Dems are the party of National Security?

[Johnny Coli]

I see two pages of posts stating that the Dems don't have a plan, but no actual link to the document.

 

Here's the Security Plan Outline

Here's a detailed Agenda, showing what they've done and tried to do faced with Republican opposition.

 

Debate it if you will (and I'm sure it will be dismissed by this crowd), but to accuse them of having no meat behind this would be erroneous.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I see two pages of posts stating that the Dems don't have a plan, but no actual link to the document.

 

Here's the Security Plan Outline

Here's a detailed Agenda, showing what they've done and tried to do faced with Republican opposition.

 

Debate it if you will (and I'm sure it will be dismissed by this crowd), but to accuse them of having no meat behind this would be erroneous.

645984[/snapback]

 

Erroneous? I don't see any meat in that.

 

Hell, I also don't see how that differs much from the current administration...save I actually can find something substantial from this administration.

[Ghost of BiB]

I see two pages of posts stating that the Dems don't have a plan, but no actual link to the document.

 

Here's the Security Plan Outline

Here's a detailed Agenda, showing what they've done and tried to do faced with Republican opposition.

 

Debate it if you will (and I'm sure it will be dismissed by this crowd), but to accuse them of having no meat behind this would be erroneous.

645984[/snapback]

 

Meat?

 

Stick to biotech.

[KRC]

I see two pages of posts stating that the Dems don't have a plan, but no actual link to the document.

 

Here's the Security Plan Outline

Here's a detailed Agenda, showing what they've done and tried to do faced with Republican opposition.

 

Debate it if you will (and I'm sure it will be dismissed by this crowd), but to accuse them of having no meat behind this would be erroneous.

645984[/snapback]

21st Century Military

Solution: Spend more money

 

War on Terror:

Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban.

Not in the jurisdiction of Congress.

 

Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.

 

Again, not in the jurisdiction of Congress

 

 

Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.

 

Already being done.

 

Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or "dirty bombs."

 

Already being done.

 

Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.

 

Already being done.

 

Homeland Security

 

Solution: Spend an un-Godly amount of money on goals that are impossible to attain.

 

Iraq

Solution: Retreat immediately, spend more money, and Bush Bad.

 

Energy Independence

Solution: Spend more money and

[Johnny Coli]

Erroneous?  I don't see any meat in that. 

 

Hell, I also don't see how that differs much from the current administration...save I actually can find something substantial from this administration.

646024[/snapback]

The first link is an outline. The second is a pretty comprehensive look at what they've been trying to do facing an uphill battle against the GOP. The outline is talking points...a brief list. You don't see any agenda in the second link? You don't see any list of accomplishments? You don't see any rationale for what they've been trying to accomplish, and will continue to act on? Did you even look at the second link?

[Ghost of BiB]

The first link is an outline.  The second is a pretty comprehensive look at what they've been trying to do facing an uphill battle against the GOP.  The outline is talking points...a brief list.  You don't see any agenda in the second link?  You don't see any list of accomplishments?  You don't see any rationale for what they've been trying to accomplish, and will continue to act on?  Did you even look at the second link?

646080[/snapback]

 

I'm not even going to bother addressing the parts I know about. I always thought you gave me enough respect to think I did know about some of it, namely counter terror and WMD. But, I get that you know much, much better than anyone who has spent virtually a lifetime dealing with it. Yeah, I read the second link, and they are full of rhetoric sh--.

 

Yes, rhetoric sh--.

 

One more time, rhetoric sh--.

 

I looked at the second link.

[Johnny Coli]

I'm not even going to bother addressing the parts I know about. I always thought you gave me enough respect to think I did know about some of it, namely counter terror and WMD. But, I get that you know much, much better than anyone who has spent virtually a lifetime dealing with it. Yeah, I read the second link, and they are full of rhetoric sh--.

 

Yes, rhetoric sh--.

 

One more time, rhetoric sh--.

 

I looked at the second link.

646126[/snapback]

Where in my reply to Tom am I "disrespecting" you? And where am I saying in that post that I know "much, much better than anyone has spent virtually a lifetime dealing with it."?

