Maybe the B2 gang will all step down. Let Speaker Pelosi ascend to the Presidency. Then she will be responsible for the plan. :D

Seriously, I'm not advocating that, but, the fact is, the White House controls the plan and has chosen to "go it alone" without involving the Dems, or even some of their Repubs that are not on board. All this b!tching about a Dem plan is a red herring.

No, I came up with that all on my own, thank you.

I'm still confused. Two months ago you were upset about the lack of a real plan from Bush except stay the course. Now Bush offers a plan and the Dems essentially threaten to cut funding for the war and induce gridlock (i.e. stay the course) and you call it a red herring?

I'm simply saying this. The Dems were elected because of unhappiness about how the war in Iraq is going. In their first 100 hours they introduced a lot of legislation, but nothing about Iraq (the main issue they were elected to pursue).

When will they actually present a viable plan for Iraq (and immediate withdrawal is no more of a viable plan than replacing the soldier's guns with posies...that is unless you are going to willingly sanction genocide).

The Admin ignored Congress and formulated their plan. Congress is holding hearings. Some members of the Senate are on their way to Iraq for fact finding. Stuff is happening.

I surrender.

The CEO makes a corporation policy and expects it to be carried out.

The policy is carried out to the letter, but does not have the results the CEO desired.

Therefore, the staff is responsible for the failure.

It is beginning to make sense now.

Re: It's Becoming More Clear what the Democratic "Strategy" is now
 

It's actually non-interventionist, which we must encourage, and extend to not only non-interventionism for the mid-east, but non-interventionist for every place on the planet, including places like Kosovo and Darfur.

Interventionism must die.

No, no one (at least not me) said the staff was responsible. I'm not in any way trying to deflect blame from Bush. Blame belongs with Bush.

However, it IS the job of the leaders of our country to have the debate which will provide a plan for how best to proceed. The Democrats (like it or not) are now in the position of being the majority in Congress and thus leaders of the country.

I'm waiting for them to...well...you know....LEAD.

I'm a registered Republican, and have been against this fiasco since the beginning. I remember telling someone a couple of months before we invaded that it was my opinion that war was inevitable with GWB at the helm. I still firmly believe that war would have been avoided had anyone else (Rebublican or Democrat) been in charge. This disaster rests squarely upon the shoulders of the person who fancies himself as a 'war president' :( He just forgot the 'losing' adjective. We've lost this effort due to the incompetence of GW's administration, and imo, there is NOTHING we can do at this point but to cut our losses. The Dems don't have a plan either, because at this point, there isn't one other than to leave and let the chips fall where they may imo.

The Dems are the leaders of the legislative branch. I think the country and the world for that matter look at the President as leader of the country.

Also, the Iraq study group report.

The new Congress convened just last week. They need to find their footing.

That's wierd. I could have sworn I saw the Democrats campaigning to retake Congress so they could make a "change" just a few weeks ago.

The 'change" was to the rubber stamp. Now it says "WTF?" :)

LOL

So you always thought US Congress was the 'Leader of the free world'?

"Saving Face" "How to get out with Honor" "Quagmire"

These terms DON'T bring back memories of Viet Nam?

Unfortunately we have a 'Decider" who should have memories of Viet Nam but somehow doesn't.

Yeah, "somehow"...I wonder how THAT happened?

But kidding aside, his Dad had the lessons of Viet Nam firmly in mind when he wouldn't go further than the border during the first Gulf War...even at the urging of many of his Generals.

Seems like situation could be a rebuttal to the age old adage that "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree". It did this time!

Here's some additional fodder for frittering away our Friday. :)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1576838,00.html?cnn=yes

We need more Fuel Air Bombs.

"The overpressure within the detonation can reach 430 lbf/in² (3 MPa) and the temperature can be 4500 to 5400 °F (2500 to 3000_°C). Outside the cloud the blast wave travels at over 2 mi/s (3 km/s). Following the initial blast is a phase in which the pressure drops below atmospheric pressure creating an airflow back to the center of the explosion strong enough to lift and throw a human. It draws in the unexploded burning fuel to create almost complete penetration of all non-airtight objects within the blast radius, which are then incinerated. Asphyxiation and internal damage can also occur to personnel outside the highest blast effect zone, e.g. in deeper tunnels, as a result of the blast wave, the heat, or the following air draw."

No, because Iraq is worse than Vietnam.

As usual, Shawn's nailed it. ;)