Democrats Unite in Defiance, but Not With a Plan

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2803105&page=2
WASHINGTON, Jan. 18, 2007 — On Capitol Hill Wednesday there was a surge in opposition to the president's plan to escalate troop levels in Iraq.

When it came to solutions, there were nearly as many alternatives to Bush's Iraq plan as there were Democrats. But Democrat after Democrat today — some of them working in tandem with Republicans, some flying solo — introduced plans to stop the surge. (so they don't have *A* plan they have several uh so that is "not on message" I guess of course there is no plan from Bush other than that which we already know doesn't work)

That largely symbolic "sense of the Senate" resolution will need real bipartisan support to have any impact on the White House. By the close of business Wednesday, it had picked up support from Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. (Hagel too you nimrods)







On the House side, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., supports the bill offered by Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's key subcommittee on defense, who wants to redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq with a quick reaction force established nearby. "I think redeployment is a first step to stability in the Middle East," he said on ABC's "This Week."

--- Perhaps the democrats should be consulting with the dozens of top military brass who have been forced into resignation as a result of their professional views running counter to Bush's neocon conspiracy.

the media is making fools of themselves by recycling it over and over again.

n/t

If you read the polls, most of the American public is opposed to the prospect of sending additional troops to Iraq and most (now) think that invading Iraq was a big mistake, so exactly WHAT kind of plan do the Democrats need to put forward in order to be taken seriously and not seen as merely "defiant"? Some Democrats (i.e. Murtha) have ALREADY put forward plans on how they think we should handle our military involvement in Iraq, so I don't understand what people mean when they say that the Democrats "don't have a plan". Since most of the American public seems to have soured on our military (mis-)adventure in Iraq, it doesn't make any sense to me that the Democrats should be expected to offer up plans that INCREASE our military involvement in Iraq (a la Bush) and even if they could put together an alternative plan (although I have NO idea what kind of plan that would be) to Bush's "surge" plan, they wouldn't be able to force Bush to implement their plan because Bush is the so-called "decider" and doesn't listen to anybody who doesn't already agree with him. Also, oddly enough, I remember that during the 2006 midterm elections, the same "talking point" was endlessly repeated by members of the MSM that the Democrats didn't have a plan on Iraq and that we had to do more than simply oppose Bush on Iraq in order to win. Of course, opposing Bush on Iraq DID apparently turn out to be enough for voters to reject the GOP's approach to Iraq. Unfortunately, a (slim) majority of voters returned Bush/Cheney to the White House in 2004, so if they really wanted somebody else to come up with a more sensible plan on Iraq, they lost their chance to do so then. There is precious little, unfortunately, that Democrats in Congress can DO in regards to Iraq other than speak out against Bush's policies on Iraq. Iraq and the fate of our involvement in Iraq was, is, and always will be Bush's ultimate responsibility and if anybody should be held accountable for being in this mess and fixing it it should be Bush, not the Democrats!