http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16611409/

Quote :

"WASHINGTON - President Bush on Saturday challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad. “To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible,” Bush said. In a pitch to lawmakers and the American people, Bush said the United States will keep the onus on the Iraqi government to take charge of security and reach a political reconciliation. He countered Democrats and his fellow Republicans who argue that Bush is sending 21,500 more U.S. troops into Iraq on the same mission."

I thought they did propose alternative plans.

"Withdraw troops"
"NO escalation of war"
"End the war"

I'm not saying I agree with pulling out. However I am conflicted about whether to stay or not. Regardless, it seems to me that there have been at least 3 ideas proposed other than his so what the hell is he talking about?

1/14/2007 12:07:41 AM

Doing a bad job is better than doing no job!!!!! If he didn't know what to do, he shouldn't have fucking run for a second term.

1/14/2007 12:09:22 AM

Thanks, Bush. Thanks for making the rest of the world pissed at us even more than before.

1/14/2007 12:10:53 AM

9-11!!!!!!

1/14/2007 12:13:31 AM

Perhaps his exit strategy is that if the country gets so full of troops that some will have to start pouring out of the edges?

1/14/2007 12:16:19 AM

YOU THINK YOU CAN DO BETTER?!

1/14/2007 12:25:32 AM

^At this stage I think just about anyone could do better.

1/14/2007 1:28:20 AM

The Democrats' plan: TBA

1/14/2007 4:31:11 AM

Partition or get the fuck out

1/14/2007 12:40:15 PM

Quote :

""Withdraw troops" "NO escalation of war" "End the war" "

Not exactly real plans.

Withdrawing troops does what to end the violence? The extremeists over there are blowing their own people up. Withdrawing troops may reduce the violence overall, but it will also just turn the violence on Iraqi civilians.

No escalation is a great slogan but what does it mean? And what method is proposed to keep the extremeists from escalating the war? And in the event they do escalate, what is the appropriate response.

End the war is just useless as that is presumably what Bush is trying to do. I know it's chic to think of Bush as some mad dictator bent on world domination, but I'm quite sure he's well aware of what a hell hole Iraq has put his political carreer into. There is no doubt in my mind that if he could tomorrow make Iraq a fully functional peaceful democracy he would. It would bring headlines around the world and shoot his approval rating through the sky that he might just be able to get world domination.

1/14/2007 1:58:13 PM

i'm not really sure why we're still calling this a "war". seems more like an occupation to me.

1/14/2007 2:03:38 PM

Quote :

"At this stage I think just about anyone could do better."

That's the joke. That's why I stated it so emphatically.

1/14/2007 2:42:30 PM

"Immediate withdrawal of troops" is not really a plan. What's done is done, and the fact is that right now Iraq is in a turbulent state of affairs. Pulling all the troops immediately won't help that any.

1/14/2007 3:26:02 PM

fuck the iraqis. bring our troops home.

1/14/2007 3:30:59 PM

Quote :

""Withdraw troops" "NO escalation of war" "End the war""

yeah...dont come with a 300 hundred page plan...come with a 3 word slogan...brilliant

1/14/2007 4:40:20 PM

If no one had come up with a plan, what was the president listening to for the month or so he delayed the announcement of his plan? What about the countless books, editorials, and other media which actually have written plans and offered advice?

This claim by Bush sounds like he's on the losing end of an argument on a message board ...

1/14/2007 4:53:51 PM

I think you need to focus more on what Bush said:

Quote :

"To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible"

Than what the article's author said:

Quote :

"Bush challenges war critics to offer own plan"

Bush is just saying its easy to point out what you don't think is right...but that doesn't really do anything productive...ie, if you oppose something, give a viable alternative, don't just shoot down something you don't like and not offer up anything of your own

The title of the thread and article imply Bush is literally requesting a bunch of people to come up with ideas because he doesn't have a plan...when actually he has a plan and is simply saying "you don't like my plan? well do you have a plan of your own? or are you just playing monday morning quarterback?"

