Uhhh, diplomacy towards the leaders of the sunni insurgency? toward muqtada al sadr? your ignorance is pretty mind blowing. why don't you quit while you're ahead?

diplomacy...yeah, it worked really well in the prevention of WWII. Back then, Hitler wanted to rid the world of jews. Now, islamofascists like the one mentioned above want to eliminate everyone that won't convert to islam.

I suspect Kerry would be spending his diplomatic efforts within the UN, from whence many brilliant agreements would be forged on paper. Iraq would unravel, US and Brit forces would withdraw, a bloodbath would insue, Iran would intervene on behalf of the Shiites, Sunnis would be armed by Sunni-majority Arab countries, the Kurds would be supplied by the USA via the backdoor of Turkey. Iran would go under economic sanctions, from which they'd have to buy their way out by bribing the usual UN people. By the time the fighting stopped, the whole thing would be blamed on the Jews.

I would say that part of the foundation of your complaint against Kerry (who is, actually, a horse's ass, and I don't know why my party nominated him) is sharply revealing of the overall problem with the Republican party today, at least as far as progressives are concerned.

Sure: Kerry is against the war now, and he was for it in the past. Reasonable people should not be surprised about that. The war has turned out to be a huge disaster. In the reality-based community, we change our course of action when the situation changes. In the right-wing world, this is seen as "waffling" or "flipflopping." In the rest of the world, this is seen as "what intelligent human beings do."

Staying the course only makes sense if the course is working. If the road is leading you off a cliff, however, staying the course is foolhardy.

So, anonymous, you suggest he negotiate with terrorists. Ok, I mean, it's done all the time just generally, you know, not by Americans. I just think Kerry should say so. "I would negotiate with the people trying to kill us. I want to have diplomatic relations with terrorists." Don't be a wuss, Kerry, just say so.

Doc, Kerry voted to authorize this war. We invaded a country and deposed their leader. My point is that someone like Kerry, who is directly responsible for the war, has some responsibility to the Iraqi people, not to mention to the dead American soldiers who died fighting a war he authorized. Don't tell me it's ok for him to be "against" the war--it's not.

Certainly Sunnis, Iran, non-governmental Shiite groups and any one else who has influence over Iraq (which is to say just about every neighbooring country) should be brought into joint negotiations. Friedman had one of his few reasonable columns recently laying out how it would be done.

If there were a presidential election in 2006, I would support staying in Iraq in the hopes that someone responsible could work that out. As is, too much damage will be done to our reputation, too much money wasted, too many troops killed, and too many Iraqis killed for it to be possible. Thus the desire to pull out.

And eck, it's really amusing that you think the Turks would supply the Kurds weapons, since the other day they were threatening to invade Iraq to kill them.

Of course, we are in "negotiations" with Sadr and all the rest who are participating in the Iraqi government. After all, Sadr is still breathing, which in my opinion was probably a tad too diplomatic. It's hard to negotiate with someone whose goal is to bring back the good old days of Saddaam, though; and of course Iraq in turmoil is the best-case scenario for Iran, so I'm really not sure what our common ground for negotiations would be, other than "stop screwing around in Iraq or we start bombing Tehran in 5 minutes."

Somehow, I don't think that's the negotiating strategy JFK 1.4 (beta candidate) is thinking about.

What's amazing about Kerry is his absolute dedication to content-free policy pronouncements. While I don't agree that he has no business being "against" the War, he does have some responsibility to say exactly what he would do to make the situation better. Instead he tosses of vague (and often contradictory) platitudes and generalities and hopes no one notices that the suit he's wearing is empty. (Or more depressing, he thinks those pronouncements are deep thoughts and cogent analysis.)

I'm still amazed that the Democrats managed to nominate that patrician idiot for the Presidency. (Of course, this is the Party of Lamont, so I guess I should stop trying to figure this stuff out....)

Kerry WAS elected president, the chimperor's Diebold stole it for him.

After we get Hillary in we WILL change whatever to make her president for life (like the great Chavez)!

Kerry may have authorized the use of force but that was based on the imminent danger argument of WMD's. That was all bogus information.

You keep saying he authorized it as if it was his idea. He also didn't authorize the bumbling ineptitude of the post-war occupation. The Bush administration was not properly prepared and did a terrible job of gaining international support. Just like Olmert's administration. No wonder they're such great friends.

So we took out our real enemy's (Iran) hugest advesary. Good Job fellas. And they just tested a nuclear warhead capable ballistic missile. Where is the imminent threat argument now!!!?!!!

"What's amazing about Kerry is his absolute dedication to content-free policy pronouncements."

Because "stay the course" and "don't cut and run" and "get the job done" give us such a clear idea of what it is we're staying there for and what we need to accomplish before we leave. The fact is, there is no plan, which is why we cannot afford to wait around doing more damage. We either need a complete change of strategy (unlikely given the folks in charge) or we need to get the hell out.

