Media furthered false claim that Democrats have "no plan" for national security
SUMMARY: Several media figures and news outlets have uncritically repeated or lent credence to the false Republican talking point that Democrats, for all their criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq war policy, have no plan of their own to deal with Iraq, terrorism, and national security in general. In fact, Democrats have offered several plans for addressing various issues related to U.S. involvement in Iraq and national security.
Recently, several media figures and news outlets have uncritically repeated or lent credence to the false Republican talking point that Democrats, for all their criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq war policy, have no plan of their own to deal with Iraq, terrorism, and national security in general. In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, Democrats have offered several plans for addressing various issues related to U.S. involvement in Iraq and national security, but these plans either have gone largely unnoticed in the media or have been mischaracterized using GOP talking points.
The Associated Press reported on September 4 that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV) and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA), along with 10 other senior congressional Democrats, sent the White House a letter criticizing President Bush for the administration's Iraq policy and urging Bush "to change course and adopt a new strategy to give our troops and the Iraqi people the best chance for success." The AP noted that the letter "suggests several changes long called for by Democratic leaders," but did not explain -- or even mention -- any of those changes.
On the September 3 broadcast of CBS' Face the Nation, guest host and CBS anchor Russ Mitchell, during an interview with Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, uncritically repeated the Republican claim that "Democrats are quick to criticize, but thus far they've had no plan of their own, no specific plan as to how to fight the war on terror, how to end the war in Iraq," and asked Dean whether Democrats will "announce a specific plan before Election Day." Dean contradicted Mitchell's statement, saying: "That's actually completely untrue," and noted that Republicans have voted against Democratic proposals "for more port security, more aviation security, more rail security." Nevertheless, Mitchell asked Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) later in the same program whether he "agree[d]" with Dean's statement that "the Democrats have, in fact, offered a plan to fight the war on terror." When McConnell answered: "I haven't seen it," Mitchell offered no challenge.
On the September 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd, editor of the National Journal's weblog The Hotline, claimed that the Democrats "have not set a policy of strength at all," and that "they don't talk about, OK, this what we're going to do to make us stronger."
On the August 31 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, guest host John Kasich claimed that "the Democrats are in a weak position [on Iraq], because I don't understand what their strategy is there," and said of Democrats, "They can criticize the president, but that's not very effective if you can't say what the heck you would do." Responding to Kasich's analysis, Fox News analyst and National Public Radio senior correspondent Juan Williams stated: "I agree. You need a coherent strategy," later adding, "I don't think anybody has a plan." Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, claimed that Democrats "don't have a clear plan because they're divided into several different factions," adding: "They will have to come up with a specific plan for the presidential election in 2008." When Sabato asserted that some Democrats favor "immediate withdrawal," Kasich interrupted, stating that most Democrats are "talking about a gradual withdrawal," but added: "I don't know what that quite means. You know, I'm not sure what it means when I even talk about it."
From the September 4 Associated Press article:
In a letter released Monday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and 10 other congressional party leaders told Bush that considering making such a change would show he recognizes the problems his policies "have created in Iraq and elsewhere."
"While a change in your Iraq policy will best advance our chances for success, we do not believe the current civilian leadership at the Department of Defense is suited to implement and oversee such a change in policy," the lawmakers wrote.
The 850-word letter criticizes Bush's policies in Iraq, calling them part of a "stay the course strategy" that has failed to make the U.S. more secure, and it suggests several changes long called for by Democratic leaders.
Others who signed the letter were Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Biden of Delaware, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii; and Reps. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Ike Skelton of Missouri, Tom Lantos and Jane Harman of California, and John Murtha of Pennsylvania.
From the September 3 broadcast of CBS's Face the Nation:
MITCHELL: Governor, Republicans say the Democrats are quick to criticize, but thus far they've had no plan of their own, no specific plan as to how to fight the war on terror, how to end the war in Iraq. Will you announce --
DEAN: That's actually --
MITCHELL: Will you announce a specific plan before Election Day?
DEAN: That's actually completely untrue, and I think you can ask Senator McConnell, who voted against a Democratic proposal to increase money for first responders so they can synchronize their radio, voted against the proposal -- with many of the other Republicans -- for more port security, more aviation security, more rail security. In many ways, the Republicans have turned down the suggestions that the Democrats have for improving our ability to defend our homeland, and we think it's time for a new direction.
[...]
MITCHELL: Senator McConnell, let me ask you this. Howard Dean just said the Democrats have, in fact, offered a plan to fight the war on terror. Do you agree with that?
McCONNELL: I haven't seen it. Their plan is to leave. They're having a big debate among themselves, sort of the McGovern wing, represented by Howard Dean and his group, that beat [Sen.] Joe Lieberman in the primary up in Connecticut, and the more reasonable people who understand that if you cut and run in Iraq, the terrorists will soon be back here, like they were on 9-11.
From the September 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:
A.B. STODDARD (associate editor of The Hill): I think it's good for Democrats to make Republicans defend [Defense Secretary Donald H.] Rumsfeld. I don't think they can lose. I mean, on balance, I don't think they lose. But I am not someone who thinks the Democrats have to, at this stage, set an Iraq policy, specific timetable.