 

I simply saw the thread, read two pages of posts bashing the Dems for not having an agenda with any substance, and not a single post linking to the item the posts were dumping on. So I linked to it. Am I shocked that you three think it's crap? Not at all. But to say that there isn't anything of substance at all in that second link is just plain wrong.

 

All you guys do is B word that the Dems don't have a plan, the Dems don't know what they're doing, the Dems only have an anti-Bush platform. So the very day that they put something out, not only did not one of you link to it, but you spent two pages patting each other on the back saying what crap it was without reading it.

 

Don't vote for a Dem candidate. Who cares? That's three votes in the Red column for you guys. Oh wait, sorry, you're all independents.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Erroneous?  I don't see any meat in that. 

 

Hell, I also don't see how that differs much from the current administration...save I actually can find something substantial from this administration.

646024[/snapback]

Oh and this administration has a plan to deal with Iraq? Since when, according to the Blair memo, the whole thing was suppose to be over with after six months.

 

They are just making crap up as they go along, and then after the fact claiming they had a plan. To quote Bib more @#$@#$ rhetoric. Their plan failed, now they are scrambling. So, really what is the difference. The Dems have some reasonable suggestions that are being ignored or incompetently mismanaged.

 

P.S. Congress can set special forces levels by specific appropriations and they do it all the time.

 

Still this has been a nice attack DEM rant with little substance.

 

Common guys you can do better than that or maybe it is just not worth it.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Oh and this administration has a plan to deal with Iraq?  Since when, according to the Blair memo, the whole thing was suppose to be over with after six months. 

646249[/snapback]

 

Yeah, they did. And they still do. And it's not very good. But they DO have a plan.

 

Which is part of their problem. People don't want a plan, they want a deadline. Mostly because they've been told they're the same thing, so no deadline means there's no plan. Although that's oversimplifying, really...the real problem is one of abstract goals ("Democracy in Iraq!", "War on Terrorism!") vs. concrete ones ("Pull out by the end of this year!"), and the fact that this administration is too stupid to express anything more complex than Sesame Street.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Yeah, they did.  And they still do.  And it's not very good.  But they DO have a plan. 

 

Which is part of their problem.  People don't want a plan, they want a deadline.  Mostly because they've been told they're the same thing, so no deadline means there's no plan.  Although that's oversimplifying, really...the real problem is one of abstract goals ("Democracy in Iraq!", "War on Terrorism!") vs. concrete ones ("Pull out by the end of this year!"), and the fact that this administration is too stupid to express anything more complex than Sesame Street.

646298[/snapback]

Back to the P.R. problem, but that is politics and why they are failing miserably. Actually you have to have a plan, but explain it to the American public in terms that are on Sesame Streets level, kinda of like Reids outline and plan you are criticizing. Hey, have you seen anything like that out of the White House....NOooooo! Yet you and Ken both said that 80% of those things are already being done. The other stuff you may or may not agree with and then BiB calls it rhetoric. Duh, Bush should hire Reid as his Press Secretary, it would eliminate half of his problems in Iraq.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

Put together a coherent campaign platform based on reasoned plans that they could implement once they become the majority party?

 

Oh, no, wait...that would be hard.  Sloganeering is easier.

645499[/snapback]

 

 

Six months out from the elections? Not a chance. No reason to give the Republicans something at this early in the election year. Besides, my fellow Republicans should put one out first...

[N.Y. Orangeman]

If your plan consists of waving the flag, saying, "See I am patriotic and support the troops. See my flag?" then how do you expect to regain power? Minority parties become the majority by providing an actual solution. Flag waving is not a solution.

 

I also am not buying into this, "well, we are not the majority so we can accomplish nothing" crap. The Reps do not have a super majority. All the Dems need is to get one or two Republicans and the Reps can do nothing. The reaon why the Dems are accomplishing nothing right now is the fact that they are not providing any solutions for any Reps to cling to. Where is the Dem plan for Social Security? Oh, it is do nothing. What about Medicare? <crickets> Welfare Reform? <crickets> Now, they think that by waving a flag that they will all of a sudden impress on people that they are strong on National Security? Please...

