"Keep going to read the Obama press release."

Uhm, I thought I just did that?

More importantly, what does some guy that took a class with him 15 years ago think?

Does this at least mean we can stop hearing the Republican's bleating about "Where's the Democratic Plan?"

Bubba,

The Republicants have no one for the 08 Presidential election,so their doing what they do best....."Swiftboating"

John E we are ready for them We have on tape their best bet flip flopping

The republicans are all doomed
FINALLY

Bill stop watching Fox News story was debunked about Obama. But I am tired of these treads everyday

Barack is not just talking about it--he's 'being' about it. And where is our "Kucinch Watch?"

If Senator Obama is taken in front of an international court will he be able to claim he was just following orders? Gambling with people's lives for political gain is an evil game, Senator. It's going to be a long ride from here on out.

I'm just waiting to see how negative the other prez candidates will be about this bill. I hope I am surprised and find that they can look beyond political aspirations.

this will definitely help mi current events grade!!!! OMG!!!!!! wll, g2g. c'ya later aligater:)

This bill has no legs.

You'll have to find your liberal wetdream of American defeat somewhere else.

Senator Obama has the common sense and intelligence to propose a plan that would finally get us out of an unwinnable war.

Finally! Go Obama! I just hope he doesn't cave in to Zionist lobbies like Bush always does, or else we're in another whole heap of trouble.

hey boys and girls-if you think this is a "democratic plan" it seems like the Viet Nam plan-you know-the one where Jerkoff Kerry was specifically asked, "we hear there will a massacre of Vietnamese" and he said, "I have it on the word of....there will be no massacre"

Of course when we left 2 million were killed and 1 million displaced. That was just Viet Nam, not Laos not Cambodia....The continent is only now emerging from 30 years of the hell and tyranny of communism.

Let me ask all you enlightened folks-if we did leave (which we are not doing-someone really needs to explain the way the constitution works to Mr. Banana-the emptiest of empty suits)-and then there is genocidal murder-would you then advocate U.S troops be deployed for "humanitarian reasons"?

Sounds more or less reasonable at first blush.

Don't be too smug, Tony (I know, that's asking to much of you) but right now this is the Obama plan.

When the Ds unify behind this, or SOMETHING that's not a lousy idea, I'll say Thank you folks for finally extractng your heads from your backsides!

Give me a break. We are going to let a first term senator with no experience whatsoever direct war policy. I'll bet Osama is loving this.

Of the potential candidates, Obama is my choice, sounds like the only one who may save the United States, and be a benefit to the whole world.

Looks like angry old man McCain is sinking like a rock.No wonder he's sucking up to "Rock Star" Obama.

Ohio Poll Shows Clinton Trumps Giuliani And McCain

January 30, 2007 5:34 p.m. EST

Matthew Borghese - All Headline News Staff Writer
Washington, D.C. (AHN) - A new poll shows that despite strong negative ratings, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) would still edge out her possible Republican opponents among Ohio voters.

In a survey conducted by Quinnipiac University, Senator Clinton would win against former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani, 46 percent to 43; and defeats Senator John McCain (R-AZ) 46 percent to 42.

The White House and its supporters will just ignore this and keep saying the Democrats have no plan. This will infuriate voters who have become disillusioned with the continued failed Iraq policy. The '08 election will be a slaughter of epic proportions for the Reublicans and they will have only themselves to blame.

There is no longer any reason the Iraqi government and army can't deal with the insurgency and death squads. They just don't want to as long as the US is there to bail them out. It's time for some tough love here to force them to take responsibility for their own security. We've done enough babysitting for them. No more American blood and treasure for this bungled fiasco. Cut the funding now. Escalate the anti war protests. Military people need to start to refuse deployment to Iraq. The president needs to start feeling some real pain if he is capable.

wow so every senator now has an iraq resolution in addition to an exploratory committee? biden's been proposing a rather thorough plan to get out of iraq for over a year now, but no one seems to be aware of it. planforiraq.com!

Bush need to start realizing he is not 'the Decider' anymore. The US legislative Branch is not a lame duck institution. It's time to take back our country from neo-cons. Lets give Iraq to Iraqis, Lets fight terror! Why do I still have to hear Laden's audio threat even after 6 years?

Another cowardly Senator with no Military background ...maybe Senator Kerry will give him a Purple Heart!

The Bush Administration has no respect for the loss of troop lives. I support any plan to get our troops home quickly and safely.

Since the leading presidential candidate for the other side is firmly committed to the "surge," this draws the battle lines succinctly. The 2008 presidential election may well turn on what happens in Iraq in the next six months.

I think American are tired of personal attacking and need visionary leaders and fresh new face like Obama.

Barrack Obama, like Dick Durbin is a cut and run Democrat. I am ashamed to tell people that I am from Illinois. Neither of these Senators has the guts to protect America. Osama bin Laden had these 2 sized up perfectly.

thanks for the video of this. I am really happy Obama introduced this as I want the war ended and I am a supporter of Obama's .