Sam L., I suggest you read the speech Bush delivered at the Naval Academy last November. It's really quite detailed on what we're doing and why we're doing it.

That speech is a good example, in my opinion, of what policy content looks like.

Compare and contrast with anything uttered by the JFK 1.4b. And then ask yourself how anyone who actually voted for Kerry can make any kind of disparaging remarks about Bush's intelligence.

(And I do mean voted "for" Kerry and not "against" Bush. Someone must have actually liked Kerry, but damned if I've ever heard of it.)

The Dems have got to do better, or they can kiss another election cycle goodbye. (And yet, the get swooney over Lamont. Incredible.)

The speech says that politics, security and economics are the three pillars of our strategy. The political milestones have happened since he made his speech. If there were similar milestones for the economy and security forces (i.e. when Iraqis have X number of trained troops we can leave) it would be ok. But everyone knows that he has no idea when we can leave, and is planning to at least stick it out until the next president is in charge, or possibly set up permanent bases there. Those are unacceptable options to most Americans and certainly to the Democrats.

Interesting that you should point out "everyone knows that he has no idea when we can leave". In his press conference today he said pretty much exactly that:

"What matters is that in this campaign that we clarify the different point of view. And there are a lot of people in the Democrat Party who believe that the best course of action is to leave Iraq before the job is done, period. And they're wrong. And the American people have got to understand the consequence of leaving Iraq before the job is done. We're not going to leave Iraq before the job is done, and we'll complete the mission in Iraq. I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done, but I do know that it's important for us to support the Iraqi people, who have shown incredible courage in their desire to live in a free society. And if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned."

You see, I am totally on-board with this analysis of the situation. I've been saying from the start that Iraq is a 10 year problem if approached correctly, and if I have one screaming complaint about the Bush Administration it's that they did a lousy job communicating that this was going to be a long-haul effort. (I would like to think most people weren't stupid enough to think that it would be anything else, but hey, I'd also like a BMW Z and washboard abs.)

To quote the Real JFK:

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

Iraq was always going to be the toughest place to effect change in the middle east. But in a region with massive wealth, medieval political infrastructures, and a strong eschatalogical metaphysics, letting the trends of the last 30 years continue was and would be simply irresponsible. So in keeping with a principle JFK would recognize, Bush decided to deal with the hardest problem first.

And yet, that's what the Neddites explicitly endorse. Forget the Middle East; bring the troops home, cut military spending, and spend it instead on important things like increasing the minimum wage or providing Universal Health Care.

(Actually, should the Neddites win, Universal Health Care will likely come in handy within a very few years....)

I'm sorry, that seems exactly backwards to me. Government's job is to protect me from threats over which I would have no control. (Like, a nuke on a Liberian-flagged container ships taking out the Port of Newark). I'll worry about keeping my belly full and my health insurance up-to-date.

And if you think my nightmare scenario is not realistic, there's a movie playing in theaters right now that you should go see.

First of all, raising the minimum wage doesn't cost any money, it's just a redistribution mechanism.

Iraq was the toughest place? I don't disagree, but I'm pretty sure they told us we'd be greeted with open arms. Remember, the statue falling and all that?
If there was someone else in charge, or even a set of concrete goals, I would certainly be on board for working towards a certain point. But we're looking at indefinite troop deployment, with the possiblity of permanent bases, and that's just unacceptable. The speech you quoted above says "get the job done" three times, and then says he has no clue what it means. Talk about content-free policy pronouncements.

"First of all, raising the minimum wage doesn't cost any money, it's just a redistribution mechanism."

Sure...give industry an artificially inflated cost of production, a la wages, and they will 'redistribute' more money toward autonomous technologies and specialized work forces; in turn hiring fewer of these employees that are being 'helped' by an increased minimum wage.

I agree that concrete goals are certainly a priority in an effort such as the one we have taken part in Iraq. My question to you, Sam L., is what evidence can you provide to prove otherwise that this administration has, without a doubt, no long-term strategy involving Iraq?

Well I can't prove anything, obviously, but I think he would probably tell us, seeing as how most people in this country are mighty pissed about how the war is going, and would like to know when it's gonna end. For a while there it seemed like those elections were the important thing, but that's over.

That, and he has said that we won't withdraw as long as he is president. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060322-122737-3228r.htm

Iraq is obviously a long-term. Even if it was planned as a "quick" endeavor in hindsite it obviously will take a long, long time. American troops will be in Iraq for the rest of our lives. Because it will take that long for the Iraqis to kill each other. Bush has also polarized the opposition and his axis of evil speech was prophetic instead of pragmatic.

I don't think Kerry was a better option than Bush I just find it hard to believe that even a site full of Neo-cons would say he was.

Dat be Bush's war.