TODD: But they still need to set -- they -- what they haven't done is they have not set a policy of strength at all. They have still sit there and said everything that's made us weaker, and they make that case very well these days, but they don't talk about, OK, this what we're going to do to make us stronger.
STODDARD: Well, I know, but, please, they are not on the ground. They are not executing this war. It's not their war. They are not supposed to give General [George W.] Casey [commanding general of the Multi-National Force-Iraq] his marching orders. I just don't see why Democrats have to do that.
From the August 31 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
KASICH: You know, when the president's opponents say that, you know, the fact is we want to get out of Iraq, but they don't say exactly what they mean. In other words, there's real [sic] no clear exit strategy for those that oppose the president's policies. They don't like it, but they don't say what they want to do. Does that make -- is it really harder to take the president on to go toe-to-toe with him when they don't have a clear message and a clear plan?
SABATO: Absolutely. And they don't have a clear plan because they're divided into several different factions, some wanting immediate withdrawal and some wanting it within a year and --
KASICH: But that's a small number, Larry, right? That's a very small number. Most of them are talking about a gradual withdrawal, but I don't know what that quite means. You know, I'm not sure what it means when I even talk about it.
SABATO: Well, sure. Gradual could mean the end of this year.
KASICH: Right.
SABATO: Could be gradual at least for some of the troops. Or it could mean five years. But the whole point is this is a midterm election. And the out-of-power party, the Democrats, gets a pass from the voters on this for the most part. They simply are allowed to oppose the incumbents, to oppose the White House party of the Republicans. They will have to come up with a specific plan for the presidential election in 2008.
[...]
KASICH: Well, I do -- I do respect a politician with -- with resolution. I do. Now, Juan, I think the Democrats are in a weak position, because I don't understand what their strategy is there. They can criticize the president, but that's not very effective if you can't say what the heck you would do.
WILLIAMS: I agree. You need a coherent strategy. And at the moment, it's interesting. Actually, the president and all this charge of appeasement and satisfying the terrorists coming from [Vice President Dick] Cheney, from Rumsfeld -- you know, the Democrats have pretty much been supportive of the administration, [inaudible] now this claim that somehow if the Democrats win they're going to take away the money from the war. Where does that come from? People have asked the White House, you know, who did you see --
BARBARA COMSTOCK: (former Justice Department official): Nancy Pelosi.
WILLIAMS: -- who on the Democratic side said they'd do that? Nobody. But what you see -- I agree with you, John, you need a plan. It would be good if the Democrats had a plan.
KASICH: They're not gonna get a plan, Juan, it's Labor Day. I mean, how can they put a plan together?
WILLIAMS: Well, I don't think anybody has a plan. I mean, on the other hand, you can -- let's reverse it, John. Where's the Republican plan except "stay the course"? And you know where "stay the course" is taking us, it's taken us down the tube.
there are no Democrats around?
and cowards
I find it terribly interesting that Republicans say that Democrats have no plan for Homeland Security, or for the war in Iraq. Since when was "stay the course" a plan for Homeland Security and the war in Iraq - especially since this "stay the course" plan that we are involved with right now isn't truly a plan, but a reason to keep us in Iraq and in the Middle East. A plan for getting out of Iraq would involve a timetable for redeployment (ask GW Bush about that, circa 1998 and his comments to Clinton). Further, Homeland Security is much more than some stupid terror alert color. It's much more than just waving people through at the airport (trust me, I've travelled recently, I've seen it).
Where is the Republican plan? "Stay the Course" is not a plan - it's a way to buy time to see what the outcome might be. It's worthless and it's killing thousands.
What happened to the hunt for OBL? Where is the Republican plan for that? Oh, wait, GWB said that he doesn't think about OBL anymore. Why not? I guess 9/11 meant nothing to him - only the money he and his ilk at PNAC can get through a senseless invasion of a country who couldn't defend itself.
"Stay the course" isn't a military strategy. It's a political strategy. Republican interests are in appearing strong and committed and decisive, even when the path they've chosen has long since been shown to be a disaster. It's about elections, not helping Iraqis.
Republicans don't really have much of a strategy. When asked, Bush will say the strategy is "To win" or to secure democracy for the Iraqis. Those look good on bumper stickers, but those are goals, not strategies. He can't actually put voice to any strategy other than "stay the course" which can mean anything he wants it to mean at the moment he stammers it.
Meanwhile, soldiers and civilians die.
Puddinhead George's Iraq Adventure is so FUBAR, so horribly managed, so ill conceived that the American public is quickly approaching total disgust. We've seen how irresponsible the Republicans are with our Military; all Democrats need to do is convince the people that they won't get us into another USELESS, EXPENSIVE, UNNECESSARY WAR.
Is the same one that a General gave Johnson about Vietnam. Johnson said how can we just leave Vietnam. The general answered in planes and ships sir.
Who said that?