Sounds like a plan for politicians and military leaders who need 'single-step commands' to see the finish line. Are there enough of them who can follow such commands and CROSS the finish line? Wringing hands, throwing darts, and hopelessness present no relevance to this international regional crisis - the public does not need to be convinced about that. Too bad only Obama is outlining such a detailed plan - we deserve one from at least half the senetors! We need every elected official in both Houses working around the clock to devise/agree/carry-out a plan ASAP. American and more so, non-American, lives are at stake.

"Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war. Amen brother. This is war is going nowhere. Let the people of Iraq fight it out. Oh and when GDub bombs Iran enjoy $5 dollar plus a gallon gas. Bank on it!!!

Take ten paragraphs of emptiness and put the word "Plan" on top, and you too can be the darling of the media and the moonbats. The usual piffle about "broad and sustained diplomatic initiative" is just one indicator about how unserious the "Plan" is.

Actually, even calling the above a "plan" is too complimentary. Thoughtful readers should note that the above isn't actually the "Plan", but merely the press release announcing the "Plan".

Barack "H" Obama is starting to believe in his own media hype. Any type of military action,Surge or De-escalation, concerning Iraq should be left to professional military personell,not a liberal junior senator "without any experience" in warfare.
But,if he was introducing legislation regarding cocain and marijuana,it would be a different story,"he has experience" with that.
Paulo

Mullah Cimoc say:

too many jack baurer tv show make ameriki so stupid believe all lie fox tv and william kristol.

please for google: +cia “mighty wurlitzer”

you find out why ameriki so stupid for israeli.

Jeff/Bill,

Now that you mentioned it.

Where is Osama?

All of that EXPERIANCE in the Whitehouse and they can't find the one guy they wanted "dead or alive".

Uh, Dr. Knowitall, Vietnamese are still being killed TODAY by all the unexploded ordinance we left in Vietnam at the end of the war 30 years ago. Since the war’s formal conclusion, there have been at least 50,000 deaths from such ordinance in Vietnam. There will be many more, for generations to come. We are using depleted uranium tipped ammunition and missles in Iraq that will leave that country a wasteland for years. This war is about three things- money for oil companies, money for defense companies and combat experience for the US military. This administration doesn't give a damn about Iraq or its people.

OMG! First we had "The Decider" George W Bush,
a Viet Nam War AWOL-Rich Kid War Evader and
Republican Instant Generalissmo & War Expert!
And who made a mess out of his and Vice Psycho
Delusional Dick Cheney Insane War In Iraq!...

And so, now the Dimwit Democrat Donkey Party
gives us an inexperienced,no military experience
instant war expert and Democrat Version of
a Generalissmo,freshman US Senator and dope
smoker Barack Obama,to lead us out of the
Bush/Cheney Iraq Insanity?... I Don't Think So!

So,where the Hell is General George S Patton
when we need him? As "Old Blood & Guts"
would probably slapped both Delusional Dick
Cheney and Psycho George W Bush,before he shot
both them with his Ivory Handed Colt .45 Single
Action Revolver for Cowardice and Stupidity!

And that leaves us,with throwing the looney toons
Mental Midget Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Out Of Congress,so we can find someone to lead
Impeachment Proceedings Against Both Bush &
Cheney and End This Era Of Bush/Cheney Insanity!

Wake up Folks,and smell the coffee as any gutless
Democrat like Nancy Pelosi and her cohort Wimp
Senate Democratic Majority Harebrain Harry Reid
are not the American people's best hope here to
end the Bush & Cheney War In Iraq Nightmare!
Not when they take Impeachment off the table!

Hey Barack Obama I didnot vote for any stupid
non-binding,meaningless,symbolic toothless,
empty resolutions on Ending The War in Iraq,
Kiddo so grow up and come back once you do so,
Kid and take that same message to Nancy Pelosi
and Harry Reid and your Yellow Coward Fellow
Democrat Two Face Gutless Wonder Sell Outs!

Well, my opinion of Obama has improved significantly from this. Hillary should have proposed what Obama just did, but she dropped the ball. If he keeps this up it will definitely bode well for his chances at capturing the presidency.

Dear Zakkum | Jan 30, 2007 8:30:07 PM,

So you say, "Another cowardly Senator with no Military background ...maybe Senator Kerry will give him a Purple Heart!"

At least he's talking truth, hasn't flip-flopped, and, despite 'no military background' (e.g., George Bush dropping out of the National Guard with Daddy's permission) is certainly offereing a better plan than W's Harvard MBA and Oil-merchants have been able to come up with.

What's more, his is a POLITICAL solution, i.e., using human faculties of intelligence. Perhaps you prefer the more, "organic," methods like civil war on Baghdad streets or 100,000 protesters marching on Capitol Hill. In that case, just don't listen to Obama. Grab your gun.