645488[/snapback]

 

Flag-wagging certainly isn't a solution, but it does help win elections unfortunately. Republicans have ridden this to death in the last 10 years and, as a result, have simultaneously cast themselves as the political embodiments of John Wayne, while casting the Democrats as skirt-wearing pansies who are anti-military. Until the perception is changed it doesn't matter what new domestic policy announcements the Dems come out with in the next few months.

 

I'd ask you why would the Democrats give the Republicans anything to shoot at this early in the campaign cycle? Bush and Cheney approval numbers are brutal, the White House hasn't avoided any potholes it has come across in the last two years and the public is becoming increasingly disillusioned with the situation in Iraq. If you were in the Democrats shoes, why would you do anything but stay away and watch the Republican party imploded?

[Scraps]

Back to the P.R. problem, but that is politics and why they are failing miserably.  Actually you have to have a plan, but explain it to the American public in terms that are on Sesame Streets level, kinda of like Reids outline and plan you are criticizing.  Hey, have you seen anything like that out of the White House....NOooooo!  Yet you and Ken both said that 80% of those things are already being done.  The other stuff you may or may not agree with and then BiB calls it rhetoric.  Duh, Bush should hire Reid as his Press Secretary, it would eliminate half of his problems in Iraq.

646330[/snapback]

 

I've been vocally against the war in Iraq before it was ever started. Among the reasons I opposed the war were the dubious outcomes.

 

1. I don't believe you can force a democracy on a country. I haven't seen enduring democracies unless the people themselves fought for their own freedom.

 

2. I don't think the Iraqis wanted us there or would trust us to let them have their own government. We'd been bombing them for years. We have a history of supporting repressive dictatorships in the region. Sorry but there is a lot of pent up mistrust of America and her intentions and they seem to believe everything is a CIA plot.

 

3. I believed that Iraqis would revert to their tribal tendencies.

 

4. I believed the most likely outcome would be a civil war that turned Iraq into a failed state. Al Qaeda thrives in failed states. A failed state in Iraq has a good chance of destabilizing the region.

 

5. If Iraq did avoid a civil war, I thought it would most likely become a close ally to Iran. Iran has been kidnapping, torturing and killing Americans for over 20 years without being held accountable.

 

The least likely outcome would be a stable democracy friendly to the US.

 

That having been said, what plan are you talking about that Reid has come up with? From the Senate site

 

Democrats Have Demanded That the President Develop a Plan for Post War Iraq.

 

Well that's nice but telling someone else to come up with a plan doesn't sound like a plan. What is the Democrats plan?

 

Democrats Fought to Require the President to Submit A "Strategy for Success" in Iraq.

 

And the Democrats strategy for success is?

 

Democrats Led the Charge for 2006 to be a Year of Significant Transition in Iraq.

 

Well that's a pretty vacuous statement. Every year since the CPA has been disolved has been and will be a significant year of transition.

 

Democrats Have Fought for Better Pay for the Troops.

 

Good for them. So if we just pay our troops a lot of money will that lead to success in Iraq?

 

 

Democrats Have Sought More Funding for Body Armor and Other Equipment for Our Troops in Iraq.

 

Great, but to do that, they took money away from reconstruction. This has been and will continue to be a war for the hearts and minds of Iraqis and people in the Middle East. Taking money from the reconstruction acts counter to that goal.

 

Democrats Achieved Reimbursements for Soldiers and Families for Body Armor.

 

Thats nice, but it hardly sounds like a plan for victory in Iraq.

 

Democrats Provided More Funding for Up-Armored Humvees.

 

Assuming they did so without taking money from some other program related to Iraq, like they did with the body armor, that is good.

 

Democrats Fight for "Truman Committee" to Investigate Waste, Fraud and Abuse in U.S. Contracts in Iraq, including Halliburton Contracts.  Democrats Fight to Combat War Profiteering.

 

So how does this lead to victory in Iraq?

 

Aren't most profiteers allready breaking existing laws? Why not enforce the laws allready on the books?

 

 

Democrats Call for Creation of a Regional Security Group in Iraq. Although the Administration has touted short-term conferences on Iraq, these conferences have yielded few sustainable results. Democrats have urged the Administration to establish a regional security group, whose assistance could go a long way towards stabilizing Iraq.

 

That's great. Call for a regional security groups, note the administration has tried but nobody really wants to pick up that hot potato, then say try, try again.

