Cfalk From , joined today!, posts, RR: Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 686 times:
None other than the New York Times editorial page has admitted that the democrats never have put forward a realistic plan for the country. It's fine to critisize someone else's cooking, nut now they have been handed the pots and pans, and we are waiting to see what they do with them.
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4458 posts, RR: 33 Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 676 times:
What a ridiculously misleading title. This editorial claims NO SUCH THING. It simply says that, now that the Democrats have won the elections, it'll be time for them to present their plans.
But hey, one must never let reality get in the way of a good, screaming, sensationalistic headline, right?
Halls120 From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 659 times:
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 2): What a ridiculously misleading title. This editorial claims NO SUCH THING. It simply says that, now that the Democrats have won the elections, it'll be time for them to present their plans.
I don't think it is all that misleading. After all, the last sentence reads "Voters gave the Democrats the floor --- and are now waiting to hear what they have to say."
Maybe to be fair the title should be "We're waiting to hear the Democratic plan for Iraq."
What I'll be more interested in over the next several months is how long a honeymoon the democratic congress gets from the mainstream press.
If this editorial is any indication, it's going to be a short one.
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4458 posts, RR: 33 Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 645 times:
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 3): I don't think it is all that misleading. After all, the last sentence reads "Voters gave the Democrats the floor --- and are now waiting to hear what they have to say."
And how is that in any way even remotely the same as saying they have NO plan?
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 3): Maybe to be fair the title should be "We're waiting to hear the Democratic plan for Iraq."
That's a whole world of difference compared to "Confirmed: they have no plan", wouldn't you say?
UALPHLCS From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 641 times:
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 3): Maybe to be fair the title should be "We're waiting to hear the Democratic plan for Iraq."
Maybe "Still waiting to hear a Democrat plan for Iraq."
After all they have had a Presidential election with the John Kerry Non-plan of "we're going to do it smarter." To today with the non-plan of Jack Murtha, "We're going ot do it smarter."
They ran on nothing but platitudes and bad press from Iraq.
I think it's high time we see a plan from the Democrats they've had YEARS to develop one.
Jetjack74 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 6350 posts, RR: 50 Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 637 times:
Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter): None other than the New York Times editorial page has admitted that the democrats never have put forward a realistic plan for the country
No surprise. Carl Levin is saying that he believes there will be a fixed timetable, while Dr Dean says there won't be, which frightens me that Senator Levin may head the Senate Armed Services Committee. But, while this is typical political posturing, i'm willing to give the Democrats a shot at correcting the war in Iraq but I don't really believe they want to. They would rather let the current state continue so to help them gain the WH The last thing they want is for the war to go well, IMO. They don't have a plan, in which they should've already had one, but that politics for you. It doesn't really surprise me though.
"Shut your pie hole and listen to me when I say that I am finished with the checking of the bags conversation."
Halls120 From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 626 times:
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 5): Quoting Halls120 (Reply 3):
Maybe to be fair the title should be "We're waiting to hear the Democratic plan for Iraq."
That's a whole world of difference compared to "Confirmed: they have no plan", wouldn't you say?
The democrats ran on Bush having screwed up Iraq. It is incumbent upon them to have a plan. I would give them a bit more time than the NYT is giving them to come forward, but they do need to go public with their strategy.
Or admit that all they were doing was criticizing without having a viable alternative. The longer they wait, the longer it makes it look like they have no plan.
Quote: Democrats Push for Troop Cuts Within Months
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 --- Democratic leaders in the Senate vowed on Sunday to use their new Congressional majority to press for troop reductions in Iraq within a matter of months, stepping up pressure on the administration just as President Bush is to be interviewed by a bipartisan panel examining future strategy for the war.
The Democrats --- the incoming majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada; the incoming Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan; and the incoming Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware --- said a phased redeployment of troops would be their top priority when the new Congress convenes in January, even before an investigation of the conduct of the war.
"We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months," Mr. Levin said in an appearance on the ABC News program "This Week." In a telephone interview later, Mr. Levin added, "The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over and that they are going to have to solve their own problems."
The White House signaled a willingness to listen to the Democrats' proposals, with Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, saying in two television appearances that the president was open to "fresh ideas" and a "fresh look." But Mr. Bolten said he could not envision the White House signing on to a plan setting a timetable for the withdrawal of troops.