But,if he was introducing legislation regarding cocain and marijuana,it would be a different story,"he has experience" with that.
Paulo

Sound very familiar? That's right George W Bush.
Paula, Paula, Paula. Your imput is very weak.

"Thoughtful readers should note that the above isn't actually the "Plan", but merely the press release announcing the 'Plan'".
Posted by: bruce | Jan 30, 2007 10:31:39 PM

Bruce,

I had assumed this was not "The Plan" but the press release thereof. The devil is in the details as always.

What set Obama's thoughts on Iraq apart (some months ago) include withdrawal on a FLEXIBLE schedule, equitable sharing of the oil revenue, security upgrades and economic assistance.

Without knowing the details, it sounds like a relatively responsible way to withdraw. Anyway, a far cry better than the other Democratic "plans" I've seen floated -- which definitely qualify as "loony".

In a situation where only (bad) scenarios are possible, this looks (at a glance, I admit) less (bad) than others to me.

However, it remains to be seen what will be passed in the end. Will the other Prez hopefuls allow The Golden Boy to have this plum, and let this sail thru as-is, without signifcant ammendments?

For that matter, will any plan ever pass at all before '08?

To BOB SMIT (who posted earlier);

"This bill has no legs." You said that?? How about the thousands of American kids who know have no legs? Or arms? Or the ones who are paralyzed, traumatized??

To those who think Senator Obama has no experience I say this; WHAT MILITARY EXPERIENCE DOES PRESIDENT BUSH HAVE?? What people don't understand is that a president does NOT need to be experienced in every single facet of government, that is what a cabinet is for!

I QUOTE PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT;

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president."

It is amazing how 90% of the people complaining about the lack of military experience from the both the sitting President and the front running candidates have no military experience themselves. The last I checked, military experience was not a requirement (though very useful). As a former marine who served during Desert Storm, my heart goes out to my brothers and sisters in arms and also their families during this most difficult time. Believe me when I say that there is not one serviceman in the world that truly enjoys Combat, none of us are warmongers. That being said, we are all suffering from a seriously flawed policy relating to the war in Iraq. It is mind boggling to see that there is no definitive exit strategy in place to bring our military home. Are there holes in Sen. Obama's plan? Large enough to drive an 18wheeler through, but at least it gives us a framework. If he wins the presidency, he doesn't need Military experience. He would have Over a century's worth of military experience to tap into (the collective experience of the Senior Command staff of the branches of the military). The key would be being able to set aside his or her pride (should sen. clinton win) and act accordingly.... which it really doesn't seem like the current sitting president has done!!

Tony -

Not quite enough from the Democrats for me to stop asking for a plan, as this is a bill presented by only one Democrat. As I've said before, there have been many individual plans from Democrats. It is a step in the right direction towards a plan, at least, but until the Democrats unify and pass legislation they're still doing nothing.

Is this the right plan? Who knows? We won't be able to find out until the Democrats pass some legistlation and enact the plan. Whether you agree with the Republicans or not, at least they've put a plan into action and will be forced to live with the political consequences. I give credit to Obama for putting his political fortunes on the line, at least. However, Democratic party as a whole doesn't appear to believe enough in their anti-Bush rhetoric to do so.

Frank James,

I object to the (bad) editing of my sparkling prose.

Nu Lojik,

Enjoyed your post. Thank you especially for reminding people that military experience is not required in a President. That's what the military professionals are for.

Don't blame Frank. Blame me.
And while you're at it, blame yourself for requiring an edit: There are some words that will not appear on this blog. The more people edit themselves, the less we have to.
-- Keeping The Swamp Clean.

The arguments being put forth here supporting the war are at best infantile. They are based on the premise that only we and we alone know what is best for and can save Iraq. This is pure garbage. Iraq has a government and army. This is now an internal matter for them to deal with. That their army has the same sectarian make up as the general population and won't fight their own sect is not our problem. The administration needs to stop with the condecension that we will determine everything for the Iraqis.

I don't care if it's Dem's or Repub's plans, JUST GET US THE HELL OUT!! Redeploy to our borders!!

I'm all for redeployment, and I'm glad to see Obama is now too. My question is, why didn't Obama vote for the Kerry-Feingold amendment 6 months ago?

I love how the same people that rip Obama for lack of experience don't take into account that a once semi-honorable man, who is now a borderline war criminal had plenty. That man is our VP, and he and his little puppet GW can't even look the guys at VA hospitals in the eyes. Impeach, imprison!

No name, you think like a Republican. Every one get in lockstep behind the leader. Don't think, don't analyze, just do something, even if it makes no sense.

