Centerfield

Jon is this the ticket?

Empower the Sunni Tribal leaders to form a nationalist Sunni militia assisted by the US. This force would conduct operations against AQ and provide security. (AQ is a significant force and we can see them trying hard to create violence between Kurds and Sunnis almost every day. Why do they do this? Because a Sunni-Kurd alliance is their greatest threat.) The government consents to the Tribal Sunni participation because the alternative is AQ growing and our leaving. How can we push this alliance? The US agrees to a timetable to withdraw provided agreements are met by all parties. This IS what the Sunnis and Kurds want. Tribal army deploys to Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad. They hunt down AQ and protect districts with US help. This tribal component eventually will be incorporated into the National army pending changes to the Constitution promised by Shia government in 2005. To break up the insurgent opposition, an amnesty is issued to former military and Baathists provided no evidence of criminal behavior is presented to a joint Sunni Kurd Shia court. Tribal leaders allow Sunni countries to supply a limited security force to assist them in disrupting terrorist attacks and patrolling the border while Shia police are prohibited due to sectarian concerns.

The Kurds recognize the possible disaster if the US vacates and only proceed on the Kirkuk referendum with an amendment recognizing the right of Sunnis to prosper in oil revenue. This commitment is conditional on the actions of Sunnis to target AQ and work towards compromise with the Shia majority. The agreement is take effect immediately in the absence of Constitutional changes. Kurds request a US base and the US agrees provided the Turks are invited to verify the Kurdish commitment to stopping the PPK. The Sunnis and Kurds refuse to break the deadlock with the government unless Sunni Tribal militias, the Kurdish militias and the Shia militias (extremist militias and AQ are obviously banned) share in C and C under a Sunni or Kurdish Secretary while the Interior (police) is maintained by moderate Shia Secretary (UIA). Only then could a Shia President proceed to govern.

I have no idea if this could be done, but on paper it has some startling points. First, it preempts today’s Shia effort to force a US withdrawal by the US addressing why the Sunnis and Kurds have been the first to propose US withdrawal. All nationalists want the US to eventually withdraw, but the intention of Sunnis and Kurds was that a timetable would force the implementation of an Iraqi force that could secure the peace. The Kurds and Sunnis would be crazy to seek our withdrawal in the face of militant Shia forces. So our plan preempts with a declared timetable to begin withdrawal that requires Shia and Sunni benchmarks such as a benign national army. The plan further has the advantage of bypassing the stalemate concerning oil and puts a hard threat on the table to the Shia. Without promised changes to the Constitution, the timetable will also make it null and void. The majority has no right in a pluralistic society to create an Office of Extremism or allow extremists control of government security. Juan Coles can quote the Iraqi Constitution all he wants. The validity of the Iraqi Constitution requires a Bill of Rights and civil protection, not majority bias codified in democratic rush while Sunnis were recoiling from an invasion and Shia vengeance. Our Constitution certainly wasn’t created during such an episode.

The plan does not force Kurdish or Shia from banning Baathist offenders or forgetting the past. However, under this proposed plan, the Sunnis are not forcibly removed from Mosul or Kirkuk. Kurdish autonomy will not victimize Iraqis nor freak out Turkey. Only the worst of the bad are hunted together by Sunni, Shia and Kurd alike.

Third party verification is an essential ingredient of Democracy and police have no authority if they serve only the majority while trampling the rights of the minority. Another advantage is that this plan brings in other Sunni nations under review by Iraqi Sunni nationalists while the Kurds and the US placate Turkey. It does not deprive the Shia their day, but aims to split Shia nationalists from extremists. Only a nationalist dialogue created by a Sunni-Kurdish alliance can draw attention to Iranian and Syrian duplicity and interference. It doesn’t mean the Kurds are closer to the Sunnis than moderate Shia, but that moderate Shia had better stand up. Any government that allows a foreign government to aid in the killing of Iraqis is impeachable. The results in Iraq prove that the US did not install a puppet regime. Our sacrifice has clearly been in the name of giving Democracy a chance. We have done much more in other times.