1/14/2007 5:09:48 PM

It's not like he would listen to anything that anyone else has to say especially if it came from the democrats.

1/14/2007 6:20:47 PM

Quote :

"There is no doubt in my mind that if he could tomorrow make Iraq a fully functional peaceful democracy he would"

i tend to agree

1/14/2007 6:59:56 PM

ahahahaha wtf? are things so bad now for you bush supporters that now you have to use that as one of bush's positives?

1/14/2007 7:02:10 PM

lol

(me no bush supporter, just want to get that straight)

1/14/2007 7:04:26 PM

The DNC does have a plan. It's called "following the Iraq Study Group's recommendations."

It's a swell idea. The study group listened to military leaders, who didn't even consider raising the troop levels to be a viable option. They also recommended working with Iraq's neighbors, instead of threatening them.

But what do these guys know? Bush is The Decider.

1/14/2007 10:30:29 PM

Right now, there's no military solution to "fixing" iraq, short of something like what we did in japan in WWII, but that would make the rest of the world hate us, causing even more problems.

Since that's not viable, the only other solution that won't result in the creation of an anarchist terrorist state would be very genuine, intense, focused diplomacy (really how it should have been from the beginning). increasing troop levels would stabilize things until we get out, but it won't solve anything for the Iraqis, and it never will. I recently heard in a movie the line "how can the expect things to go peacefully if they strip away our dignity" which accurately describe Iraq.

We can impose curfews, raid innocent peoples' houses, and police the streets to fake peace, but this only grows resentment.

1/14/2007 10:41:34 PM

What about the plan proposed by the Bipartisan Iraq Study Group?

1/14/2007 10:49:30 PM

^^^

1/14/2007 10:54:06 PM

The Iraq Study Group's solution is basically to pull out and hope the iraqi people take charge. It's not significantly better for Iraq, it's just better for our troops.

1/14/2007 11:02:07 PM

^sounds like a great idea.

1/14/2007 11:05:14 PM

^^Well, not before 2008.

[Edited on January 14, 2007 at 11:06 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2007 11:05:51 PM

Yea, guess the Dems haven't really proposed anything

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12572371/


I think it is perfectly valid for Bush to make a statement like this, and I have long agreed with folks that say the Dems do a good job of complaining without real solution, but I gotta wonder if they don't want to spend the efforts to try and come up with a plan when they know it won't get any real consideration by the 1 track mind Bush.

Furthermore, I thought some of the right wingers on this board (cough Twista cough) have made the argument multiple times before that the Commander in Chief should have plenty of flexibility to wage a war how he sees fit, without having the meddling of a congress interfere in his decision making. And now he is suggesting congress play an active role (something that has never happened before) in the decision making process?

This whole thing just smells something bad.

1/14/2007 11:07:01 PM

Here is a plan... don't fucking go over there in the first place you goddamn idiot Bush. Especially don't go over there with no clear plan on what the fuck you are doing and when the fuck you are coming out.

1/14/2007 11:10:30 PM

It isn't up to congress to wage war; they just agree or disagree with the plan via funding. All they can do is set parameters for what they will agree or disagree with (aka complaining).

Biden only has a "plan" because he's a 2008 presidential candidate.

^ He had a plan. Unfortunately people like Bush don't plan for events that conflict with their ideology.

[Edited on January 14, 2007 at 11:16 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2007 11:14:38 PM

Quote :

"^sounds like a great idea. "

Umm... are you serious?

What happens in another 20 years when some terrorist form Iraq crashes a jet in to the Empire State Building? Will leaving Iraq a festering anarchist cesspool seem like a good idea?

The fact is that if Iraq fails, people in the next generation will call us all idiots for supporting the idea of letting them fail, which is what all of the mainstream plans for Iraq lead to (Bush's plan less so, oddly enough).