The Democrats are taking a mature , level headed approach to governance. They're not going to make a snap judgement and all rush to follow the "Plan" for the sake of having a "Plan." They are going to take a good sober look at the situation and analyze what steps they can take to best address it. That's how adults react to problems. That's how representatives of the people in our Republic should act.

Darn, for a few months, I thought Barack was "the man" we have been waiting for. He is just another version of a liberal limp noodle from the east coast (maybe he learned this garbage in college) in the tradition of Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, and others who want to close their eyes to "new world order of Islamic terrorism" and hide.

I really had hoped for leadership from this man, and new ideas that would separate him from others; an independent, Midwestern thinker. The more we learn, the more he fades. Hillary and McCain look more presidential now, but I am holding out hope for Richardson from New Mexico (he SEEMS like the common sense guy I thought Obama was). Anyway, my bubble is burst and I have to say I am ashamed to live in the land of "Obama and the Turban" (Barack Obama and Dick Durbin). Sad day.

"They are going to take a good sober look at the situation and analyze what steps they can take to best address it. That's how adults react to problems. "

Tony,
I agree. It's called 'critical thinking' skill. And it can take a while.
And it's going to take a lot of it to think our way out of this mess in Iraq.

The details of the "Plan" one can derive from the press release are comical enough. For example, the president is mandated to "submit a plan" (yes, a plan to submit a plan), to appoint "a special envoy", to launch a "comprehensve diplomatic initiative" to "help achieve" some "political settlement among the Iraqi people".

If endless talking could win wars, then Barack Obama would be the new George Patton.

All this talk about Presidents who dodged the draft and junior Senators with no military experience is making me dizzy. Everyone in here is bashing the Democrats and the Republicans alike. I have an idea.....

Why dont all of you quit your meaningless 9-5 at Walmart and run for President, since you all have the greatest advice for our Government. All of you Democrat and Obama bashers better have MILITARY EXPERIENCE. Otherwise, I dont think you have a right to post your opinions here. C'mon get real.

And all of you bleeding heart liberals better toughen up because rainbows and carebears are not going to save our country.

By the way, I wont be voting for Obama or Clinton, or McCain for that matter. God I hope this isnt another "lesser of the two evils" election.

Im Micheal Macarthy, and Im just sayin.

So one has to have a military background to be a Senator or a President? Come on, Obama is a youngster! 40-50 years ago when families were only raised on one income per household, more people had to enter the military so they could afford their college educations. It doesn't mean Obama is a coward for not enlisting in the armed forces! If that is the case, there are alot more cowards these days!

Let me ask all you enlightened folks-if we did leave (which we are not doing-someone really needs to explain the way the constitution works to Mr. Banana-the emptiest of empty suits)-and then there is genocidal murder-would you then advocate U.S troops be deployed for "humanitarian reasons"?

Posted by: dr knowitall | Jan 30, 2007 7:59:05 PM

No, troops should only be used when it is to defend our national security. Iraqis killing each other is not in our national security interests.

The way I read it, Bush sez "we're here til you meet our standards of progress" while Obama sez "meet our standards of progress or we're outta here (while protecting our political interests)." Sounds like a dangerous game of chicken.

And speaking of political interests, it would seem to me that all the posturing in Washington is only for the *politicians* own political interests. When did military policy become dictated by popular opinion?

I think the quotation of Teddy Roosevelt by Tom
I QUOTE PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT;
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president."

while inspiring, is displaced. You can no longer quote politicians of yore because we are no longer a people of yore. In Roosevelt's day (Teddy and FDR) the citizens of the US understood their freedom as a privilege that came with responsibilities and often necessitated sacrifice.

Now in our instant, on demand society, where everyone's ego can be a star on mySpace and You Tube and we can all live like millionaires draining the last of our equity from our pay option mortgages -- there is no more concept of that. We want to be rich, safe, entertained and the greatest country in the world at no cost whatsoever.

When was the last time any of us willingly gave up anything in support of a cause that may have been deemed "unpopular"? If any elected official called for the rationing of anything today, they would be impeached and run out of Washington!

I guess the point of my ramblings is that while the situation in Iraq is dire, pandering to popular opinion (a la Obama) isn't the answer.

"We won't be able to find out until the Democrats pass some legistlation and enact the plan"

Posted by: no name | Jan 31, 2007 7:28:08 AM

The Commander-In-Chief can direct troop movements. The Legislative Branch cannot. Repeat until this information sticks.

Iraq should be left to professional military personell,not a liberal junior senator "without any experience" in warfare.

Posted by: Paulo | Jan 30, 2007 10:57:00 PM

So are you also saying Iraq should be left to professional military personell, not a commander-in-chief "without any experience" in warfare?

Last I checked, Bush had a questionable service record in the National Guard. While it still constitutes service, it is in no way, shape or form anything near "experience in warfare."

Paulo, you've been making it too easy for people lately. You're getting more and more frantic and less careful with your word choices. Take a step back and try to read what you're saying. You're embarrassing yourself.

