Pelosi Announces Democratic Forum on Iraq

[seasat]

(LINK)

To: National Desk

Contact: Brendan Daly or Jennifer Crider, 202-226-7616, both of the Office of Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi announced today that House Democrats will hold a forum to discuss the war in
Iraq on Tuesday, Dec. 5. Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and Maj. Gen. John Batiste will join current and new members of the Democratic Caucus in discussing options for a way forward in Iraq.

"The war in Iraq is one of the most critical issues confronting our nation, and the American people have clearly called for a New Direction in Iraq," Pelosi said. "We know that 'stay the course' is not working, has not made our country safer, has not honored the commitment to our troops, and has not brought stability to the region. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished group of experts as House Democrats discuss the deteriorating situation in Iraq."

I already heard rumblings from Repugs that we're not doing anything on Iraq. Geez, we just took power and officially won't be charge until next year. However, this forum should address that. What do y'all think the end result will be?

a) Pull out immediately.

b) Gradual drawdown over the next year.

c) Negotiate with Iraq's neighbors to get them to take some control and draw our troops down (My choice).

d) Build up then draw down.

e) Stay the course.

f) Send all the neocons to Iraq to replace the troops and finish the job.

Oops forgot the Biden plan.

g) Split Iraq into three provinces and draw down the troops.

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Go Nancy

and tell Jim Baker to put this in his pipe and smoke it.

[mzmolly]

2. Nancy's kickin' some a*s

Go Ms. Nancy P!

[NoAmericanTaliban]

3. Send the Bush twins along with Rush & O'Lielly

& any other chickenhawk talk show host.

[Dancing_Dave]

4. She didn't choose a very good set of "experts"

To address the House members.

This looks like part of a strategy for backpeddaling and betraying the anti-war movement. WE NEED TO TURN UP THE CULTURAL HEAT JUST LIKE IN THE 60's! THEY AREN'T GOING TO GET US OUT OF IRAQ UNLESS WE MAKE THEM DO IT!

[humbled_opinion]

6. hmmm

Because a group think tank on the subject now leaves options other then immediate withdraw?

[retread]

22. Just the opposite, based on positions and recent quotes from the "experts."

"you have three choices: "Stay the course," escalate or start to disengage from Iraq while pressing hard for a political settlement. I will argue for the third course, not because it is perfect but because it is the least bad option."
-- Richard Holbrooke,

Gen. John Batiste says he believes the U.S. has failed in Iraq, but should stay there. -- Gen John Batiste

" Pull out in an intelligent fashion. I have been advocating a four-point program which, in a nutshell, is the following.

Talk at length with the Iraq leadership as to when we have to leave. Those who say, "We don't want you to leave," are the ones who leave when we leave. The real leaders, probably not living in the Green Zone, will say, "Yes, leave." I suspect Sistani is among them.

Secondly, then announce jointly a date, but a date set jointly.

Then, thirdly, let the Iraqi government convene a conference of all of Iraq's Muslim neighbors about stabilizing Iraq and helping it to stabilize. Most of them will want to be helpful, maybe even Iranians.

And, fourth, we then announce as we're leaving a donors conference of interested countries in Europe and the Far East who benefit from Iraqi oil on helping to rehabilitate Iraq. I think this would enable us to leave and still say we achieved basically what we wanted -- the removal of Saddam -- though not a secular, stable, united Iraq under a perfect democracy because that, frankly, is a fantasy." --Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski

Where do you see immediate withdrawal in these quotes? It appears immediate withdrawal is, in fact, OFF the table.

[humbled_opinion]

23. Huge Difference.

Leave means to leave without conditions. In Vietnam we left, it was successful. Saying you are leaving and then when date certain arrives, leadership complains they need just a smidgen more time and this is indefinately drawn out longer and longer i.e., the Nixon approach is no different then stay the course. I want date set certain no changes in fact it should be tomorrow draw down starts 10,000 troops per week for 20 weeks as we draw back then we are ghost in 5 months. DONE.

[Monkeyman]

7. Murtha is still in the Cautus

[gratuitous]

5. Getting nervous, Bushistas?

They're not used to having anyone looking over their shoulders, and God knows the rubber stamp Republicans weren't inclined to scrutinize the Bush administration at all.

So, what's your plan, George?

[IndianaGreen]

8. This is an excellent idea by incoming Speaker Pelosi

It reminds me of the hearings Congress held on Vietnam in the mid 1960s in which all views were aired, including the one about retreating our troops into coastal enclaves.

[David Zephyr]

15. I'm with you. Nancy continues to lead.

How refreshing. I can't wait to see her as Speaker. Counting the days! Pinch me.