No Democracy can stand if the government considers any minority’s right less than the majority’s. The harder AQ tries to stop this plan, the more the Tribal leaders will resist. The end game is a moderate nationalist Party; the beginning of peace, with Tribal leaders as in Afghanistan, taking up the nationalist cause. I don’t know how we do this, but hoping the Shia will act is like waiting for Godot. Intellectuals have pushed the President’s starting gambit though they call it mistaken. They rail against any Sunni-Shia alliance as utter nonsense. The fact they offered no plan other than more troops indicate they do not understand the problem, nor the history. Partition does not work. Shia self-control does not work. AQ will not work. Only the tension between a Sunni-Kurdish front and the alleged moderate Shia leadership can force a stabile compromise. We are doing the best to help this along. It is absurd for some to talk about Democratic principles we must uphold in Iraq when the Constitutional process is suspect and the government actually promotes attacks by extremists on their minority populations. When the government spends the days condemning Sunni hate speech and not addressing its cause, the people have an inalienable right to rebel.

I think this is connected to what Bobby and others are actually attempting at this moment in Iraq. The race is on to form an alliance against AQ and fosters the rise of Iraqi moderate nationalists willing to fight together for the security and prosperity of their own country.

As far as Congress expressing uneducated views about Iraq based on incorrect facts is par for the political course. Huffington was a great example on Maher this weekend. When accused of expressing only hatred and disgust with little vision of what America should do, she said Democrats do have a vision: to remove the criminal liars and crooks like Bush and Cheney who are ruining America. They do have a vision: to get out of Iraq and stop killing innocent people. After touting poll numbers on Iraq and claiming Democrats would keep religion out of government, she was asked to explain why 92% said they believe in God. Maher responded by saying people lie when taking polls. I do not think I have ever before witnessed such intellectual dishonesty in Liberalism. The incorrect facts about Iraq, stated by Democrats simply reflect their desire to make Iraq a political albatross with little regard for real national security concerns or even an effort to create a lasting peace. There IS no vision. The Republicans, if they don’t crumble, will have to modify their strategy and hope they can turn the corner. Maybe the path above has some merit.

I almost posted Kennedy's speech again, you know, the one where he asks what we can do for our country. It is quite a speech, far removed from what Democrats care to consider today. JFK would have to run as a Republican to win today.

This would have to be dealt with in any Sunni-Kurdish alliance. Perhaps AQ can provoke a real nationalist response instead of breaking Iraq into a partioned madness.

LOL partitioned madness.

Well, Max, if W had you to explain things for him, he wouldn't be floundering so hard now. Right now, it's actually painful to watch him, and you know how I feel about this whole administration.

One of the reasons he's doing so badly is because he's never expressed a united vision and a shared sacrifice, the way Wilson did with WWI, FDR did for WWII, Truman/JFK/etc. did for the Cold War, et al. When we were asked what we could do for our country, what was his answer? "Go shopping!" Oh, yeah, and shut up with that whole free speech thing, until a Democrat's in the White House.

As for Huffington, she should have said that the reason 92% of Americans are religious is because religion is kept out of government. Once you start going beyond vague platitudes like "God bless America.", and start endorsing a specific faith, then you get into bloodbaths like Europe from 1500 through the 1900's, or for that matter, the Middle East today.

Nope, JFK wouldn't run as a Republican. He'd still run as a Democrat. Only this time, Karl Rove would suggest Jack sank the PT boat on purpose, Tweety would mock Jack's sailboat as "effeminate", and Nixon would be presented as a "man of the people", while Pope Benny would be threatening to throw Jack out of the church for his pro-choice stance.

It is painful to watch both sides Jean.

JFK escalated Viet Nam, started building Neutron bombs, risked nuclear war over Cuba after he put mobile nukes in Turkey. The Democrats would never allow a candidate to deliver that speech. Who are you kidding? If Lieberman is out, so too Kennedy and Truman. I can't even see FDR running on present Democratic planks. The only thing to fear is Bush? Bush has been painful from before 2000. I didn't vote for him. Rove would never have been able to Swift boat Kennedy. A Gay Kennedy with Jackie O?, Nixon was no man of the people and the Pope? Doesn't matter. Sorry, Profiles in Courage aren't what the Dems are offering. Leave that to Iranian women.

Vision isn't opposition to personalities. Huffington blames single women for Democratic losses. This is a woman who wanted us to deport all the illegals as she ranted in her heavy accent. She is the first person I know of that was a nasty bitch being both super conservative and super Liberal. Its one thing for people you don't vote for to act badly, but when your friends do...well that is worse. We'll abandon the Kurds. We will leave Lebanon to Syria and Iran. We'll leave the Gulf and what follows will change this planet. After another world war, intellectuals will be asking how it could have happened. Watch, its happening right now and into the next decade to come. But don't worry, we'll bomb our attackers with nukes.