 

I'd support someone if they actually came up with a plan that I thought would work, but I have yet to see a plan. I certainly didn't see one in these documents the Democrats released today.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

I can't bring myself to B word about Democrats anymore when the Republicans are selling out this country just as much if not more than when the Dems were in power. We're being taken for a ride and most seem to want to quibble about who gets to drive.

 

Dems Bad! Reps Bad! Hey, look! I found lint in my bellybutton...

 

 

[Scraps]

I can't bring myself to B word about Democrats anymore when the Republicans are selling out this country just as much if not more than when the Dems were in power. We're being taken for a ride and most seem to want to quibble about who gets to drive.

 

Dems Bad! Reps Bad! Hey, look! I found lint in my bellybutton...

646499[/snapback]

 

Can't really argue with that, but I B word about both these days.

[KRC]

Where in my reply to Tom am I "disrespecting" you?  And where am I saying in that post that I know "much, much better than anyone has spent virtually a lifetime dealing with it."? 

 

I simply saw the thread, read two pages of posts bashing the Dems for not having an agenda with any substance, and not a single post linking to the item the posts were dumping on.  So I linked to it.  Am I shocked that you three think it's crap?  Not at all.  But to say that there isn't anything of substance at all in that second link is just plain wrong.

 

All you guys do is B word that the Dems don't have a plan, the Dems don't know what they're doing, the Dems only have an anti-Bush platform.  So the very day that they put something out, not only did not one of you link to it, but you spent two pages patting each other on the back saying what crap it was without reading it. 

 

Don't vote for a Dem candidate.  Who cares?  That's three votes in the Red column for you guys.  Oh wait, sorry, you're all independents.

646237[/snapback]

 

 

I did read it. I specifically responded to each item in the link. Why no response from you? Dem "plan": spend more money, retreat, spend more money, con people into thinking that you will achieve the obviously impossible, spend more money, oh, and spend more money.

[KRC]

I'd ask you why would the Democrats give the Republicans anything to shoot at this early in the campaign cycle?  Bush and Cheney approval numbers are brutal, the White House hasn't avoided any potholes it has come across in the last two years and the public is becoming increasingly disillusioned with the situation in Iraq.  If you were in the Democrats shoes, why would you do anything but stay away and watch the Republican party imploded?

646412[/snapback]

 

 

In order to get elected, you need to show people that you can fix the problems. Sitting on your arse and doing nothing shows that you are incapable or unwilling to fix the problems. Again, I bring up things like Social Security. Libs on this board just say, "well, they are not the majority party, so they can do nothing." bull sh--. They could do nothing because they provided no solution to actually debate. In order to fix a problem, you at least need to put forth a solution. It will get criticized (no plan is perfect). At that point, the opposition privides their "solution." You can then debate, compromise and come up with a plan that both sides can live with. Bush put forth a solution. People did not like his solution. Instead of proposing an alternative, they just said "No!" The problem still exists and the minority party refuses to do anything about it.

 

As far as National Security, the Dem's "plan" is to spend money, retreat, spend money, con people into thinking that they can achieve the obviously impossible, spend money and spend money. All of this at the same time that they are saying that the Republicans are spending too much money. That, and wave the flag at staged photo-ops to show that they support the troops, while at the same time criticizing the Republicans for waving the flag at staged photo-ops.

[Alaska Darin]

the Republicans are selling out this country just as much if not more than when the Dems were in power.

646499[/snapback]

I wouldn't say "or more." The reality is the media seems to spend more time actually pointing out some of the things the Republicans are doing. I wonder why that is.

 

As I've been saying for a decade: There is little or no difference between the parties. Each is about money and power and the 80% of voters who blindly pull levers should be ashamed of themselves.

[Johnny Coli]

I did read it. I specifically responded to each item in the link. Why no response from you? Dem "plan": spend more money, retreat, spend more money, con people into thinking that you will achieve the obviously impossible, spend more money, oh, and spend more money.

646503[/snapback]

You're not going to get the transparent step-by-step ingredients list you want, Ken. This release is the first step in setting the agenda and platform. Your response is "It's rhetoric and typical status quo politics in an election year." I am not going to argue that point.