I don't know why so many people choke when they try and say the word "diplomacy." Actually, I do know, and it's because the Republicans have been treating it like a bad word since Bush took office.

1/14/2007 11:25:00 PM

^hmm yup, just like vietnam right?

1/15/2007 12:27:54 AM

Al Qaeda and the Vietcong have/had very different ambitions, though.

1/15/2007 12:29:42 AM

Quote :

"yeah...dont come with a 300 hundred page plan...come with a 3 word slogan...brilliant "

Stay the course?

1/15/2007 12:44:52 AM

If the Democrats disagree with President Bush so much, WHY did many of them. . .

(1) vote to authorize the Iraq war

and why don't they. . .

(2) pull the funding?

1/15/2007 1:04:50 AM

(1) They didn't have a time machine that would allow them to know how terribly Bush would screw everything up.

(2) They realize that cutting funding wouldn't improve the situation any.

Did you really need someone to tell you that?

1/15/2007 1:43:07 AM

I'd say they went with number one because standing in front of a flag and shaking hands and pretending to be patriotic at the time was what kept approval high, so they were all like, "HELL YEAH, LETS KICK SOME ASS"

you're forgetting that the left operates on polls rather than virtues

1/15/2007 1:46:45 AM

"Stay the course"

[polls go down]

"Lolz we didn't really mean 'stay the course'"

1/15/2007 1:49:03 AM

so you want him to withdraw everyone or just cut all funding?

1/15/2007 1:51:23 AM

Quote :

"(1) They didn't have a time machine that would allow them to know how terribly Bush would screw everything up. (2) They realize that cutting funding wouldn't improve the situation any. Did you really need someone to tell you that?"

Boone

I'll give you partial credit for number one. I have disagreed with many things the Bush administration has done concerning Iraq (e.g., not enough soldiers initially, troop rotation, rules of engagement, and so on). And Bush has admitted mistakes.

Concerning number two, what will improve the situation? Let's have a plan or shut the fuck up. The ONLY plan I've heard from the Democrats is withdrawal--but they're too damned concerned about their own political asses to call for a vote in Congress.

Concerning your last statement, yes, that's what I need: another 24-year-old fucking know-it-all explaining the world to me. It must be quite a burden to have EVERYTHING figured out at such an early age. Jesus.

[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 2:11 AM. Reason : .]

1/15/2007 2:11:01 AM

They want Bush to follow the recommendations given in the Iraq Study Group. He's been ignoring it thus far.

It's not up to Congress to formulate a comprehensive plan, though; that's the duty of the Commander-in-Chief. I've already said this.

1/15/2007 2:30:00 AM

^ Uh. . .you mean the ISG report that was released on December 6, 2006?

Quote :

"I just received the Iraq Study Group report, prepared by a distinguished panel of our fellow citizens. I want to thank James Baker and Lee Hamilton and the panel members for spending a lot of time on this really difficult issue. And I thank you for coming into the White House today to give me a copy of this report. I told the members that this report, called "The Way Forward," will be taken very seriously by this administration. This report gives a very tough assessment of the situation in Iraq. It is a report that brings some really very interesting proposals, and we will take every proposal seriously and we will act in a timely fashion. The commission is headed up to Congress, and I urge the members of Congress to take this report seriously. While they won't agree with every proposal -- and we probably won't agree with every proposal -- it, nevertheless, is an opportunity to come together and to work together on this important issue. The country, in my judgment, is tired of pure political bickering that happens in Washington, and they understand that on this important issue of war and peace, it is best for our country to work together. And I understand how difficult that is, but this report will give us all an opportunity to find common ground, for the good of the country -- not for the good of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, but for the good of the country. We can achieve long-lasting peace for this country, and it requires tough work. It also requires a strategy that will be effective. And we've got men and women of both political parties around this table who spent a lot of time thinking about the way forward in Iraq, and the way forward in the Middle East, and I can't thank them enough for your time. You could be doing a lot of other things, you could have had a lot more simple life than to allow your government to call you back into service. But you did allow us to call you back into service, and you made a vital contribution to the country. Our fellow citizens have got to know that it is possible for people of goodwill to come together to help make recommendations on how to deal with a very serious situation. And we applaud your work. We take it very seriously, and we'll act on it in a timely fashion. Thank you very much."