Missing (judging by the press release) from the "Plan":

1. Any mention of Iran. The "plan" doesn't even use the word "Iran".
2. Any words commonly found in plans for wars for the last 2000 years, including "defeat', "enemy" and 'attack".
3. Any notion of how America INCREASES its leverage for a "political solution" by DECREASING its troop levels.

The "Plan" reminds me of those species of squids, who, when confronted, instantly retreat, while spewing forth a cloud of dark ink to mask their retreat. To the extent there is a "Plan" in the above mish-mash, it is retreat, but spew forth a cloud of rhetoric to hide what you're advocating.

Chuck,

I QUOTE PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT;
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president."

while inspiring, is displaced. You can no longer quote politicians of yore because we are no longer a people of yore. In Roosevelt's day (Teddy and FDR) the citizens of the US understood their freedom as a privilege that came with responsibilities and often necessitated sacrifice."

That's a whopper there, Chuck. First off, it is the Commander in Chief who decided that no sacrifice was necessary from the people of this great country to fight Al Qaeda (and now Iraq). I, and many other liberals, have been clamoring from Day 1 that the biggest problem with this "War on Terror" is that no sacrifices are being asked of the citizens.

Since 9/11, we have cut another trillion dollars in taxes overwhelmingly on those in the top 5% of income, made no efforts to increase the size of the military or institute even a modest draft, made no efforts to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, etc. etc.

Your post comes from the Norman Rockwell "good ol' days" nostalgia portion of the brain, and I can understand that. But your assertion is off-base. Americans are just as patriotic, just as tough, and just as cunning as they used to be. What they need is leadership, and that is what has been most sorely lacking for the last 6 years. What has George Bush asked the people of this nation to sacrifice?

The only people making sacrifices for this cause are the career soldiers and the unfortunate Reserve and Guardsmen who continue to be called away on tour after tour, laying bare the farce that ours is an "all-volunteer" military.

"Every one get in lockstep behind the leader. Don't think, don't analyze, just do something, even if it makes no sense."

Blah blah blah. Whatever.

My point is that I want the Democrats to back their rhetoric with actions, like enacting some legislation. They've been discussing their plans for some time now, well before the election, so I don't see the need for further delay.

Jethro-

Gee, thanks for the lesson. I am well aware of this fact. Although didn't Frank James point out the other day that the Congress thinks they do have the authority?

In what world can you create PEACE by waging and supporting War?

We can not solve the problem by following orders of the same people who created it.

I am for peace and any resolution that is working in that direction.

God Bless anyone who tries something different than increasing hate for each other.

So, no humanitarian missions unless there's a security interest at stake? so we shouldn't do anything about Darfur? was Bosnia a mistake? how about helping out with the tsunami? was D-Day a mistake too? and isn't it in our security interests to help Iraq from being a safe haven for terrorists? they'll be back for you one day...

Kevin & Fred C:

Great, insightful posts--couldn't agree more. America desperately needs a leader who exercises probity, sound judgement and the unique gift for bringing disparate parties to the Compromise Table. OB is that leader!

Ralph, you need some serious AMT (Anger Management Therapy). You appear to be in severe pain...Perhaps from lack of attention?

Bruce, et al bloglodytes opposed to OB's Iraq Bill to minimize the loss of more american lives/limbs: If you're going to prosecute The Man's Plan, please spare us the broad-brush generalities; the unanalogous analogies, and/or sandbox, whiney repartee. Give the jury (fellow bloggers) some real meat to chew on...We're weary of reheated, week-old pablum. And sick of digesting a daily fare of human carnage! How about building your case against BO's Plan based on relevant facts? Then, sharing with us your superior plan. Just a thought...

Jeff C., your point is good but it doesn't help Obama. If Bush was unqualified for the oval office - and look where he's gotten us - surely Obama must be, too, wouldn't you say? Bush had at least served as an executive, Obama's entire political career has been as a state legislator and then Senator.

John McCain, however, not only has extensive, honorable military service (he was Navy liaison to the Pentagon after Vietnam) going for him, he has served as a leglislator for 20 years and was a committee chairman for much of that time.

The below quote is from Sen Feingold (D-Wis), whose GOTOIP is even more aggressive than BO's...(Get Our Troops Outta Iraq Plan) Judging by the bloggers' feedback, he's hit a rich, untapped vein of approval.

“In the United States of America, the people are sovereign, not the president. It is Congress’s responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misguided and that the country opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the Administration’s policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying “your policy is mistaken.”
And we can’t stand idly by and tell ourselves that it’s the president’s job to fix the mess he made. It’s our job to fix the mess, and if we don’t do so we are abdicating our responsibilities.
“Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm’s way.
“This legislation will allow the President adequate time to redeploy our troops safely from Iraq, and it will make specific exceptions for a limited number of U.S. troops who must remain in Iraq to conduct targeted counter-terrorism and training missions and protect U.S. personnel.
“It will not hurt our troops in any way ­– they will continue receiving their equipment, training and salaries. It will simply prevent the President from continuing to deploy them to Iraq. By passing this bill, we can finally focus on repairing our military and countering the full range of threats that we face around the world.”