Unfortunately, there ARE monsters and the growing means for them to spread like cancer. The Republicans backed the President and watching them run is painful too. There is hatred and there is policy. If history is a guide, it is even possible the Democrats can still lose 2008, despite Bush. Eight years without a real foreign policy is quite astonishing to the Independents who will decide. Bush won't be running, just ideas.

A much simpler explanation for why we should stay:

If left alone, Al Qaeda and affiliated groups will cut out at least an enclave in Iraq from which they could prepare and direct global terror attacks, much as they did from Afghanistan until 2001 and are doing from Pakistan now. Pakistan is a better analogy because it shows that a group can be dangerous without the support of a central government. It would probably take time for AQI to become a global threat, but it would most likely be a matter of when, not if.

We cannot counteract Al Qaeda remotely. Controling Al Qaeda requires making it more difficult for Al Qaeda to recruit new supporters than it is for us to kill or capture the existing ones. We can conduct raids that would occasionally kill or capture a few Al Qaeda operatives, possibly even a few high value ones, from remote bases in Kuwait and Irbil, but we can do nothing about Al Qaeda's recruitment from there. Al Qaeda's recruitment stems from three parts: 1) an ideological commitment on the part of some, 2) protection for the Sunnis from Shiite death squads and 3) a sense of inevitability among Sunnis that they would have to accommodate themselves to Al Qaeda. Members of (1) are the irreconcilables who will have to be isolated from the rest of the population and neutralized. This requires that members of (2) and (3) be provided with an alternate source of protection and a reason to believe that Al Qaeda will be brought under control. That task requires keeping forces among those who are being protected in adequate number to provide effective protection.

Scott, I was not offering reasons why we should stay. The problem is what we should do while we stay. The pressure is mounting for us to exit and I am not sure if our present plan is working. I agree with your summary but point to AQ in Kurdistan and their effort to provoke civil war. It should be clear to Americans that Syria and Iran are acting as though our time is almost up. AQ denounced Hamas two weeks ago for not attacking Israel, but now Gaza is about to erupt in fighting as local TV puts on Mickey Mouse for jihadists pre-schoolers. Tell me, which is worse: our disaster here politically, or our situation in Iraq?

The Democrats won't cut funding because they like the political game as it is. They make no comments on news items pertaining to the Middle East. They would rather blast cartoons about Islam rather than attack the use of Mickey Mouse. Make no mistake; the President of Iran is a monster. The Syrian government repays Pelosi with jailing a well known Syrian dissident and moving missiles to the Israeli border. The UN laments Syria and Iran resupplying Hizb'Allah as their leader declares it takes orders from Iran. I would argue that our political game here is more dangerous than ground realities in the Middle East. We are already seeing the effect of our presumed departure. No security, no negotiations. Murtha's plan to bomb AQ in Iraq is foolish. If we leave, you will others asking us to depart. Israel will have no choice but to go it alone. When I asked some Liberals what they will say when that happens they grinned and said, "Its Bush's fault". This has gotten far out of hand.

When I ask Democrats if they care about Iran with a bomb, they say, "There's nothing we can do to stop it". I don't think the Left is buying your argument, so doesn't the problem become what we can do in the next year to stabilize the situation? And what plan is that?

The Democrats would never allow a candidate to deliver that speech.

Of course we would. And we'd vote for him.

(1) Kennedy was on our side, so we weren't being paranoid. We were hawks in ex-Yugoslavia, note, for the same reason.

(2) Kennedy was careful about the evidence. His Administration was skeptical about evidence from exiles because he knew they'd have a reason to exxagerate, and the same thing for tortured people. So he didn't torture people for evidence, and gave by far the greatest credence to spy plane photos. He waited for multiple sets showing the missiles clearly before going public with anything. And notice, he turned out to be right. Bush had about half of us on his side until newly created WMDs and WMD-tipped weapons failed to show up.

One measure of a great President is an ability to move past your own mistakes. Bush has failed at that. He reacted badly to the WMD thing, and now he's reacting badly to the occupation mistakes.

Max,

Blue Jean's response to you seemed to hint at explaining why we should stay.

As for the Democrats accepting my argument, the nutroots and their sycophants would not let facts get in the way of their arguments for pulling the troops out. As for the other Democrats, they have not heard it, so they have not had to evaluate the reasoning and thus can get away with ignoring its implications.

