US interests, then Bush has NOT prevented attacks on them in the past five years. And Bluto would never bring such a fact up.

Posted by: Gleep! at October 27, 2006 10:16 PM

18 Yeah, as I stated, if we want to talk about that we can get into
attacks on US interests by what could only be called terrorists going
back to the 1950s.

You could, but I'm not sure how relevant it would be to this discussion as we are currently discussing the global war with Islamic terrorists, not anti-government/anti-social domestic terrorists. Some of the afforementioned attacks that took place in the 1980s would be relevant as it (Hezb'allah, etc) was essentially a slightly different manifestation of the enemy we are currently facing.

I made the assumption that Bluto meant
attacks on the continental US, because if he was talking about attacks
against US interests, then Bush has NOT prevented attacks on them in
the past five years.

Understood. Which high profile targets (US Interests) were attacked by terrorists in the past five years? I ask out of interest, not to be condescending, as I like to keep up on the situation, I just don't recall any really big attacks since September 11, 2001 on US foreign interests, aside from the various attacks on our allies home turf (ie. London/Madrid/Bali/Mumbai bombings, etc.) or attacks in the Iraq/Afghanistan theatres.

Cheers.

Posted by: CanForce 101 at October 28, 2006 01:33 AM

19 Michael Graham sure knows how to pin the tail on the Donkeys. Yeah, sure, they got a plan, the same plan as the Ol'04 plan of that great war hero, John f Kerry; Elect Me and my Super-dooper Secret Plan will be revealed to all the peons, along with my war records.
After this election I think the Donks will need to find a new country to hate since their hatred of this one is bankrupting their quest for power!
Maybe they can recolonize CUBA, that great Communistic success they ceaselessly adore...eh?

Posted by: KA at October 28, 2006 07:05 AM

20 Sure, CanForce 101:
2002June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.2003May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.2004May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia:
terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi
Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential
compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia:
terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.2005Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan:
Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days
Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

Posted by: Gleep! at October 28, 2006 10:11 AM

21 CanForce,
The way I describe the likes of this "Gleep" is as individuals devoid of moral discernment. Where a moral human being has "principle" these guys have "ideology".
There is no point in trying to talk sense into them.

Incidentally, if you don't mind my asking are you with the ISAF?

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at October 28, 2006 02:45 PM

22 Another point CanForce,
This Gleep conveniently overlooks the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Islamo-Marxists which occurred during the Carter administration. He also omits Carter's complicity in the Islamic regime coming to power.

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at October 28, 2006 02:48 PM

23 Incidentally, if you don't mind my asking are you with the ISAF?

Thanks for asking but I am not. I am actually taking time off to go back to school so I can (hopefully) go the route of Engineering officer. I feel like I should be over there with the boys (and girls) helping them out in with this tough mission they face, and being a part of history, but at the same time I feel that by going the route I am taking I would be able to offer more to the CF and to my country. There is also a family tradition of becoming an Engineering officer that runs a few generations deep that I hope to continue.

There is no doubt in my mind that there will be more opportunities of this sort when I am done school in a few years.

Posted by: CanForce 101 at October 29, 2006 12:20 AM

24 I think attempts to define success or failure of the Bush administrations security policies should be framed in terms of a World War.

US interests were hit all over the place in WW2

Did the Japanese land some attacks on the US mainland? Yes! If you count the civilian bomblets that landed in the Pacific Northwest, and the skirmishes in the Alaska territory.

Did we kick the crap out of the Japanese with persistant use of military power? Yes! No redeploying to Antarctica.

Did they eventually figure out that playing nice worked out better? Yes! Atomic bombs make nice people.

Germany got as close as sinking ships, and using fifth columnists. I seem to recall there was a super bomber project, meant to hit NYC, if completed. If anyone wants to sort that one out, welcome. They still got their nasty butts handed to them.

So there was a very successful war/security strategy because it worked given the necessary time, and by moving on past mistakes rather than politicizing them.

Don't talk about a failure of current policy. It isn't the policy so much. Instead talk about a failure of the left to tow the line, and help fight this thing.

The world we pass on to future generations is a sacred trust, and the Democrats prove increasingly unworthy of that task.