Jethro, Legislative branch is responsible for authorizing use of the military and funding them. They can declare our participation in this conflict over if they wish to or only authorize funding for limited troop levels. The "Decider" is not solely responsible for directing the military, no matter what he thinks.

"not to a liberal junior Senator without any expreience in warfare"

Paulo,

with reference to the above partial quote and post, are you suggesting we must have someone with the vast amount of experience our current Commander in Chief, Mr. Bush, has? Our Mr. Bush who seems to have no problem adding more body's to the Iraq fire despite the experience he gained when hiding out behind "Daddy Bush" and the National Guard during the Vietnam war.

"The Commander-In-Chief can direct troop movements. The Legislative Branch cannot. Repeat until this information sticks."
Posted by: jethro Jan 31 2007 10:10:51 AM

Excellent point, jethro. Now, this begs the question; what's the purpose of bringing this bill up? Obama knows that this bill can't force Bush to do anything. This is no plan, only more of the same defeastist (stuff) that is in vogue in the democrat party right now. "We can't win this militarily", "phased redeployment"- what is new about this? It's the same garbage that Marx Murtha has been saying for over a year now. If this was a genuine attempt to offer a solution, why is it that, the next sentence after the phased surrender plan is offered is always, "Everyone acknowledges that pulling out would be a disaster"? What kind of solution is that? It's not a solution, only political posturing at the expense of our military in harm's way.

Jeff,

I wasn't really pointing it out to Paulo as an argument for or against Obama, but at the sheer lack of thought that went into his statement.

Sometimes I wonder if some of the posters around here make these blanket statements just to get a reaction out of people. And if that's the case, I wish they'd move elsewhere as some people do try to further the discussion and exchange of ideas around here.

But back to your question: John McCain is probably the most qualified out of anyone based on his military experience to be in control of our military, but he has not changed his views on the war and continues to push forward with military solutions to a political problem. And it's not working.

Yes, Obama had only been a state legislator before becoming a Senator. But as it's been pointed out multiple times from multiple sources: So was Abraham Lincoln -- and he ended slavery.

A president has the ultimate say at the end of the decision-making process, but a good president surrounds himself with and consults many, many people who are extremely qualified to aid in areas he might not hold a PhD in.

"Millions Wasted in Iraq"???

What's the big deal, we have millions wasted by the Daley admin in Chicago every year.

Get a perspective Chicago, and let's do something about the problems in our own backyard.

"My point is that I want the Democrats to back their rhetoric with actions, like enacting some legislation."

"...didn't Frank James point out the other day that the Congress thinks they do have the authority?"

Posted by: no name | Jan 31, 2007 11:29:09 AM

Thank you no name, for pointing out the obvious. It's a shame that the obvious has to be pointed out, though -- but thanks all the same.

As I've said before (also see Rus Styles post above) Congress certainly has the power to force a change of policy in that they control the purse strings.

What they lack is the unity of purpose, individual selflessness and the courage to craft and implement a program.

"Critical thinking", C.Morris? Of course! But don't you think the critical thinking should have been done by now (well before the last election) and that we should be seeing action now?

I do. But then it's so much easier to pass nonbinding resolutions.

"only more of the same defeastist (stuff) that is in vogue in the democrat party right now"

Posted by: jy | Jan 31, 2007 12:37:35 PM

First of all its democratic party, we don't call it the republic party do we? Second, over 60% of Ameraca are defeatists? The Republican party has some big names that are against the surge as well so calling a majority of Americans and a handful of Republican Congressmen/women terrorist coddling, white flag waving, comforting the enemy defeatists is garbage.

Leo-

The Democrats were supposed to get out their Crystal Ball before the election and craft a response to Bush sending additional troops to Iraq, even though prior to the election Bush was saying everything was just fine in Iraq. They were also apparently supposed to guess which of them were going to get elected to Congress so that they would know what the makeup if the new Congress would be in terms of the spectrum of views on Iraq, and have the required discusssions to craft a well thought out concensus. All well before the election.

Meanwhile, You're OK with the President and the Republicans lack of foresight, right?

"In what world can you create PEACE by waging and supporting War?"

Posted by: Nicole G. | Jan 31, 2007 11:30:35 AM

Well, Nicole, sometimes in this one.

World War II ended the problem of German militarism that had extended well back into the nineteenth century. Also the problem of Japanese militarism; well before there were strategic arms negotiations with the Soviet Union over nukes, there were similar negotiations involving Japan over numbers of battleships. World War II ended the nationalistic aspirations of both nations and allowed them to become the members of the peaceful world community that they are today.