I have to go to work tonight and I would have to spend hours looking through my political books on Vietnam. I thought it was fairly famous but cannot find it by googling.
It was rather funny. I just could not imagine a general being a smartass to the President. Just curious who said it.
took me all of 2 minutes to type "democratic national security strategy" into google and immediately found this at the top of a list of 13 million hits:
[link to www.carnegieendowment.org]
So much for that myth...
Really, what we are hearing is that the reichwingers don't want the democratic strategy, so they dismiss it as a non-strategy. But yes Virginia, there is a strategy.
Snoopy posted a link to the Carnegie Endowment: I think we can agree on the first half, but the second half is full of mistruths and outright lies. CE "Our mission in Iraq has been plagued from the start by poor intelligence, insufficient preparation for the onset of military action, poor planning for the post-war,…The Army’s chief of staff was ignored, and too few troops were deployed. In fact, the Bush Administration’s refusal to deploy enough troops from the outset was a monumental error that continues to haunt us today…many of our servicemen and women who were deployed were not properly equipped with body armor or armored vehicles. Troops were forced to improvise in the field and assigned to duty for which they were not trained. " """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Insufficient preparation for military action? They've got to be kidding. This operation has gone down as one of the swiftest and finest operations in modern battle. I would LOVE to see what they consider "insufficient preparation".
The Army Chief of Staff being ignored and the troop strength estion. A favorite of left wing misinformation and a total myth. The Democrats like to take Shinseki's testimony out of context. Here is what he said: _______________________________________________ Douglas Hanson---reprint from the Army Times "First, Gen. Shinseki stressed that the Army continued to focus on a capabilities-based approach that would enable the service to operate across the entire spectrum of warfare. The Army was ready to defend the U.S. homeland; provide forward deterrence in four critical regions; was prepared to conduct simultaneous warfighting missions in two regions, and preserved the President’s option for decisive victory in one of those conflicts; and finally, the Army was supposedly able to participate in multiple, smaller contingency operations. Second, Shinseki pointed out that the Army already had more than 198,000 Soldiers deployed to 120 countries performing missions that involved fighting in the Global War on terror (GWOT). There were also more than 110,000 Reserve Component (Army Reserve and National Guard) Soldiers mobilized for active federal service in support of Operation Noble Eagle (homeland defense) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan. It was after this formal presentation that the Senators then asked about his opinion on troop strength to occupy Iraq. Keeping in mind the facts presented in his canned statement, Gen. Shinseki said (subscription required) that “Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers [emphasis added] are probably, you know, a figure that would be required.” Look at his response again. That’s several hundred thousand soldiers in addition to the 198,000 already deployed. Generally, the definition of “several” means: “being of a number more than two or three but not many.” In a best case scenario, Shinseki was saying that at least 300,000 troops would be required for Iraq in addition to the nearly 200.000 already deployed. The fact that no Senator’s jaw dropped to the floor apparently meant that no one in the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body could add up the numbers. General Shinseki had just said that slightly more than the entire US Army active duty strength of 480,000 Soldiers would have to be deployed! This is quite an admission from a service chief who is responsible for providing trained and ready forces to a Combatant Commander who is in the middle of a regional war. Of course, the commander of CENTCOM, Gen. Tommy Franks, had the ultimate say-so of how many troops would be used for OIF. He only needed about 100,000. But the impression had been created that massive numbers of boots on the ground were required, which fed into other demands and complaints of the war opponents." _______________________________________________
Lastly the BALD FACE LIE of our troops not properly equipped with body armor. There is not one tactical soldier that went into a combat zone without body armor. I ask the Endowment...the body armor was the same for troops in Vietnam, Panama, Gulf War I, and Bosnia. Why is it not good enough now? Troops forced to improvise in the field? I hate to break the news to the Endowment, but troops have been improvising in the field since Washington led troops in the Revolution.
I have to ask the question. Is this the Democrat plan for Iraq? I see all the talking points parroted on this site and others from a left wing peace think tank. Is this how Dems are going to move forward, re-hashing worn out talking points of mistruths and out right lies?
Your beloved RNC is the foundation of so-called 'talking points', okay? That's a great post. Not sure it holds any water. But, it's sure is lengthy. Cathartic no doubt.
Because you say these said talking points are false makes them so? Or, better yet, by regurgitating DOD happy-talk... that makes it okay?
Things ain't so peachy. We've been lied to... remember "6days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6mos". Now, you get the impression we'll be there forever. OF COURSE WE WILL. That was the plan all along.
Now, I'll tell you ... had these cretins cut the graft, run a clean and smart campaign... none of us would likely be the wiser. However, too many people have died needlessly for some, frankly, weird neocon philosophy that is poorly planned, has been poorly executed...and WHAT'S WORSE... has made your favorite Republicans very rich. Ah, Cheney made $9 million dollars of our tax money last year. How much did you make? You get my point.
Take a deep breath... and use your brain.
I notice you didn't refute what I pointed out to be falsehoods on the CE mission statement. When you Democrats do that then you may be taken seriously.