 

I will, however, argue that this is a good first step in getting the dialog going, and away from "The Dems are soft on Security" that the GOP noise machine cranks out every time something like this comes up. That statement is completely false, as evidenced by the legislation and amendments the Dems list in the second link.

 

WRT military spending, you (and I'm recalling this from memory only, because a TSW search would take too long to compile...if I'm wrong please set me straight) and others are always stating how the Clinton admin gutted the military, etc. So now the Dems add an increase in military and homeland security spending and it's a sh------- strategy?

 

The Bush admin is spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. I thought the reconstruction was supposed to be funded with all that Iragi oil? I see nothing wrong with the Dems attempting to divert US dollars away from reconstruction and towards the US military. "But then the Dems can't B word about the crappy reconstruction of Iraq." bull sh--. They should be shouting it from the freaking rooftops. The Bush admin was warned repeatedly by people in the pre-war stage that this could be a disaster, didn't plan accordingly, and seemed to spend more time on a character assassination of their critics than they did planning for post-war Iraq. So the Bush plan of "We !@#$ed up but we're not admitting to that, give me more money" isn't working. The Bush plan of blaming the media isn't working. Unlike you, I don’t see anything wrong with exploring setting a realistic timetable for a draw-down and handing it over to the Iraqis and getting our military out of there. What’s gonna happen if they pull out? Civil war?

 

A strategy for getting OBL should be to concentrate on OBL in Afganistan, and not waste billions of dollars in Iraq. I don’t see how invading Iraq stabilized that region, quite frankly, and I certainly don’t see the connection with getting OBL. Maybe I’m missing something? (GOP-leaning readers can insert the standard “Overthrew Saddam, freedom on the march” comment here.) I’m sure the Bush admin can make up some type of connection. They seem to be pretty good at connecting dots that aren’t there.

 

I don’t think you have to be an expert on foreign affairs to see this is a mess. I’m most definitely not. However, I think the Dem “political” strategy of getting this all out in the open is a good thing, and will lead to real, concrete things getting done, rather than the standard “with us or against us, don’t ask questions” you typically get from the Bush admin/GOP spin team.

 

Clearly, I’m in the minority on this board, but it doesn’t bother me. We all get one vote, and nothing I say on a sports message board is going to sway you, and nothing you say is going to sway me. Arguing over my ignorance of foreign affairs political strategy isn't going to change that.

[KRC]

You're not going to get the transparent step-by-step ingredients list you want, Ken.  This release is the first step in setting the agenda and platform.  Your response is "It's rhetoric and typical status quo politics in an election year."  I am not going to argue that point. 

 

I will, however, argue that this is a good first step in getting the dialog going, and away from "The Dems are soft on Security" that the GOP noise machine cranks out every time something like this comes up.  That statement is completely false, as evidenced by the legislation and amendments the Dems list in the second link.

 

WRT military spending, you (and I'm recalling this from memory only, because a TSW search would take too long to compile...if I'm wrong please set me straight) and others are always stating how the Clinton admin gutted the military, etc.  So now the Dems add an increase in military and homeland security spending and it's a sh------- strategy? 

 

The Bush admin is spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. I thought the reconstruction was supposed to be funded with all that Iragi oil?  I see nothing wrong with the Dems attempting to divert US dollars away from reconstruction and towards the US military.  "But then the Dems can't B word about the crappy reconstruction of Iraq."  bull sh--.  They should be shouting it from the freaking rooftops.  The Bush admin was warned repeatedly by people in the pre-war stage that this could be a disaster, didn't plan accordingly, and seemed to spend more time on a character assassination of their critics than they did planning for post-war Iraq.  So the Bush plan of "We !@#$ed up but we're not admitting to that, give me more money" isn't working.  The Bush plan of blaming the media isn't working.  Unlike you, I don’t see anything wrong with exploring setting a realistic timetable for a draw-down and handing it over to the Iraqis and getting our military out of there.  What’s gonna happen if they pull out?  Civil war? 