Not defending this current war, just pointing out that sometimes there is no choice but to give war a chance.

Tony,

The answer to your first question is, if they were smart, if they were hoping to hold power for an extended period of time, if they were serious about taking the country in a different direction, then yes.

I admit that's a tall order, especially for them, but the times demand decisive leadership.

I'm curious. Why do you always asume that I'm "OK with the President and the Republicans"? What are you basing that on?

Dave-

Do you think the outcome in Germany and Japan after the war would have been the same rejection of militarism if the Western Allies would have launched a pre-emptive invasion against them before they started the wars they did? Or do you thinkt the citizens of Germany and Japan would have rallied around those who would fight those who made war on them?

No matter how much he shines, I don't think Barack Obama will become the next president. This country is too addicted to politicians that makes them feel good. Bush was re-elected because the country in 2004 was really enjoying kicking Arab butt. Now it has lost its appetite for butt-kicking ...

I'm in 100% agreement with you about the screamers. They make no real arguments and post nothing of any real substance. The place would be much better off without them.

Back to the question at hand. You're right that Lincoln was only a congressman before he became president, but he also had the experience of founding an entire political party and managing the apparatus that goes along with it. It's the equivalent of Michael Bloomberg claiming his managerial experience of his company prepared him to be New York City Mayor, only on a much grander scale.

Plus, Lincoln's candidacy was an "issue" candidacy based on the one issue that nearly equally divided the nation down geopolitical lines. Obama's issue stances flow more along party lines than any truly heartfelt crusade (Lincoln's experience as an indentured servant is credited by many biographers as the root of his opposition to slavery).

You're right that a good president surrounds himself with and consults many, many people who are extremely qualified to aid in areas he might not hold a PhD in. But that's an argument STRAIGHT out of Bush-Cheney 2000 and Dick Cheney was often mentioned as proof of how Bush would do just that. I don't like the result of that, at all.

Read Jon Zimmerman's op-ed piece on how a vote for Obama in this critical election would not only be a change in philosophy for liberal democrats but also an invitation to more of the disaster of the last 8 years:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0701300268jan30,1,2886837.story

Dave Brann,

Saddem Hussein is dead, his regime is gone. Guess what, the war is over! The WMD's were not found, doesn't mean they weren't ever there but they are no longer pose a threat from Iraq. It's time to go home. I feel horrible leaving Iraq in such a mess but it is their own mess to solve. They must reconcile their differences themselves. If they must go through civil war to do this so be it.

We gave peace a chance, and then those peaceful, loving "martyrs" ran a bunch of airplanes into a few buildings and killed a few thousand civilians (women, children, and about every religious group you can name were victims) one Fall day. Similar things happened in the UK, Spain, and other nations from this loving group of human beings.

so, I see, let's look the other way, and maybe they will not do this again? Iran is just developing nuclear technology for energy, right?

Wake up and smell the coffee, this is not the same world, and we are targets.

John Q:

You forgot to add that all Arabs are alike, therefore all are guilty ...

"We gave peace a chance, and then those peaceful, loving "martyrs" ran a bunch of airplanes into a few buildings and killed a few thousand civilians (women, children, and about every religious group you can name were victims) one Fall day"

Posted by: John Q | Jan 31, 2007 3:20:08 PM

We had military bases in Saudi Arabia. This is not justifying their actions, it is exploring the motives. "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finallly got this country bitten", President Hoover in a letter to friends on the day of the Pearl Harbor attack.

Unfortunately folks, we're stuck at the precarious Iraqi intersection of Worse Ave and Worser St. Either IED laced road taken leads to a Greater Death and Destruction Place. But with one key difference: Worser St--another troop surge--will leave more Americans coming home in flag-draped pine boxes or ASWOL (American Soldiers With Out Limbs).

My heart certainly mourns the loss of any innocent life, but this is a convoluted, four-part civil war. A military Cul-de-sac created by our Supreme Decision-Maker...Look, our troops are ill-trained, and ill-equipped to successfully combat guerrilla-styled warfare. Can you imagine being in a Combat zone and not being able to confidently identify enemy from foe? Your executioner might be a young boy, pregnant woman, a man wearing a US uniform or a bomb-toting taxi...You don't know where it's safe to drive or walk without being blown-up. This is utter madness, instigated by this dangerous cross between John Wayne and Norm Bates "limping" around in the WH.

Until a better road becomes evident, I'll take Worse Ave and pray...

Tony, obviously not. World War II and this war were very different circumstances. As I said in my post, I'm not defending this war; I was responding narrowly to the opening sentence to Nicole's post, which I quoted.

Rus Styles at 4:11 PM summed the situation nicely. I see three options, none good:

Stay the course: More of the same.

"Surge" (I hear "escalation"): More of more of the same.