"You know, we're willing to talk about anything," he said on "This Week." "I don't think we're going to be receptive to the notion there's a fixed timetable at which we automatically pull out, because that could be a true disaster for the Iraqi people. But what we've always been prepared to do, and remain prepared to do, is indeed what Senators Levin and Biden were talking about, is put pressure on the Iraqi government to take over themselves."
The spirited exchanges on the Sunday morning talk shows --- a staple of weekend life for the political elite here, especially on the Sunday after an election that blew through Washington like a tornado --- came at a delicate moment for the White House on Iraq. The bipartisan panel on strategy, led by James A. Baker III, the secretary of state under the first President Bush, and Lee Hamilton, a Democratic former congressman, will be at the White House on Monday to begin its final round of interviews.
The panel will meet separately with Mr. Bush and members of his foreign policy team, including the secretaries of state and defense, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the director of national intelligence, and will then interview Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain by videoconference. On Tuesday, the group plans to meet with Democratic foreign policy leaders.
The panel is expected to make its recommendations by the end of the year, and Democrats said they did not intend to push a resolution for troop withdrawal until after the report was issued. But after Tuesday's election, in which Republicans took what Mr. Bush has called "a thumping," Democrats used their Sunday appearances to signal that they believed they had a mandate about Iraq and would seize on it.
"The people have spoken in a very, very strong way that they don't buy the administration policy," Mr. Levin said on ABC. Mr. Reid, in an appearance on CBS, said troop redeployment "should start within the next few months."
In June, the Republican-controlled Senate rejected two amendments on troop reductions backed by Democrats. One called for all United States combat troops to be withdrawn within a year. The other, whose sponsors included Mr. Levin, called for troop reductions to start by the end of the year without setting a deadline for complete withdrawal.
In the interview after his television appearance, Mr. Levin said that any resolution about troop reductions in the next session of Congress would not contain detailed benchmarks mandating how many troops should be withdrawn by specific dates.
As Democrats outlined their proposal to reduce the American presence in Iraq, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and a likely presidential contender for 2008, reiterated his stance that there were not enough American troops there.
Appearing on the NBC program "Meet the Press," Mr. McCain said that "the present situation is unacceptable" but added that any withdrawal from Iraq would create chaos throughout the Middle East.
Mr. McCain, emphasizing the importance of breaking the back of the Mahdi Army, the militia allied with the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, said that the Iraqi prime minister "has to understand that we need to put down Sadr, and we need to take care of the Mahdi Army, and we need to stop the sectarian violence that is on the increase in a nonacceptable level, and I think that the best way to assure that is for him to know that we will do what's necessary to bolster the --- train and equip the Iraqi army, et cetera."
Mr. McCain added, "If we send the signal that we are leaving, of course, he's going to try to make accommodations with others, because he knows what is going to be the inevitable result."
After a week in which both parties used the fallout from Tuesday's midterm elections to promise a new era of bipartisanship, the Sunday television interviews suggested that profound differences remained over Iraq, the issue that proved central in the elections.
But there was one area on which Democrats hinted they might find common ground with the White House: the confirmation of Robert M. Gates, the former C.I.A. director, to replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who had become a magnet for criticism about the war and whose departure was announced by Mr. Bush the day after voters handed Democrats majorities in both houses of Congress.
"I'm inclined to vote for him now," said Mr. Biden, who voted against Mr. Gates for the job of C.I.A. chief 15 years ago, adding, "To put it very, very bluntly, as long as he's not there, Rumsfeld is there."
The White House is clearly looking to the Baker-Hamilton group to provide a path toward progress in Iraq. Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton have already told committee staff members to begin drafting parts of the report. But other commissioners did not see any of those drafts before the election, two members of the commission said in interviews last week.
"I guess the thinking was that anything that gets circulated before the election would get leaked, and one side or the other might use that for electoral purposes," said one member, who was granted anonymity because the commission is supposed to operate in secrecy.
Other members of the commission speculated that Mr. Baker, in particular, had been waiting to see the outcome of the elections, perhaps calculating that a major victory for the Democrats would put the White House in less of a position to challenge the recommendations.
The commission will meet again the week after Thanksgiving, when many of the most critical debates about options are expected to take place among commission members.
Mr. Baker has already made some of his views known. In television interviews, some timed to promote a book he has just published, he has expressed skepticism that a rapid withdrawal can be accomplished without setting off chaos or civil war, and has been doubtful that partitioning the country will work.