 

A strategy for getting OBL should be to concentrate on OBL in Afganistan, and not waste billions of dollars in Iraq.  I don’t see how invading Iraq stabilized that region, quite frankly, and I certainly don’t see the connection with getting OBL.  Maybe I’m missing something?  (GOP-leaning readers can insert the standard “Overthrew Saddam, freedom on the march” comment here.)  I’m sure the Bush admin can make up some type of connection.  They seem to be pretty good at connecting dots that aren’t there.

 

I don’t think you have to be an expert on foreign affairs to see this is a mess.  I’m most definitely not.  However, I think the Dem “political” strategy of getting this all out in the open is a good thing, and will lead to real, concrete things getting done, rather than the standard “with us or against us, don’t ask questions” you typically get from the Bush admin/GOP spin team. 

 

Clearly, I’m in the minority on this board, but it doesn’t bother me.  We all get one vote, and nothing I say on a sports message board is going to sway you, and nothing you say is going to sway me.  Arguing over my ignorance of foreign affairs political strategy isn't going to change that.

646603[/snapback]

 

 

It is a step in getting a dialog going and I have been bitching for years that they need to provide something. They provided something and I commented on each item listed in their "plan." I was looking for your response to my response to each item, which is how dialog happens. I am not expecting you to be a foreign policy expert. I am not one and do not expect you to be one.

 

Lets go through the items again:

 

21st Century Military

To Ensure Unparalleled Military Strength and Honor our Troops, we will:

 

    Rebuild a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever necessary.

 

    Guarantee that our troops have the protective gear, equipment, and training they need and are never sent to war without accurate intelligence and a strategy for success.

 

    Enact a GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century that guarantees our troops -- active, reserve, and retired -- our veterans, and their families receive the pay, health care, mental health services, and other benefits they have earned and deserve.

 

    Strengthen the National Guard, in partnership with the nation's Governors, to ensure it is fully manned, equipped and available to meet missions at home and abroad.

 

Spend money. Complain about Republicans spending money and turn around and spend money. They are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

 

 

 

 

War on Terror

To Defeat Terrorists and Stop the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, we will:

 

    Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban.

 

    Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.

 

    Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.

 

    Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or "dirty bombs."

 

    Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.

 

These things are already being done.

 

 

 

 

Homeland Security

To Protect America from Terrorism and Natural Disasters, we will:

 

    Immediately implement the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission including securing national borders, ports, airports and mass transit systems.

 

    Screen 100% of containers and cargo bound for the U.S. in ships or airplanes at the point of origin and safeguard America's nuclear and chemical plants, and food and water supplies.

 

    Prevent outsourcing of critical components of our national security infrastructure -- such as ports, airports and mass transit -- to foreign interests that put America at risk.

 

    Provide firefighters, emergency medical workers, police officers, and other workers on the front lines with the training, staffing, equipment and cutting-edge technology they need.

 

    Protect America from biological terrorism and pandemics, including the Avian flu, by investing in the public health infrastructure and training public health workers.

 

Spend money while complaining about Republicans spending money. 100% at point of origin? Since only American companies are allowed to do this work (forgetting that terrorists come from the U.S. as well, but we will ignore that little item because it is not "feel good."), how are you going to force foreign governments to only allow American workers to do the work? This is not even close to being realistic or attainable.

 

 

 

Iraq

To Honor the Sacrifice of Our Troops, we will:

 

    Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

 

    Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.

 

    Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.

 

Gotta love the RETREAT!!! attitude. How the hell is Congress going to do item one (or even item two), since they have no jurisdiction? Item three is just Bush Bad!!

 

 

 

Energy Independence

To Free America from Dependence on Foreign Oil, we will:

 

    Achieve energy independence for America by 2020 by eliminating reliance on oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world.

 

 

    Increase production of alternate fuels from America's heartland including bio-fuels, geothermal, clean coal, fuel cells, solar and wind; promote hybrid and flex fuel vehicle technology and manufacturing; enhance energy efficiency and conservation incentives.

 

 

Achieve energy independence by 2020? Funny, when Republicans promote plans to do this (drill in ANWR, etc), the Dems are the first to kill these bills. Now, we are supposed to believe that they want to seriously eliminate reliance on foreign sources of energy? Didn't Kennedy try to stop windfarms in MA? Is this another one of those "do as I say, not as I do" type thingies? "We want to promote windfarms, as long as it is not in my state." Hypocrisy at its finest.