As it is, when Bush says we have to stay in Iraq to pursue Al Qaeda, the Democrats respond by saying we should pursue Al Qaeda from Kuwait and Kurdistan. Consider this, what would happen if Obama, to take one proponent of remote anti-terrorism operations, were to present his prescription on Meet the Press and Tim Russert were to ask something like, "The track record of anti-terrorism operations from the forward operating bases is that they create more sympathizers for the terrorists through random detentions than the actual terrorists they capture. Given the importance of intelligence in targeting terrorists while leaving the general population alone, what makes you think we could do a better job from Kuwait?" Without having that question pressed before them, I would allow that an answer would be possible, but I would insist on historical facts to back it up. However, unless either Bush or a notable senator of congressman raises the issue, no one in the media will either.

I am a liberal Jon. Our side doesn't want to sacrifice or even look at the growing dangers. Liberals use to stand up for Israel. They denounced human rights abuses. They were willing to pay any price for liberty. Remember that? So tell me where Lieberman is today? Would he have to take apart HR 1951 for the Democrats if JFK was President? I can't believe you think a candidate that talked tougher than Kerry would actually win the nomination in this climate. Did you see the last Democratic debate? And don’t think I don’t notice that three Republican candidates prefer Creationism to evolutionary theory. When I ask Democrats about the Kennedy speech, they say it was about the Soviets and AQ and extremists are not the same threat. Rove inflated the threats to scare Americans into voting Republican. Well, Russia was rational, Iran is not. Soviets did not use to let technology out. They backed out of Cuba. The irony is that the Mullahs supported the coup and the US because of their fear of the Soviets. Democrats want to forget Carter was a friend to the Shah.

I was a reluctant supporter of invading Iraq. My worries read like Ricks’ in real time. When you take action with risks while trying to win a broader war, you need extra clarity and extra options. Of course, the administration screwed this up. We went from the greatest living orator to the worst. I am not suggesting Bush didn't screw this up big time, but Saddam's days were numbered. The Democrats do not buy this. Just because an administration makes mistakes in strategy is no reason to hate the messenger and the message. In less than a decade while we are spinning in reverse, our adversaries WILL acquire the means and hegemony to break out of the present constraints. So why on earth would a Liberal want to support a strategy that will end up putting us in a tight spot in ten years? Democrats WILL STILL BLAME BUSH. And how they hate the Clinton blame game. Why would a Liberal want to undo FDR, Truman, Kennedy and even Clinton who signed off on regime change in Iraq? Who said Bush was great? Not me. So Bush screws up and we bury his observations? Not me, I live in NYC. There use to be two towers in the distance.

Kennedy did not disclose the leaking US nuclear missiles in Turkey, did he? He wasn’t even truthful to the American people about the terms of the agreement. No, he didn't want to look weak. And talk about FIASCOs, let's look at the Bay of Pigs. Truman dropped a nuke on Japan and held the line in Korea. Hillary demanded we bomb Serbia. Suddenly, a bad President has reversed Liberal thinking? Are we that weak-minded? Suddenly, Liberals give up on Israel and don't have the balls to denounce Syria, Iran or even question North Korea's delay in de-nuking?

Evidence? Democrats won't even admit Iranian IEDs, facilities they won't let us inspect, Russian and Chinese missiles and anti-tank weapons throughout the Middle East and used by terrorists, Hizb'Allah rearming, Putin's behavior, Chinese ASAT testing, .......on and on, and you really don't think there is evidence? How about the fighting in GAZA as evidence that there is no one for Israel to negotiate with at the moment? Shall we wait until Iran is tipping their missiles or sells a dirty bomb to terrorists? Hasn't the world changed a bit? Is Hillary restarting the neutron bomb program or calling upon Americans to sacrifice for liberty and save Afghanistan, defend Israel and confront terrorists?

What do I gain from blasting Bush? What is missing is another plan, which the Democrats do not have. JFK didn't run on fear or hatred. He had sound economic and national security positions. Hell, JFK cut taxes. Let's compare Robert Kennedy to Biden.

As Liberals, we must defend what Liberalism is, and is not. I won't stand by, while Democrats show us they can be as stupid as Republicans. JFK wasn't about political power, he was about winning with words, action and a vision of a better America. Again, imagine a Kennedy after 9/11. Then take a long hard look at what the Democrats sport on the DLC site, or on the stump. PBS use to show stories about Solidarity. Now they are afraid to report the truth.

