It needs to be repeated, again and again. For all the noise and hatred spewing from the Democrats against President Bush, no one else has suggested a specific plan of action to address the key concerns of the Middle East. So again I ask you, Democrats Liberals and Bush-Haters everywhere, to lay out your plan.
To constitute a legitimate “plan”, the plan must be specific enough to address the following salient questions:
[] How will your plan result in a stable Iraq?
[] How will your plan address the known aggression from Iran, Syria, and militant Islam?
[] How will your plan protect or advance American interests in the Middle East economically?
[] How will your plan protect or advance American interests in the Middle East diplomatically?
[] How will your plan protect or advance American interests in the Middle East culturally?
[] How will your plan prevent another 9/11-style attack?
[] How will your plan attack Al Qaeda or similar terrorist organizations?
[] How will your plan protect Israel?
[] How will your plan improve the standard of living in the Middle East?
[] How will your plan protect the rights of women, religious minorities, or children in the Middle East?
Call me a pessimist, but I don’t expect much in the way of substantive answers. And for purposes of scoring, rhetoric alone will count as negative submissions, and personal insults will count as negative submissions twice each.
This forum is open to all mature, civil adults. I think there’s what, five or six of us still around.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
[] How will your plan result in a stable Iraq?
We are going to do it smarter than Bush.
[] How will your plan address the known aggression from Iran, Syria, and militant Islam?
Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy
[] How will your plan protect or advance American interests in the Middle East economically?
We are going to talk to our allies in the region. In other words, diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy.
[] How will your plan protect or advance American interests in the Middle East diplomatically?
We are going to talk to our allies in the region. In other words, diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy.
[] How will your plan protect or advance American interests in the Middle East culturally?
We are going to talk to our allies in the region. In other words, diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy.
[] How will your plan prevent another 9/11-style attack?
Throw Bush in jail. He was behind it all.
[] How will your plan attack Al Qaeda or similar terrorist organizations?
Get out of Iraq. As everyone know, its our presence that's causing all of the violence.
[] How will your plan protect Israel?
We a re going to talk Israel into giving up more land for peace. In other words, diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy.
[] How will your plan improve the standard of living in the Middle East?
Foreign Aid
[] How will your plan protect the rights of women, religious minorities, or children in the Middle East?
We are going to talk to the mullahs, sing kumbaya, and everything will just work itself out. In other words, diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy.
hahhahah - this cracks me up. After how many years of unmitigated disaster, the right-wingers are begging us, the ones who warned them ahead of time, for help and suggestions. I suggest that every able-bodied person who voted for Bush enlist immediately, and surge yourselves over there.
Tell you what - I'll post my plan, and answer your sad little questions, when you show me Bush's answers. Better yet, show me the answers he had when he invaded, short of being greeted with flower petals . . .
dan,
We'll just settle for an alternative plan from Harry Reid, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, all of whom voted FOR the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
Yes, they did vote for the war, based upon the threats of mushroom clouds and WMDs that the Bush administration had fabricated and hyped. Does their gullibility require that they come up with a new plan?
I was dissatisfied with the Chiefs performance in the playoffs. Must I come up with a complete game plan to say so? I'm not happy with the way my mutual fund performed. Must I be an investment whiz to say so?
This is just another chapter of Bush's Blame America First plan - nothing is ever his fault, even the war which we followed him into.
dan,
First, those WMD threats were first issued by Clinton and were repeated by various Democrats (including Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi) to justify his bombing campaign of Iraq in December 1998. Since 1999 regime change in Iraq has been our official Iraq policy. What is the significance of these dates? They all predate GWB's inaugural as POTUS. But, to liberals in the media and in politics history began on January 20, 2001 (the day that GWB was inaugurated)and anything that happened before then doesn't count. So, please explain how did GWB dupe Democrats into believing that Saddam Hussein posed a WMD threat over two years before he was sworn in as POTUS? I'll save you the trouble. You can't answer it. I understand.
Secondly, the point of DJ's post and GWB's request for an alternative plan from Democrats has nothing to do with GWB's lack of plan. What they are pointing out is that all the Democrats can do is to throw cow dung onto whatever GWB proposes without offering any alternative plan of their own. They throw out phrases like "phased redeployment" around but they do not address the consequences of our withdrawal (phased or immediate). Of course the Democrats would love to run our foreign policy but they dare not be held for the consequences of their decisions if they fail.
If Bush can't stand the heat of being president, and having to answer for his failure, I'm terribly sorry for him. The fact that Bush cannot answer the questions DJ throws out there is the real problem. He's the one that got us into this mess, and it is silly and pathetic for him and DJ to come whining to us for answers.
dan,
The point of DJ's post is not to note any deficiency in GWB's approach but to point out the fact that although the Democrat's can blame and criticize GWB, they do not offer any competing solution of their own nor do they address the consequences of their "cut and run" approach. Waiting for the Democrats to give their solution to Iraq would be like waiting for the Titanic arrival to port (in other words, don't hold your breath).
Like waiting 4 + years for Baghdad to be secure? Would it be that bad?
dan,
What do you believe to be the consequences of the US leaving now? One of the main grievances that I have had with liberals is that they refuse to recognize that there is an actual enemy present in Iraq. What they continuously assert is that it is our presence that's causing all of the violence. What I think will happen if we withdraw is that a) there will be a civil war and b) if the terrorist topples the elected government, they will have a country to plan for future terrorist attacks and a source of revenue (oil) to fund these attacks. By leaving now we are waving the white flag and admitting to the terrorist that they have won. I can assure you, they will not just stay in the Middle East. We will have to eventually have to fight them here in the US. Therefore, it is in our vital national security interest to win this war.
You seem to be disgruntled that it will take some time to secure Baghdad. Are you willing to use more aggressive techniques in order to win the war? The reason why we were able to win WWII is that along with not having a media and an opposition party that wants to see us defeated is that we were able wage a very brutal war against our enemies. We fire bombed Berlin and Tokyo and we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am not suggesting that we indiscriminately kill innocent civilians but I do want for our military to be less concerned with political correctness and more concerned with defeating our enemies. Maybe then we can have a quicker end to this war.
Post a Comment