Leave: The Sunnis will kill the Shiites, and the Shiites will kill the Sunnis, and they'll both kill the Kurds, until they get tired of it or until there's only one man left standing with a bloody sword. The carnage will dwarf Rwanda and Darfur, and it'll be much worse for us because we will have started it.

I don't think that this war can be won militarily. It has to be won from within the population; the people of Iraq have to decide that they're not going to fight each other any more. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

Dave, sadly I agree with Russ and your analysis. There is no "Victory" in Iraq, only differnt forms of disaster.

One more laugher from the press release: it says his bill: “Mandates that the President submit a plan to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider regional conflict.”

Jeez, wasn't Obama's own "Plan" supposed to do that?

Obama's "Plan" to prevent "a wider regional conflict" is: mandate that SOMEONE ELSE come up with a plan.

The whole thing's a joke.

Does anyone really believe that Obama wrote this plan? The Illinois and Chicago Democrats want a seat at the White House table so bad, the drool is flooding Lake Michigan. It is no coincidence that Mayor Daley's longtime political consultant is Barack Obama's campaign manager. All Obama has to do is look pretty and read the speeches handed to him while the Chicago Dems take control

Bryan (wrote)

"Since 9/11, we have cut another trillion dollars in taxes overwhelmingly on those in the top 5% of income, made no efforts to increase the size of the military or institute even a modest draft, made no efforts to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, etc. etc."

My point exactly. This has been going on since the Reagan era -- not just this administration -- and it has made the populace feel entitled. Let a politician propose any of your above suggestions to the public at large and see what happens to their career.

(and...)
"But your assertion is off-base. Americans are just as patriotic, just as tough, and just as cunning as they used to be. What they need is leadership, and that is what has been most sorely lacking for the last 6 years. What has George Bush asked the people of this nation to sacrifice?"

I'm interested to know how you came to this conclusion (and frankly where your liberal contingent advocating sacrifice in the war on terror is.) There is a vast expanse between what people will say (in a Gallup poll for example) and what they'll do in the face of an actual plea for giving up any of their lifestyles.

Cynical-Gal:

Yes, I believe it. The voice is his; unless you think he hired a ghostwriter while he was still a starving student. Apparently you haven't listened to his consistent Iraq de-escalation mantra. Much of the verbiage contained within BO's statement mirrors--verbatim!--his words from previous speeches/interviews...
Relax CG. It's OK to drool over something special. Stop fighting the O Fever. You'll feel so much better once you cross-over.

The only thing I want to see out of both the
Republicans and Democrats in Congress is a two
fold one,that starts by an Immediate Cut Off Of
All Funds For Loser In Chief George W Bush and
his pal,Boss of Bosses For the Bush Crime Family
Delusional Dick Cheney and the other is Immediate
Impeachment of both War Criminals Bush & Cheney!
As I also never voted for idiot gutless wonders
to approve idiotic toothless non-biding stupid
meaningless resolutions on Bush's War in Iraq!
As I voted for candidates who claimed they want
to end the War in Iraq and bring our US troops
home and it was not a "Symbolic Vote"either,in
case the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi already
forgot that part since they already sold us out
and I will not vote for sell outs again either!

And so, I can't help but wonder how many other
people are just a totally fed up with all this
gutless coward Democrats and Republicans stupid
non-binding idiotic symbolic meaningless and
toothless phony Resolutions about the Loser in
Chief George W Bush's War In Iraq and over how
the Democratic Speaker of the House Head Coward
Nancy Pelosi immediately took Impeachment off the
table, just so Pelosi could do their phony First
Hundred Hour Distraction From Iraq Pelosi Whacko
Personal Agenda? If the Democrats had one ounce
of courage then they would cut off all funds for
Bush & Cheney Insane War in Iraq immediately and
Impeach both President George W Bush and Vice
President Dick Cheney after they make that coward
Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Majority
Leader to resign from Congress! I am fed up with
Gutless Democrats & Republicans still allowing
Bush & Cheney get our own troops killed in Iraq
so they can cover up their lies about WMDs and
Bush's Personal Vendetta Against Saddam Hussien!
So as far as, I'm concerned Bush and Cheney
as well as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are
War Criminals and must be brought to Justice
just like the World War Two Nazi War Criminals
were after WW2 ended!

I just heard a Mr. Bowen, special inspector general for reconstruction in Iraq on the News Hour.

He estimates that $1,000,000,000 of Iraqi oil revenues have been
diverted to the insurgency.

That's a lot of dead Americans and Iraqis, folks.

Think about this for a minute.

OK, here is where the Vietnam analogy fits. Infiltration and corruption doomed the Vietnam effort. Ditto Iraq.

So is this any different than any other of the Democrats' 'cut & run' plans? Abandon the Iraq people. Boot it when things get tough. Don't overestimate the appeal of the liberal strategy of 'military failure'. Americans want victory.