The message from White House officials on Sunday was that the president was indeed open to new ideas on Iraq, as long as they did not involve a plan with a specific date for beginning the drawing down of troops.
Dan Bartlett, counselor to Mr. Bush, said on Fox News that the president had directed the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Gen. Peter Pace, to assess strategy in Iraq and would be open to listening to "good suggestions," regardless of where they came from.
But Dana Perino, the deputy White House press secretary, said in an interview that Mr. Bush remained adamant that decisions about how to deploy troops would be made by military commanders in Iraq.
"That didn't change overnight on November 7," Ms. Perino said.
Of course, this is from the New York Times, so use a course grain of salt for this "source."
Cfalk From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 593 times:
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 2): It simply says that, now that the Democrats have won the elections, it'll be time for them to present their plans.
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 3): After all, the last sentence reads "Voters gave the Democrats the floor --- and are now waiting to hear what they have to say."
Which I would have thought would have been the whole purpose of the election campaign. I expected democrats to say, "This is our plan", and you can compare it with Bush's plan and decide which one is better. Instead, all we got was "Bush sucks".
This was the ultimate negative campaign. The Democrats' whole arguement was simply that they were not Republican.
Jcs17 From United States, joined Jun 2001, 7107 posts, RR: 39 Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 572 times:
Well, we do have a Democrat plan for Iraq, it is called -- "pull out and give up." Congratulations Democrats on your recent mid-term election victory, but don't expect to win anything for the next twenty years. The Democrats deliberately misled the American people by trotting out their "moderates" and keeping nuts like Nancy Pelosi behind closed doors for weeks. However, this is not a moderate Democrat party, it is the same cut-and-run, far-left controlled party that Republicans warned about. Instead of being honest about their true plans, the Democrats wanted to win at any cost, and that involved presenting a moderate image to the voting public. A Democrat-led pull out of Iraq would be unthinkably distasterous for US foreign policy, but mark my words, you can kiss Democrat majorities good-bye for a long, long time.
102IAHexpress From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1023 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 558 times:
We were told President Bush would be a uniter not a divider, we were told Iraq had WMD, we were told we would be welcomed as liberators; we were told this war would make America safer, and now we’re being told that if we leave, the ramifications for the U.S. and Iraq will be disastrous.
Most Republicans stopped drinking this administrations’ Kool-Aid a long time ago, so why should the Dems believe anything this administrations says?
Charger From United States, joined Oct 2006, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 525 times:
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 3): Maybe to be fair the title should be "We're waiting to hear the Democratic plan for Iraq."
That is a fair statement and we will hear their plan in time. Why release your plan when technically your not in power yet?
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 3): What I'll be more interested in over the next several months is how long a honeymoon the democratic congress gets from the mainstream press.
If this editorial is any indication, it's going to be a short one.
It should be a short honeymoon. The Dem's have alot to prove. I for one hope they can do it.
Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 6): I think it's high time we see a plan from the Democrats they've had YEARS to develop one
So did the Republicans, and last I checked stay the course wasn't exactly working.
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10): Instead, all we got was "Bush sucks
Well, he does.
Quoting 102IAHexpress (Reply 12): We were told President Bush would be a uniter not a divider, we were told Iraq had WMD, we were told we would be welcomed as liberators; we were told this war would make America safer, and now we’re being told that if we leave, the ramifications for the U.S. and Iraq will be disastrous
You don't understand, it was the republican's that said all that so that makes it ok!!
OU812 From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 506 times:
Quoting 102IAHexpress (Reply 12): Most Republicans stopped drinking this administrations’ Kool-Aid a long time ago, so why should the Dems believe anything this administrations says?
Hhhmm , we'll see who's drinking the Kool Aid here !
Quoting 102IAHexpress (Reply 12): We were told President Bush would be a uniter not a divider, we were told Iraq had WMD,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JANUARY 30, 2004 | Printable Version
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert [ KKK] Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
WASHINGTON, July 8 --- An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year,
On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.
Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.
The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.
AndesSMF From United States, joined Jan 2006, 6080 posts, RR: 32 Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 492 times:
Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter): None other than the New York Times editorial page has admitted that the democrats never have put forward a realistic plan for the country
"Levin said he and most Democrats believe U.S. forces must begin leaving Iraq within four to six months in order to spark Iraqi political leaders to solve the sectarian problems that threaten to tear the country apart."
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined today!, posts, 
From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1023 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4458 posts, 
] :