I have a question for you. If you believe the lie about troop strength and agree that we need more troops. Would you now support a draft? That would take care of our supposed lack of troops. Grades 13 & 14, boots on the ground in Baghdad. Problem solved.
Re-instate the draft. Then lets see how popular this war remains among the hard-line republicans and their constituents. Up until this point, Ma and Pa American can go about their daily biz... sure, pay a little more at the pump... get their daily FOX fix... and act like no one's dying. You start the draft again and you've got the war right in their face every day... That would spell death for the this neocon sham. As, your buddy said "Bring it ('em) on!"
And, by the way... I don't know what is true or not true in regard to the notion of equipping our troops. But, when I've heard military personell speaking out against it... well, there's prob a problem somewhere. Your example of adapting in the field (the notion of 'adapting to win' is truly one of the more recent RNC talking points)...well, that's fine and good. But, we have (supposedly) the best military in the world. That shouldn't have to happen. You get your ass out there in the desert and adapt. I think you'd be singing a different tune.
Your question "I can see you didn't refute...."
What's to refute? CE makes claims, you print something the military releases. Who's right? Because you believe the gov't... that makes it so??? Again, this is happy talk to cover their asses for poor performance. What else are they going to say? Again, that's a long post. You are vehement, but that still doesn't make your point valid.
You know the red states have disproportionately produced more for the meat grinder.
[link to www.baltimoresun.com]
I will try to find you one of those neat county by county maps showing % of population serving. It is very interesting.
You'll notice that quote in there from the woman in NM... "People in the South are just more patriotic, I guess"...
I disagree... Blind devotion is not patriotism. Re-instate the draft. Then we'll see a much greater outcry. Poor 'patriotic' folk from the Southern US are good canon-fodder, I guess.
I suppose, too, if the truth comes out about the reasons for going to war, missteps, fraud... it may not be so easy to continue to fill enlistment rosters with said 'patriotic' folk. In this day and age (especially with the internet) there's no excuse not to be informed... and that means across a broad spectrum. If not, well that's denial, baby. Fear is the greatest weapon the neocon fascists have.
Like I said at the beginning, the reichwingers don't want the democratic strategy so they dismiss it as a non-strategy. Hogprint's response is a classic example of that.
...but, I want to be fair and try and answer his gripes. More than anything... it's good practice I guess.
To be perfectly honest, I would consider myself a true moderate. Although these days, I'd be labeled a bleeding heart liberal. That's how the tide has turned.
Was what you posted the OFFICIAL Democrat strategy for Iraq? You can dodge and weave all you want, but you still haven't answered the question or refuted the points I brought up.
What is it Snoop dog?
I guess you were too busy on the phone with Rush to read the bottom of the 1st page where it says "Prepared by the Office of the Democratic Whip".
You also seem to be cherry picking answers. Insufficient preparation did not mean the actual ground offensive, the Dem's have always been referring to the occupation afterwards. And what are you doing bringing Shinseki into this? His words actually do support much of the document:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
This quote from Shinseki is priceless: While Shinseki's reticence to publicly speak on the questions of possible conflicts between himself and the Bush adminstration is well-known, he is on record as stating that it is "probably fair" to say that he should have "banged on the table [and] pushed harder to stop Rumsfeld from going into Iraq with too few troops."
Also: Apart from issues of "personality clash", Shinseki and Rumsfeld approached military dogma with significant substantive differences. For example, following September 11, 2001, Rumsfeld was in a meeting whose subject was the review of the Department of Defense's (Contingency) Plan in the event of a war with Iraq (U.S. Central Command OPLAN 1003-98). (See, e.g., Chapter 1 of Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (Gordon and Trainor, 2006)) The plan (as it was then conceived) contemplated troop levels of up to 500,000,, which Rumsfeld opined was far too many. As Gordon and Trainor write:
As [General] Newbold outlined the plan . . . it was clear that Rumsfeld was growing increasingly irritated. For Rumsfeld, the plan required too many troops and supplies and took far too long to execute. It was, Rumsfeld declared "The product of old thinking and the embodiment of everything that was wrong with the military."
* * * [T]he Plan . . . reflected long-standing military principles about the force levels that were needed to defeat Iraq, control a population of more than 24 million, and secure a nation the size of California with porous borders. Rumsfeld's numbers, in contrast, seemed to be pulled out of thin air. He had dismissed one of the military's long-standing plans, and suggested his own force level without any of the generals raising a cautionary flag.
Peet posted: " I don't know what is true or not true in regard to the notion of equipping our troops. But, when I've heard military personell speaking out against it... well, there's prob a problem somewhere. Your example of adapting in the field (the notion of 'adapting to win' is truly one of the more recent RNC talking points)...well, that's fine and good. But, we have (supposedly) the best military in the world. That shouldn't have to happen. You get your ass out there in the desert and adapt. I think you'd be singing a different tune." """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
You said all there is to say in your first sentance of your screed. "I don't know"... That is the problem with the left. They really don't know. You could do a cursory check to find facts before coming on this forum and showing your backside for starters. It is in full view. Lay off the Democrat talking points and do some research for yourself.