Exiles uncovered Iranian nuclear program. Did exiles lie about Saddam's murderous behavior? Didn't the secret tapes show exactly what Saddam's game was as described by exiles? Haven't exiles told us about Syria's WMD programs and even Chinese and Russian weapons getting into Darfur? Is there really no evidence in the war on terror?

A friend of mine is an Engineer at NASA. Evidence did show Saddam was trying to restart his ballistic missile program in violation of law. He took out UN monitoring of his defense production and failed to give account of his WMD stockpiles. He had labs that could restart his bioWMD programs. He is heard saying on tape that he didn't want Iran to know he had less capacity than he had. I wasn't a reluctant supporter because I actual thought Saddam was tipping his missiles. I wanted us to remove him BEFORE he could do that kind of damage. Yes, there was no criterion (see my first post here). Yes, Bush tried to bribe Turkey with 28 billion dollars. He screwed up and did little for years. But it is still how to rather than whether to. Did Kennedy point to Korea or problems in Viet Nam and decide to run against Republican foreign policy? Did Kennedy hate his way into office? Did Kennedy advocate redeploying our troops home or defend Germany? By today's Liberal standards, Kennedy was a NEOCON. Just take your ideas and post them on Liberal blogs. See what they call you. See if Huffington Post even publishes your replies.

Bush is going down. His act has caught up to him. If I want to look Pat and others squarely in the eyes, I must recognize reality and the facts beyond political BS. Liberals have changed colors and foster policy as Bush hatred. That is no political discourse. It is certainly not how to define our NSS. We have to be honest before we debate strategy. Having principles means losing can never cause one to betray them. If Democrats were serious about winning in Iraq, they would have offered winning strategies instead of first agreeing on a Shia-Kurdish alliance and then simply decrying everything Bush did. JFK would never have wished us to lose in order to win a political fight. Or so I imagine.

As for what we should do while staying in Iraq, we need to work with the Iraqi population. Working among the population, our soldiers can provide some degree of security, gain their trust and thus develop a usable intelligence network.

Yes Scott, I agree that the remote-interdiction theory has little evidence to back it up. More political BS. I recently read an MIT report that says Israel can destroy Iranian nuclear program with just 24 aircraft. What was the purpose of the article? One view might be that it sends Americans an idea that "Israel can do it", and not us. The Media is pathetic as a report I linked before shows. Hizb’Allah manipulated it during their planned aggression against Israel. They filter the news every night when they ignore what is really going on. When they reported Mickey Mouse in Gaza, Hamas shut it down. No more coverage and its back up again.

As for Democrats not hearing reasons for staying and plans to change the situation while we are there, they have. Biden's plan was rejected by Democrats years ago when he was pushing Federalism. Many Democrats rejected the idea of a Sunni-Kurdish alliance while laughing at the Shia’s inability to govern. Now Biden does not really show how Federalism can be created without pushing it into unacceptable partition. Other Democrats lamented fewer troops, but have always opposed sending more. They accuse Bush of setting up a puppet regime while laughing at the sectarian vote which produced a non puppet. They wanted us to close borders, invade strongholds and hold them with 150,000 troops?

You are right that an objective media could have presented the options and asked the good questions. They are the puppets and no such discussion is likely to happen. The fact that Meet the Press and other groups have not asked questions that even I, a simpleton, would ask, is insane. At least one reporter asked Obama what he would do if attacked and HE WAS TOTALLY UNPREPARED. What does that tell you? Hillary was prepared and so far, she is the only Democratic candidate I think that has balls. Remote counterterrorism will leave many innocent people dead. Media has not helped to clarify Iraq from day one when Bush tried to bribe Turkey. Did the media quickly jump on the lack of security? No, at that time the majority favored removing Saddam. Democratic leadership went silent while MoveOn made a Devil's bid as a Democratic subcontractor. The change in Liberal character reflects a win-at-all-costs strategy, Democrats apply only to politics. Unfortunately, the Republicans can do that dance too. As so we have this meltdown while our adversaries move ahead. I defy Obama to read JFK's speech at their Convention. He would be booed off the stage. At the moment Democrats are feeling good about the world because they think they have a winning strategy to get elected running against Bush. This is why our partners are beginning to consider making deals with our adversaries. Perhaps things will start looking like pre world war two.

LOL, I'm running behind your comments Scott. Yes, the plan I outlined makes working with Iraqi nationalists the central course. Its simple counterinsurgency doctrine which Bobby explained worked in Afghanistan for a while. This will take time and Bush wasted quite a bit of that precious commodity. AQI must be destroyed and Shia nationalists must reject Shia extremists. A growing nationalist consensus is the only way to prevent eventual disaster.