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at October 29, 2006 03:38 AM

25 Not to mention John Kerry's "secret plan."

Posted by: dcb at October 29, 2006 08:09 AM

26 Bluto:

Have a little faith in our patriotic Democrat leaders. They have a sound plan to protect Americans from terrorism. They plan on taking control of the House and Senate next month, at which point they will impose sharia nation-wide. This will leave the terrorists with no recourse but to be our friends, and it will lower gas prices. Once America is transmogrified into the islamicState of Northern Mexico,even those cultivated, discerning, Europeans will start to like us.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at October 29, 2006 05:22 PM

27 Gleep:
Cut n' run and allow Iraq to descend into factional anarchy. That's a hell of a plan. The lone opinion of Senator Lieberman is not a Democrat plan, as he is shunned by his party. Hillary's opportunistic sound-bite hardly constitutes a Democrat plan either.
Timothy Mcviegh and the Unabomber were not terrorists. Mcviegh had no goal other than harming the US government. He was not interested in harming or frightening private citizens. He targeted the federal building with jihadi help, not a shopping mall or the World Trade Center. The Unabomber was killing people for revenge. You lefturds love to spread the fantasy of non-muslim terrorists.
President Bush has prevented hundreds of terrorist attacks against America since 911, against the protests of Democrats. Carter and Clinton failed to stop a single attack. All they did was encourage more. Intelligent voters will take all this into account this next month, little dhimmie.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at October 29, 2006 05:41 PM

28 Keep drinkin' that Kool-Aid Jeffie Boy, somebody out of the 34% that still support the war are BOUND to listen--though even the Republicans are abandoning your ilk in record numbers. Tally Ho!

Posted by: Gleep! at October 29, 2006 08:59 PM

29
Creep:
Stop blowing your inflatable Kerry doll after its full. You're obviously too stupid to know the difference between a goal and a plan, much less a plan and empty sloganeering.
Tell me, how do your zero-heroes plan to accomplish their rhetoric? What kind of moron believes the campaign "promises" of serial liars?

What "war" are you talking about? America isn't at war with Iraq.

The bogus 34% figure you cited is as reliable as every other poll showing opposition to the moderate majority and support for the hard left. According to your Establishment Media polls, Kerry and Gore were supposed to win the last two Presidential elections, and Dhimmiecrats were supposed to swep into Congress both times. Al Franken is supposed to unseat Rush limbaugh, Michael Moore is supposed to outsell Ann Coulter, Americans want amnesty for law-breaking wetbacks, and the Dhimmiecrats are going to seize Congress in a landslide.
Yes, I'm sure your latest poll figures are correct this time.
Only a tiny fraction of America-last loons wants America to cut and run in Iraq. The poll figures you regurgitated from another site don't take that into account, because the "scientific" methodolgy used to reach the predetermined conclusions didn't even bother to ask that question.

It sounds like your poll was conducted in FantasyLand.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at October 30, 2006 09:38 PM

30 As a Bush supporter, you pimple on a queer's ass, you should be well acquainted with empty sloganeering (Stay the Course! We're About to Turn the Corner! Democracy Marches On!) And now I see you're a pollster, an expert on the subject. Ha.

One could ask why is it any other party's responsibility to fix what your boys fucked up? To them, I say let's be generous; because we have to save America from thieves like them and like you — any plan, ANY plan at all, would be better than the non-plan in place now.

Alright Jeff, ya scotchy old buggerer, what's the latest Bush plan ... let's see ... stay the course, with mild face-saving adjustments now that James Baker finally stepped in. Uh, more of the same. Okay, that's two plans. How's about we won't leave until the job is finished ... which could be 2010, 2020, 2030?

I love guys like you ... sitting on your well-larded asses masturbating to a photo of George Bush on the deck of a carrier while other people fight your wars for you. You are disgusting. Go back to your talk radio so you can decide what you think. Hurry, Kool-Aid's getting warm!

The war's a bust, no one in their right mind supports it anymore, including Kay Bailey Hutchinson, one of W's staunchest supporters. Quit sniffing glue, moron, it's really getting to you. Pip! Pip!

Posted by: Gleep! at October 30, 2006 10:56 PM

31 It is notwar. It is war profits.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 31, 2006 08:30 AM

32 The market is at its highest and I support the war as long as it is.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 31, 2006 05:35 PM

33 Soon to all come crashing down!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at November 01, 2006 12:50 AM

34 Hmmm...the GOP has controlled our government for 6 years now and what is their plan?

Why is it, all of a sudden, the Democrats responsibility to figure out how to solve the mess that Bush and his GOP lapdogs have put us into?

Posted by: Puddleduck at November 02, 2006 12:39 PM






Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0125 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.007 seconds, 42 records returned.
Page size 36 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.