Your reference to adapting in the field being a "recent" RNC talking point is the icing on the cake. Any person who has spent an hour watching the Military channel on cable knows our forces have adapted to changing tactics and environs in every conflict dating back to the Revolution.
As for your last snide comment, my ass has been on the front lines and did adapt just fine. What has YOUR ass done for YOUR country? Ass.
You don't know either. That's the bigger point. None of us know. We know so little about the goings-on with these clowns that we all must resort isolated reports or believe what is 'officially' released. You want to believe what they say... things are peachy? Fine. Have at it.
However, explain to me what these 'liberal' retired generals have to gain by speaking out?
[link to www.csmonitor.com]
[link to www.rollingstone.com]
[link to www.pbs.org]
[link to www.usatoday.com]
[link to www.nytimes.com]
Are these guys flaming liberals?? Or, are they just not in jeopardy of losing their jobs?
...and congratulations on 'being on the front lines'. If that's even true. Still doesn't give you the right to be a bully.
If what you say about the 'front lines' is true... it seems to me that you would be the FIRST to side with and hope to investigate any potential wrong-doing directed at the troops, no? My concern here is, truly, for the well-being of our military and those men and women who are serving in (what I consider to be) a needless conflict. Yet, we see you cheerleading for the Bush crew. Name-calling about 'liberals' and such. Odd. Maybe if you thought about what it is we're talking about here, you wouldn't be such a bonehead about it? Just a thought.
Hog is most likely a remington raider. Saving America one keystroke at a time...
Peet posted:
"You want to believe what they say... things are peachy? Fine. Have at it.
However, explain to me what these 'liberal' retired generals have to gain by speaking out?
[link to www.csmonitor.com]
[link to www.rollingstone.com]
[link to www.pbs.org]
[link to www.usatoday.com]
[link to www.nytimes.com]
Are these guys flaming liberals?? Or, are they just not in jeopardy of losing their jobs?" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" You do bring up a good point in a round about way. There are power struggles in the Pentagon. You have many type A personalities all pushing for their view to be heard and implemented. If their view or battle plan is not then feathers get ruffled. Although I have contacts there, I never served in that capacity (Pentagon) so I won't pretend to know what power struggles go on, though I've seen it at the field level and I'm sure it is much the same just on a higher level with more at stake.
I never attached the "liberal" label to these generals, so don't mis-quote me on that. They have the right to speak their minds and to answer your question they actually do have a lot to lose by speaking out.
My point here is that for every voice of dissent you can bet there is a counter point that says we can and did it right. Both have valid points and they all have the chance to make their case in the Pentagon.
The time for 300,000 boots on the ground was March 19, 2003. Drafting 200,000 poor and middle class 20 year olds to die while trying to mop up Bush's folly would just increase the casualty numbers, since Iraq is in the midst of CIVIL WAR. The present situation has nothing to do with Saddam or WMD or securing the United States but a "disagreement" between factions of Islam. The dragon of ethnic strife has been awakened, so the wisest thing we can do is get out of its way.
However, I would find it agreeable if 200,000 children from wealthy families were drafted. After all, it is their parents who benefit the most from the government, so they should be the first to sacrifice their blood in our beloved leader’s crusade against brown people everywhere.
Did I mention there’s oil there, too?
Are you saying that more troops on the ground would be worse? Most of the posts (and one of the lefts arguments) are saying we didn't have enough troop strength. You seem to say that more troops would bring on more casualties.
I support your view that we should have manditory service for your country. All economic backgrounds should serve. It was good for the country during WWII. It would be good for the country now.
[link to www.cbsnews.com]
(CBS) Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken military leaders of the past two decades.
From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East.
In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."
“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.”
Hmmm. So is General Zinni LYING? Let me see who would know more about this? Who has more credibility on this issue. A former four star general who was IN CHARGE of all American forces in the middle east or some Hogguy posting his opinion on a message board. Wow. I really need to ponder that one.
---"Is this how Dems are going to move forward, re-hashing worn out talking points of mistruths and out right lies?"---
Dems are moving forward--forward, right past the mistruths ("We know where the WMD are"-Cheney) and outright lies ("Mushroom cloud"-Rice) the administration pushed-and folks like you unfortunately swallowed-that got us into this costly Iraq fiasco.
As for body armor, regardless of what you say as you sit behind your keyboard, the troops are not adequately supplied:
"Pentagon reduces standards for helmet padding, increasing risk of brain injury or death for troops fighting overseas":
[link to www.oregoncitynewsonline.com]
The article said they were NOT PROPERLY EQUIPPED WITH BODY ARMOR. That doesnt necessarily mean they had NO body armor but not adequate up to date body armor.
[link to abcnews.go.com]
A secret Pentagon study of 93 Marines who were killed in Iraq found that 74 died after they were hit by a bullet or shrapnel in the torso or shoulders — areas unprotected by the armor most are issued.
