Do you think the Democrats have a vision to bring back our troops?...... ----------------> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=486

How unsurprising it is that the media should first focus on appearances rather than content .... The author's use of the phrase "diminutive stature" to decribe Senator Reed is misleading and could not be further from the truth. More accurate would be to utilize Princeton University's definition of 'stature' --"high level of respect .... impressive development or achievement." Senator Reed's thoughtful, well-reasoned and impressive response last evening merely demonstrated to the nation and the world what the citizens of Rhode Island have been aware of for many years - that he is an intelligent, careful, thoughtful and decent man of great, not dimunitive, stature.

I stand corrected on stating that this was a 10 year occupation. No Sir, this is a 50 plus year opened occupation. George, the 2nd has so stated the change last night, last week and if you have listened closely, the last 4 years.
It's all about , thats right "OIL".

From Reed's comments, and those that followed, it's clear to me the Democrats have no idea whatsoever to do about Iraq. No plan.

In my opinion, the only system that will work is the one that replaces Saddam Hussein with another Saddam Hussein, or a clone of Marshall Tito of Yugoslavia. A iron fisted ruler who will take no crap from anyone. Either that, or we are facing partitioning the coutry to keep apart the blood-sworn feudalists.

Taking the antiwar Democrats as a whole, they are just re-hashing the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. From my perspective, it appears like these Democrats are sort of wandering around in the miasma of ideas that other nations will be willing to intervene and help, and my favorite...that "we" can actually train Iraqi troops and police to be fair and just. The sum and substance of the ISG report, and the weakness of it, is its web of assumptions. I believe the neighboring Middle East nations, and the international community at large, want no part in our problems in Iraq. Where's the benefit? The big problem is that President Bush's Administration has managed to alienate nearly everyone in the world community over the last four years. Talk about turning a silk purse into a sow's ear. The ISG assumptions are analogous to: if one could just build a latter tall enough, one could climb to the moon and wouldn't need a space ship. Yeah, sure, you betcha...

The Democrat's lack of confidence about what to do with Iraq really makes me uncomfortable. But regardless, the odds are I will vote for one of them in November, 2008 anyway. That is, unless Senator Clinton is the nominee. If that is the case, like most of the independent voters and an adamant, but unknown number of Democrat voters, I will vote for someone else.

I have a feeling the upcoming Democrat nominating convention could well be a replay of 1968 when Hubert Humphrey sort of changed his tune from being antiwar to that of supporting maintaining full troop strength in Vietnam while waiting the outcome of the Paris peace talks. In 2008, will the anti-war Democrats back off the troop withdrawal and tie it to the progress of the Iraqi government? Humphrey lost the Presidential election to Nixon.

My second observation is one of form and not of substance. I guess one needs to have a military background, maybe even having been a Cub Scout would of helped; but, only one American flag should have been displayed behind Reed. He looked like he was seated at a new car dealership lot with no less than four American flags on poles behind him. I assume he was trying to look really, really, really patriotic. The Flag Code doesn't allow the American standard to be displayed in this manner, Reed and the Democrats used the flag as a decoration, and the flag should never be used as a decoration. I guess things change don't they?

It's all a show and not a very good one...

Cutoff the funding, close down the government and bring the troops home.

OMG Former Senator John Edwards got it
right,when he told us,that "The White House
Has NO plan for Iraq and Congress has no
courage to cut off funds for it!"
So again I repeat myself, when I say time
for Expulsion from Congress of Bush's Best
Protectors Democrat Empty Pants Suit Madame
San Francisco Mental Midget Fruitcake Nutty
Nancy Pelosi and Senile Gutless Old Fool
Harry Reid and Immediate Impeachment of
both Liar in Chief Sock Puppet Psychotic
Alcoholic and Coke Addict George W Bush
and Puppetmaster Nazi Dictator Sociopath
Draft Dodger Dead Eye Dick Cheney and try
them and Pelosi and Reid for Treason and
War Crimes Against Humanity and go hang the
lot of them on the gallows. Otherwise the
voters must vote out every Incumbent Democrat and Republican in office!

Claudine, if they ever make an Olympic sport out of namecalling, you're a shoo-in for the gold.

We all know that there is plenty to protest about these various characters you've mentioned, would it have been too mentally taxing to address those issues instead of just pretending this is the third grade schoolyard?

I nominate you for most childish post of the week.

Vunderlutz, the Democrats have no plan? What is the President's plan, but stay the course? That, as has been noted before, is a slogan, not a plan.
The consensus Democratic plan can be stated as thus: Remove combat troops from the quagmire leaving only trainers and protection for them, a small strike force to go after terrorists groups, logistic and air support, and that's it.
And stay out of the way of the civil war there.
There are extremes at both ends, say Gov. Richardson for a quick pullout and Sen. Lieberman for the stay the course dumbdown plan. but the vast middle majority is exactly where the majority of Americans are.
They left "stay the course" a year and a half ago.

I agree with Charlene.