[mom cat]

9. Door that is labled "f"!

[arewenotdemo]

16. I'm all for f, too. Let's get the job done!!!

[mom cat]

19. f'ing right!

[arewenotdemo]

21. Michael Ledeen's mantra would still be "faster, please"

But instead of being a cheer from the sideline, it would be directed to his own two feet.

[mom cat]

24. LOL!

:rofl:

[w4rma]

10. 'c' + 'g'? Turkey won't be happy with 'g' since the Kurds will likely break into a new nation.

'Kurdistan', Iran and Syria will probably love choice 'g' as they would likely be able to annex, or gain close allies of, portions of Iraq.

But can 'c' work without 'g'?

'f' would be fun but it is facetious.

'e' hasn't worked in the years that Republicans have been doing it and it won't work for us either.

'd' is just 'b' + political cover.

'b' is probably 'g' + 'c' with us in the picture.

'a' is probably 'g' but takes us out of the picture.

Gen. Clark said that there aren't any good results from this at this point. Nothing better than a C- or a D+. I agree with Gen. Clark.

[seasat]

14. I agree with Gen. Clark.

There is not an good solution. The problem is finding the least objectionable solution. They need a solution that will result in the least loss of both life on both sides. Any of the ideas will probably lead to a divided country eventually so I agree with your takes.

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if a divided Iraq was Iran's intention from before the war. They funnel some false intel to Shrub Inc (who they know is itching for a fight) and they get to annex a portion of oil rich southern Iraq. The only thing that makes me doubt this is that Kurdistan would be a thorn in their side since they have problems with Kurd separatists in N Iran. However, since the Kurds were already pretty independent, that may not be as big of a factor.

The assassination of Gemayel will probably cool any talks with Syria and the US regarding Iraq. However Iraq and Syria are now independently establishing talks so direct contact wouldn't be necessary. If we can get Saudi Arabia involved, it would make a huge difference. We will probably have to give them a tremendous amount of military supplies to get them involved in our mess but it would be less costly in lives and dollars than the current situation.

While option "f" is certainly facetious, I'd love to see Charles Krauthammer wheel his azz down to Baghdad and try to explain his opinion. His last column was so disgusting, I couldn't get past the first paragraph. His talking point, that is starting to be echoed by other neocons, is that Shrub Inc didn't fail, the Iraqi people failed because they didn't embrace democracy. I seriously think he needs to be Baker acted.

[Zhade]

11. Hey, Nancy? The people voted for a New Direction OUT OF Iraq.

Take the hint.

[w4rma]

12. Democrats have no power until next year. (nt)

[Zhade]

17. In other news, the sky is blue.

I mean, DUH.

I'm just putting it out there for when they DO have power.

[cassiepriam]

13. Open discussion. I like it...

[ClassWarrior]

18. .

[seasat]

20. Here's all the potential 2008 Pres candidates on Iraq

I thought this was neat summary by Matt Corley in Talking Points Memo (LINK). Biden, Clark, Clinton, and Kerry pretty much represent the four main Democratic views. Bayh, Dodd, Edwards, Obama, Richards, and Vilsack seem to have views similar to one of those four. Only Gingrich, among the Repugs, is calling for a draw down in troops though some of them are critical of the war and Shrub Inc's handling of it.

JOE BIDEN: The incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted in 2002 to give Bush the authority to use military force. Since then, the Delaware senator has become a critic of the war and has advocated a plan that would divide the country along ethnic lines, relying on a central government only for matters of border control and allocation of oil resources. He has been critical of efforts to install a Western-style democracy.

WESLEY CLARK: The retired four-star general and former NATO commander has criticized the war as "a path to nowhere -- replete with hyped intelligence, macho slogans and an incredible failure to see the obvious." The 2004 presidential candidate said the goal to institute Western-style government was a flawed idea. He recently called for sustained shuttle diplomacy in the region and increased cooperation among the White House, Pentagon and State Department.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: She also voted in 2002 to authorize the use of military force and has refused to recant her vote. But the New York senator has been a vocal critic of the way the war has been conducted, voting in June for the Levin-Reed amendment on a phased withdrawal. "Our country desperately needs a foreign policy based on bipartisan consensus and executed with nonpartisan competence," Clinton has said. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Nov. 15, she quizzed Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, about dividing the country along ethnic lines.

JOHN KERRY: The 2004 presidential nominee voted to authorize military force. But he subsequently voted against additional funds for the effort and has said the authorization vote was his biggest legislative mistake. In June, the Massachusetts senator and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., co-sponsored an amendment that would have set a July 1, 2007, deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The amendment failed.