Congress votes to use force as a threat and so as not to handcuff the President. & again hindsite is 20/20, so we should always embrace new plans and the "stay the course" routine is getting a little old.

Also in hindsight Bush should've finished off Al Qada in Afghanistan or at the very least captured Bin Laden before taking on Iraq. The popular support window may have closed and I think that was something camp Cheaney/Rummy/HAL were afraid of.

So a long term goal of fighting Al-Qada was blurred with the Iraq endeavor.

"Congress votes to use force as a threat and so as not to handcuff the President. & again hindsite is 20/20, so we should always embrace new plans and the "stay the course" routine is getting a little old."

Wow. No matter how dumb people think Bush is, Congress would have to be dumber.

Okay, since you can't seem to find the White House Web Site (maybe you're afraid of cooties) here's the strategy:

Our Strategy for Victory is ClearWe will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve this end, we are pursuing an integrated strategy along three broad tracks, which together incorporate the efforts of the Iraqi government, the Coalition, cooperative countries in the region, the international community, and the United Nations.
The Political Track involves working to forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic governance by helping the Iraqi government:Isolate enemy elements from those who can be won over to the political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to all Iraqis that they have a stake in a democratic Iraq; Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of participation; and Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq's full integration into the international community.
The Security Track involves carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency, developing Iraqi security forces, and helping the Iraqi government: Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven; Hold areas freed from enemy influence by ensuring that they remain under the control of the Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence; and Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.
The Economic Track involves setting the foundation for a sound and self-sustaining economy by helping the Iraqi government: Restore Iraq's infrastructure to meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy; Reform Iraq's economy, which in the past has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future; and
Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis.
This Strategy is Integrated and its Elements are Mutually Reinforcing Progress in each of the political, security, and economic tracks reinforces progress in the other tracks. For instance, as the political process has moved forward, terrorists have become more isolated, leading to more intelligence on security threats from Iraqi citizens, which has led to better security in previously violent areas, a more stable infrastructure, the prospect of economic progress, and expanding political participation.

=== END SNIPPET ====

Now, there are a number of places where you can say "this isn't working" or "we need to de-emphasize this, or emphasize that" but come on; it's a strategy. (Much more so than "negotiate with regional powers" -- give me a break).

But the recurrent theme from The Left is that there is no strategy. That's so much easier to assert than to actually debate any of the above points, because then The Left will have to explain such things as exactly why we shouldn't be trying to build a democracy in Iraq, or worse yet, why we can't.

Which of course is the corner The Left has painted itself into. In terms of moral good, a Democratic /Liberal Iraq would be an incredible advance for human rights and dignity in the region. Somehow, The Left is now in the position of actively advocating policies which would have the practical effect of diminishing the cause of universal liberty and human dignity.

So instead of getting down to the nitty-gritty of how to make the world a better place, the easy way out is to claim Bush has no plan, or better yet, that it was all done to line Halliburton's pockets.

Karol, your post asks some good questions, Kerry's talk is non-committal and nebulous. It seems a pity then that nobody is asking the same hard questions of the present administration.
Rememeber also, Israeli terrorists were negotiated with, that's how Israel was born. A lot of the old guard in the government (mostly dying off) actually took part in actions which today we would deplore. And yet some of these "terrorists" even became prime minister (Begin).

Nice resume Mark.

I guess the 2,500 marines getting called back to active duty involuntarily would fit somewhere between which bullet points??? Also you may want to consider that Iraq cannot handle Democracy and you are creating the next Islamo Fascist Iranian style country. What track are we on now I think the record is skipping.

It's great to have a nice set of bullet points but how are we going to pay for it in lives and money. That should be part of the plan to.

Here's a plan...

Since said bullet points in Mark's post have failed miserably for over 3 years....

*End the Civil War in Iraq
*Prevent the "Axis of Evil" from influencing Iraq
*Get our troops back to the States with the least amount of casualties.

Turn over all of the US's heavy equipment to the Sunni muslim's, which we will refer to from now on as the Bathist party. Support a strong man in the Bathist party who can control the country with an Iron fist and crush the Iranian backed Shiites and the Kurdish terrorists who are attacking Turkey on a daily basis. This strongman can even say that he's developed WMD's in order to keep his war hungry neighbors at bay. This all we be funded by a giant solar panel array build in the desert's of Iraq and the electricity will be sold to Europe and Israel.

Niessuh Maddas, is just this type of Iraqi leader and we should support him fully.

Also McCain I guess is in the "Left" as he is faulting the Bush administration for....well you read it... Maybe all the draft dodgers are the war heroes and the war heroes can be classified as the left..... We are real mixed up in this country.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/22/mccain.iraq.ap/index.html

"COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Republican Sen. John McCain, a staunch defender of the Iraq war, on Tuesday faulted the Bush administration for misleading Americans into believing the conflict would be "some kind of day at the beach.""