"capemh"...more to agree with you than to disagree, but you should remember the "vast middle majority" wanted to invade Iraq to begin with; so much for the wisdom of the public. It's on-target now? What has changed...a public, who by and large, forms its opinion from major media outlets and sound bites. Very few of those who supported the U.S. incursion into Iraq ever felt the snap of a bullet as it passed by one's ear.

Wars, conflicts, police actions, whatever you call them, will never be managed properly by committees of Congress, or by "the people" via polls and popular opinions.

The Democrat consensus to which you refer is a hybrid of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations. My point is no one has a plan.

I will say nothing in defense of the Bush Administration. They were wrong to invade Iraq, the "vast middle majority" of Americans were wrong to support the invasion, the media was wrong not to do a little diligence in pre-war analysis, the military planner/lap dogs were wrong in both the tactics and strategy...the bell tolls for no one...it's silent.

America will pay for it's mistakes and indulgences for quite some time, most likely well after I am pushing up posies. I opposed the incursion into Iraq from the first day the Bush administration floated the idea. I am a realist and I believe if a iron-fisted leader doesn't soon appear (and that probably won't happen), Iraq will be ultimately partitioned and for years to come the U.S. will be instrumental in providing military, logistical and humanitarian support.

You are, of course, free to believe what you want...

Sure, General Petraeus thinks "his" tactics, his programs are working. Was he going to say, "We've had some successes and some failures, so maybe I was wrong in my calculations"?

Nothing has ever been wrong in Iraq--from Garner and Bremer to Rumsfeld and now Gates--all doing the bidding of Cheney's delusional policy. The shrub is just the frontman, the strawman for the VP and Addington. Cheney's military deferments make him a real expert on strategy.

The only real strategy he understands is how to deliver a major oilfield to his cronies who created the energy policy. And, in the meantime, how to deliver lucrative contracts to Halliburton and KBR and other contractors.

And each one of us and our children and grandchildren will pay for all this.

Pacman:

I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph--unfortunately for all of us. Even though he'd claim executive privilege up the wazoo (despite having said earlier this year that he was not technically part of the "Executive Branch"), I think that both Waxman's Committee on Oversight and Rockefeller's Senate Intelligence Committee should bury Cheney in subpoenas demanding that he finally come clean on his true motivations for being the "power behind in the throne" in launching and sustaining indefinitely the Iraq War (viz. obtaining big bucks for himself and his oily cronies after January 20, 2009).

Quite honestly, I'll be so happy and relieved for our country for January 20, 2009 to come, I don't really care how many billions Cheney makes after that. But between now and then, the Democratic Congress needs to force the V.P. (or "Vice" as Maureen Dowd refers to him) to admit his true motivations behind this nation's tragically misbegotten detour from the real Global War on Terror into Iraq, so that our country never again elects another self-selected Vice President to whom a President like this one (so ill prepared in foreign policy) cedes such unprecedented power.

Personally the best thing for this orld to do is to let by gones be bygones and get on with don*t you think? I think so. In fact alot of other people think the way i do too. The only thing they are too numberous to mention as well. Thus,--in all due fairness of thought it seems that a good old change of pace is worth it at that too. Seriously so too. Signed,--and I very much allways and awill, practice as to what I preach: She Wolf Shauffen.

Why does Senator Reed claim to have been in the US Army for 12 years when his biography states he served from 1976 to 1979? His biography seems to point to a background in going to school at government expense. Not much of a counterpoint to lack of experience or service by others.

jwp, What you've said doesn't make sense. He graduated from West Point in 1971, so he was obviously in the Army long before 1976. And, do you really view the graduates of West Point as nothing more than freeloaders!? Shame on you.

Why have the media been hiding this guy and playing up instead the ilk of the Chappaquiddick Kid, Ankleless Annie, the Senator from Hairweave, the California Calliopes and Schumie Baby?

John Edwards had the greatest idea when he said back in January that Harry Reid ought to keep putting that bill forward, keep submitting it so that everyday we would reminded of who exactly it is that is keeping this 'war' alive - the Republicans in the Senate who won't break with Bush...people like Chambliss and Isakson, Roberts and the rest of the White House Senate sheep.

J.E. Camara nailed it. Often I have wondered likewise why the media often addresses democrats as "less-than" using adjectives that diminish their stature such as ineffective, feckless etc... In contrast "highly respected" is a term often used to describe republicans. No doubt many republicans are highly respected, nonetheless one would be hard pressed to find the latter applied to democrats.

While mostly gone unnoticed, subliminal messages as such, repeated year after year, have an effect on the subconscious. It reinforces beliefs and/or changes the public's impression thereof.

Vunderlutz repeats the myth that democrats have no ideas of their own. Contrar to what you believe it is not true. Go and read any number of the democratic presidential candidates or democratic lawmakers sites. In contrast the republican candidates suggest more of the same: perpetual war.

While neither party is perfect, democratic candidates are by far more innovative at this juncture in time. Their ideas have substance that would move the country forward while restoring America's competitive edge in technology, science, medicine and engineering.
So many things have been ignored by this administration it is difficult to keep up.

More than anything ending the occupation in Iraq would go a long way in restoring relations with the rest of the world.