George W. Bush
Statement on the Iraq Study Group Report
Washington, DC
December 6, 2006

1/15/2007 3:09:27 AM

Yes, that one.

The one Bush said he would take seriously, but hasn't. I've mentioned the ways in which he's ignored their findings in this thread already.

1/15/2007 3:16:14 AM

^ Oh, bullshit. I haven't seen you mention anything except the same old tired plans for failure. I would have respect for some of these positions from Democrats, if they were submitted by people who actually wanted us to succeed in Iraq. But they would rather see failure--and have it as a political tool to bring down Bush and in election cycles to come. I mean, if the Democrats end up being wrong about Iraq, they can't say, "I told you so," right?

Concerning the ISG report, the United States of America is not governed by unelected committees. The elected representatives of the people make the decisions in our system of government--and thankfully so. In addition, it’s only been about a month; give it some time.

PS: Read "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq" (link below)
By Frederick W. Kagan

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25292/pub_detail.asp


[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 3:38 AM. Reason : Just read it!]

1/15/2007 3:28:21 AM

Quote :

" you're forgetting that the left operates on polls rather than virtues"

1/15/2007 3:56:23 AM

Quote :

"(1) They didn't have a time machine that would allow them to know how terribly Bush would screw everything up. "

Funny: One of you clones in the other thread was talking about how every expert on the planet knew this was going to be a fiasco. It seems like they might have listened to them, what with it being so obvious.

1/15/2007 8:17:20 AM

Quote :

"If the Democrats disagree with President Bush so much, WHY did many of them. . . (1) vote to authorize the Iraq war "

It's funny, you right wing folks like to bandy about item #1 as some great hammer against the Deomcrats' cause, then in the next post like to proclaim the (what is it) 17 UN resolutions, plus the most certain harboring of WMDs as very good reasons for going to war. The whole god damned country was duped into this war, and everyone knows it. I will give you a partial on #1 that many people that voted for it were caught up in patriotic hysteria, but lets keep in mind that no other administration has been more polarizing than this one, and to appear unpatriotic would have spelled political death. You can't really knock a politician for playing politics when it's the fickle voters of this nation that are electing them. If you want to blame anyone, blame the voters.

Despite all that, 126 Dems did vote against going to war, are you guys forgetting about them?

1/15/2007 8:58:36 AM

You know, the Democrats in Congress have offered up alternatives. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I think its dishonest to say no other plans have been proposed.

Can't remember which lawmaker offered up which plan, but some include:

(1) Partitioning Iraq into three along ethnic lines.
(2) Withdrawaling the majority of US troops to areas outside of Iraq except for a training contingent, sweeping in only in emergencies.
(3) Iraq Study Group - Open up dialogue with Iran and Syria to ease the violence.
(4) Total and immediate withdrawal.

I'm surprised we never bothered with number 3: even if you don't expect anything out of it, it's better to try opening dialogue, having them offer something rediculous or unacceptable with talks collapsing, and then saying, "Oh well, at least we tried."

1/15/2007 10:58:36 AM

I was watching some GOP Senator (I think, he at least was GOP) on a morning news show last weekend I think. He posed the same question, why don't the Dems have any plans instead of criticizing. The guy he was debating shot back with the same statements as there, to which he replied

"Those aren't plans, those are just ideas. They aren't fleshed out. Why don't the Dems use all the tools at their disposal to come up with a fully though out, implementable plan that can be taken before the President..blah blah blah.."

1/15/2007 11:05:56 AM