[link to www.usatoday.com]
Members of Congress were reacting to a newly reported analysis by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, which concluded that 80% of the fatal injuries to Marines in the study might have been prevented by additional armor coverage. Side armor, a special concern, is just beginning to arrive in Iraq.
As for the lack of armored vehicles that has been well documented. Nice try though
Solon posted: "The article said they were NOT PROPERLY EQUIPPED WITH BODY ARMOR. That doesnt necessarily mean they had NO body armor but not adequate up to date body armor.
[link to abcnews.go.com]
A secret Pentagon study of 93 Marines who were killed in Iraq found that 74 died after they were hit by a bullet or shrapnel in the torso or shoulders — areas unprotected by the armor most are issued.
[link to www.usatoday.com]
Members of Congress were reacting to a newly reported analysis by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, which concluded that 80% of the fatal injuries to Marines in the study might have been prevented by additional armor coverage. Side armor, a special concern, is just beginning to arrive in Iraq.
As for the lack of armored vehicles that has been well documented. Nice try though" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" You are correct that is what the article said, but the original post I responded to said they had NO body armor. My point (made many times) is that soldiers have issued body armor. No combat troop is going to Iraq (or anywhere else) without it. I am glad you and others are now concerned with this issue. My question is, where was your concern during the Kosovo, GWI, Panama, and Nam conflicts? We had the same BA then as we do now. Why didn't the Democrats care about up to date BA then? The technology has been around for at least 15yrs now.
I do agree with your link on the "Secret" Marine study. If we can give our troops a better product then by all means let's do it. As the study found, the marines were suffering casualties by schrapnel inflicted by side impacts to unprotected areas. The problem the military has is how much armor do you add? We could field a battalion of storm trooper (star wars) like BA but you lose mobility on the battlefield. Where do you draw the line? It may come to that in the future. If that is the direction we take then I'm all for it.
As for the armored vehicles, once again you seem not to understand what a unit is issued. Going into this conflict, as a rule, HUMVEEs are considered a light vehicle. That means they have limited or no armor. Usually (there are exceptions) a battalion sized unit has one or two up-armored Hummers that is reserved for the Batt. Commander. I will agree that due to the unique nature of this conflict we should have as many up-armored vehicles on the ground in the hotspots of Baghdad. That ultimatly is up to the commander on the ground and procurement.
You can find many examples of conflicts where the units should have had APC's (Somalia), instead of lighter vehicles. My unit was on the short list to go to Soamlia and the decision was made that we were to "heavy". A light infantry unit (10th Mountain) was deployed instead. Our heavy unit may have made the difference (arguably) between that operations success or failure. Not to impune what those soldiers did on the ground there.
Just wanted to clear that up. Nice try though.
The letter sent to the Bush stated:
"Therefore, we urge you once again to consider changes to your Iraq policy. We propose a new direction, which would include: (1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection; (2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year; (3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort. These proposals were outlined in our July 30th letter and are consistent with the "U.S. Policy in Iraq Act" you signed into law last year."
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Take a look at that last sentence. Everything in the letter was already signed off in the "U.S. Policy in Iraq Act". The Dem leadership is just parroting a road map that has already been addressed by the administration.
The final caveat from the letter (and it's main point since the Dems have no real plan) was fishing for the resignation of Rumsfeld. This is nothing but election year BS from the crowd that specializes in spreading the manure.
the Dems you misread the last sentence. Read it again. They said the plan they outlined in a letter sent to the President was consistent with the law he signed. Big difference to your charge of "parroting." Why do you try so hard to villify when there is no need to? There are multiple plans set forth by Democrats. The "liberal" media refuses to report that and instead say the opposite. The parrot is you Hogwash, not the Dems.
Go to the link and read the Democrat letter. Then go and read the U.S. Policy in Iraq Act. They are saying the same thing. What you seem to be missing is that it's not about anything in Iraq at all really. They want Rumsfeld's head on a platter as the last part of "the letter" will show.
The democrats "new direction" is nothing more than political rhetoric aimed at fooling the people who aren't really paying attention. All but the last part of the dems plan as already been put in place. The last part, you know, the part where we re-deploy our troops as a "rapid response team" five thousand miles away is just a joke. It's the same old cut & run BS. The president is right about Iraq...it is the central front in the WOT. The bottom line to me is the democrats just don't have the stomach for what has to be done. In WWII we lost 10 times or more the number of troops in one day as we've lost in Iraq and Afghanistan combined because the leaders of the day realized what had to be done to protect our freedoms from ruthless enemies. You hand wringing peace nics have already caused great harm by emboldening our enemy with your constant undermining of our President and our efforts in the war. It is you who are contributing to the death toll of American troops in Iraq. If I were a terrorist, watching media coverage in America, I would truly believe I just need to hold on, kill as many troops and innocents as I can and let the peace nics hand me the victory.
Get as many Americans killed as possible in Iraq you state that Dems arent willing to do what is NECESSARY to protect our freedom. Apparantly you have drunk toxic levels of koolaid. NOTHING going on in Iraq has ANYTHING to do with my freedom. To take my freedom away you would have to be saying Iraq was just about to build rafts and float across the Atlantic, invade and conquer the United States. WOW. Your capacity for self delusions is awe inspiring. What is apparant is that warmonger morons like YOU are willing to accept ANY weak excuse, worse any weak series of excuses that continue to change like the tides for what is NECESSARY, as the old excuses are shown to be completly bogus (where are those WMDs again?), as long as it involves the vicarious thrill of seeing lots of people killed. Keep whistling that tune and see how it works out for ya.
one of the most foolish, naive, and just plain stupid responses I've ever seen. You need to go back and listen to the democratic/liberal leaders like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and practically everybody else who is/was in power at the time the decision to invade Iraq was made. Practically everyone agreed that Saddam was a threat and had to go. They even voted for it! Even today, I can't find one democrat willing to say that Saddam should have been left in power. It wasn't just a republican notion that we needed to take action against Iraq...it was everybody. Only after democrats realized they might be able to gain some political traction did they basically abandon our troops and efforts in Iraq. Saddam is gone and I'm glad. Your over simplified BS about Iraqis coming over in rafts highlights what's wrong with liberal's thinking today. You don't understand the enemy we face. Oh we're so very civilized, so gentile, so educated, but our enemy is still living in the seventh century where it's ok to cut off peoples heads, blow up troops and innocents, fly airplanes into buildings and worse in the name of their twisted religion. It's not that our enemy is Iraqi or Iranian or Lebanese or any other "country". It is an ideology held by Muslim extremist, Jihadist and the like that we are fighting. The president has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror right now, not the only front. You sound like you believe that our enemy is not capable of hurting us here in the U.S. with your stupid raft comments. You are foolishly wrong!
And by the way, you still did not address the real issues in my post. The Democrat's "new direction" is just the republican plan that is ALREADY IN PLACE combined with the same old liberal philosophy of cuttin' & runnin' designed to attract voters who are not paying attention. My other point was Liberals are contributing to the death toll of American troops with their undermining of the President and our efforts in Iraq. Oh, you complain about no body armor or helmet padding or other physical equipment our troops use but at the same time you cause more bullets to fly, more bombs to explode and basically keep our enemy fighting with the hope that their allies, the peace nics and politically driven democrats in this country, will bring them the victory. Very sad.
What was the rightwing response - debate his plan and its merits/drawbacks, or criticize Murtha's patriotism?
But I think a better question is this: With the GOP in charge of ALL THREE branches of government, not to mention given omnipresent coverage of its views in the so-called "liberal" corporate media, why is always the DEMOCRATS who have to sweep up behind the messes Bush made?
...at this point, I do not believe that FOX constitutes standard 'media'. Merely propaganda. Anyone who faithfully watches FOX is either in on the joke or part of the cult. Hopefully, others are coming to see that as well.
I say this because, although it is necessary for MMFA to report the lies... it becomes an exercise in monitoring propaganda. Not debating actual issues.
The summary of the item states that the "media" have "uncritically repeated or lent credence to" this singular and easy-to-repeat charge against the minority party in Congress:
"Democrats, for all their criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq war policy, have no plan of their own to deal with Iraq, terrorism, and national security in general."
And while virtually all of the items that MMFA publishes here are in the interest of citing the "media" (as this one is), not all of the comments that those items draw, are always about the "media"...
Many are about national policy, and our elected (and appointed) agents of that policy; which in a word is called "politics".
So to put aside the "media" for just a moment, and consider what I've described above as "politics", take the effort to re-read the statement again, and even write it down (because it's that important):
"Democrats, for all their criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq war policy, have no plan of their own to deal with Iraq, terrorism, and national security in general."
That's it; you're looking right at it; in a nutshell, that is the entire campaign theme that Congressional Republicans will use in the next nine weeks, in an effort to retain their majority in Congress.
I say "entire", because while almost any and every policy issue may rear it's little head during the campaign yet to come, those "littler issues" won't decide even one race for any House or Senate seat; because in any close race, the Republican candidate will turn to that statement.
That message will be used by any Republican candidate who considers themselves at risk not to win their race; and will be used by those Republicans too, who may find themselves far behind in the polls, if not to their own particular advantage, then to a more Party-wide benefit...
And as for the "littler issues"?
They'll be the substance of the campaigns of those Republicans who are not at risk to lose their races, who are well ahead in the polls; as they will behave like Iraq was a plague or something; like they never heard of the danged place; because that's about the only issue that could erode any Republican's good position in the polls, as it has eroded the positions of so many Republicans, nation-wide.
And you know what makes that statement so worthy of noting, and writing down even?
Because should Democrats fail this fall to to take either of the chambers of Congress from the present majority, then it will be because they failed to properly answer that charge, with anything as singular and easy-to-repeat as the charge itself.
And that charge will be (with just a little twisting of the words) the epitaph on yet another tombstone, that marks just another grave, where the hopes of millions of the American People will be buried; which will read:
"Democrats, for all their criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq war policy, HAD no plan of their own to deal with Iraq, terrorism, and national security in general."
...because if they did, I would have read some indication of it in the words of the chairman of that party, in what was quoted in the item; or in the letter to the president, linked to in the item; or in the "Real Security" memo (or whatever other word you'd use to describe that lame "Real Security" thing)...
And believe you me, I take no joy at all (and in fact, a bit of grief) in saying, that the present Congressional minority is spectacular for their incompetence in opposing the evil of the present administration of our federal government; and they are quite the spectacle, standing about passive and near silent, thinking that by doing and saying nothing at all, they will inherit the status of Congressional majority, from an American People never more sick of that evil, that has seized their government.
And this present spectacle is only made worse, by knowing that it is more than three years ongoing, and raises and spends and wastes millions of dollars in contributions, spanning also the failure of the 2004 election...
And shows no sign of change (try as hard as I might) that I can see...
As though that Congressional minority were quite content in their status, when the American People to whom they are obligated, were never so discontented; never as I can recall in the past thirty years.
Question is can the Democrats take the House & Senate in an enviroment of a corporate media driven by an agenda that relies on Republican leadership??
I say Lincoln said it best, and Bush stammered when he tried; "You can fool some of the people all of the time, You can fool all of the people some of the time, but; you can't fool all of the people all of the time" a quote Bush will not soon forget after this coming November.
I believe, I pray that America is a media savy culture and after being tricked in the last two elections, a wave of push back should be expected.
We have our troops in the field of two failing wars and no draft. How can a democracy keep it's honor and allow so few to continue to pay such a high price for these Neo-Con's folly?
God Bless Amercia, isn't a expression invented by the Self-Righteous Right. We all own it, and live it, and come November need to prove we love it.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
They've voted for everything Bush wanted with this war crime. They voted to continue the war crime. They talk of attacking Iran too. So the Dem plan is this....continue the war crime, support the war crime, escalate the war crime.
There is only one party in DC....the War Crime Party.
American Honor, Respectability is on the line, and has been squandered, and dragged through the mud by these Draft-Dodgers whom only tune is the Pound the Drums of War.
They are talented in spending our Honor, and our military's blood for political capital. We have no choice but to make the mistake right, institute a draft that includes the college campus crowd. This war was for the rich to get richer; their children should not be off the hook.
The grade makers in serious studies should be the only exemptions if any. We should show up with a completely new vigor, and a force the size that sees a out post at every corner of Baghdad, until they have a year or so of calm, and commerce of the kind that include Iraqi's and not U.S. do-nothing sponges.
We should parcel off the nation in the three nation states that exist tribally and spiritually already, Kurdistan, the Sunnis Triangle + An bar region, and the Shia South. A limit strategic alliance of the three in a loose federation supported by the NATO / United Nations / Multi- National forces.
These are strategies implemented with difficult, but eventual success in the Baltic’s. A strategy that has proven tactical expertise by most of the major militaries in Europe, U.S., and Russia.
There you go, a strategy for success. Needs one simple ingredient. ------POLITICAL WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
There you go, a strategy for success. Needs one simple ingredient. ------POLITICAL WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Escalation! More troops! More firefights! More "operations against insurgents"! More dead bodies in Iraq! Great plan, guaranteed to get more people killed.
I got a better plan: Troops....home....NOW!!!
After the National Referendum, that purple finger could be a brown middle finger for all I cared, and we could have had that strategic retreat that Mirtha proposes.
But; we allowed a sectarian civil war with heavy casualties for a nation we illegally invaded & occupied while destroying most of the vital infrastructure either from our bombing or the insurgents. We broke it, we got to fix it.
With a civil war in place, genocide occurring on both sides, and the Kurds under the shadow of Turkey's fear of a Greater Kurdistan, we can't strategically leave in the same way we should not have left the Germans by themselves after the first world war. The consequences would likely draw in a much larger conflict, and even if this assessment is wrong, taking that chance is out of the question.
We spend the blood and resources now so we don’t get bleed for decades to come.
We also hunt down our own brand of terrorists, the ones whom make the most noise about Nazi’s and surveillance. The privateers that bankrupted our treasury, our creditability, and sent us into a meat grinder for their own political gain. They need to pay for their crimes for anyone to take us seriously ever again. How can we have a show trial for Saddam, and do any less with Bush/Chaney and his cronies??
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Yup..."stay the course"...the Dem plan too. Wonderful. "We got to stay and fix Iraq"...isn't that what Bush says? You don't put out a fire by throwing more gas on the flames....or more guns into the gunfight.
it's being shouted down by the bobbleheads out there in media land. But if you look very very carefully, the Republicans are the ones with no plan. I agree with other comments. "Staying the course" is not a plan. It makes as much sense as waging war on a tactic.
MARK MY WORD THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA ARE GOING ALL OUT TO MAKE SURE REPUBLICAN WIN IN NOV NOW THAT THEY ARE BEHIND. HEY I SEE ROVE TOLD THE CIA TO BRING OUT ANOTHER AMERICAN TERRORIST, THEY DID THE SAME THING IN THE 2004 ELECTION.