This might all be a mute point, events might be overtaking us as Pakistan shows signs of coming apart. The AQ/Taliban elements in Pakistan have learned that going up against the US is costly, better to overthrow the Pakistani government and create another chaotic failed state that they can thrive in. We can’t contain Iraq and Pakistan at the same time, something must give.

I have always claimed that Iraq must be weighed in terms of the overall war on terror. I do not see how our invading Afghanistan makes Musharaf more vunerable. A more secure Afghanistan means fewer bases for the Taliban to attack Pakistan. You are right in a possible change in tactic reported over the last few months. In fact, our involvment helped stabilize conflict between Pakistan and India. It is absurd that we risk and spend so much on dealing with IRAN's enemies. It is time we get Iran to the table and point out AQ and the Taliban are their worst nightmare. Do Americans understand what could happen in Pakistan? Democrats have always suggested we enter Pakistan to get OBL. Really? Syria, Iran and Pakistan are very important to what we do. I suggest a way above that would ease tension between the Kurds, Iran and Turkey. The EU has failed in Afghanistan. It is also time Democrats started shouting at others besides Bush. It won't happen because they want as much to blame on Bush, even if it means strategic defeat. Very sad.

Max, The Taliban moved into Waziristan province [in the tribal areas of Pakistan] after being expelled from Afghanistan. Musharaf cut a deal with the extremists and let them leave for Waziristan and other tribal areas if they left the rest of the country. Basically the Taliban is already entrenched , and even possibly infiltrated into the Pakistani military.

Max,

How can you POSSIBLY say that it's the Democrats that won't sacrifice for the country when the Bush Administration has been unwilling to ask for even the smallest sacrifice from his business interest friends. Bush's idea of sacrifice is to sacrifice American soldiers' lives and have the rest of us go about our lives. Bush has engaged this country in a pointless war,squandered our reputation, our treasure, and our military. He spends his time going around doing stupid site visits while soldiers die in Iraq; he won't even consider a tax increase to finance the war or limit the deficit because it would require "sacrifice" from his business friends--god forbid that.

I certainly don't claim that the Democrats are a shining example of truth, justice, and the American way but to hold them out as the bad guys when we have the most venal, inept, and immoral government probably in American history is the height of absurdity. You are just buying into the Republican vision of blustery machismo as a substitute for thought. The GOP's idea of "policy" is apparently to suggest expanding Guantanamo and looking for Jack Bauer. And you criticize the Democrats?

"I certainly don't claim that the Democrats are a shining example of truth, justice, and the American way but to hold them out as the bad guys when we have the most venal, inept, and immoral government probably in American history is the height of absurdity."

You sound like Jimmy Carter holding kryptonite BEFORE his retraction. You make the value judgment against Bush and then you compare the Democrats to that standard. The real standard is relative to our national security, financial health and defeat. I can think of numerous examples that far exceed the latest mess. Some were when the Democrats were in charge.

"You are just buying into the Republican vision of blustery machismo as a substitute for thought."

You would have to produce 1. a critique that ALL the administration has done is bluster and 2. the Democratic vision that shows more thought beyond attacking administration mistakes and wishful thinking as fact-based as the post-war plan.

"The GOP's idea of "policy" is apparently to suggest expanding Guantanamo and looking for Jack Bauer. And you criticize the Democrats?"

That is hardly what the Republicans stand for and I watched their debate as a liberal. Haven't you noticed the Democratic pandering? You apply one stand for Republicans and another for Democrats. Suggesting a second Gitmo isn't as bad as just sending ambulances after we're attacked. Policy is to propose universal healthcare for the nation and have your own Democratic State government defeat such a plan 107-0?

One reason our government couldn't come up with the abolition of slavery in 1790 was because no one had a plan to either segregate or assimilate blacks. South Carolina said put up or shut up. Jefferson and Madison talked a good game, but with the most slaves of any state, they had no idea how to deal with more 700,000 slaves. You need to discuss the reality AND then have a real plan, which is bi-partisan. That is how the Compromise of 1790 happened making Washington D.C. the capital while creating a national responsibility for debt.

I might be upset with Republican plans, but that in no way holds my wrath back against Democratic policy, which could very likely make matters worse. What happened to Obama, Hillary and Kerry when they said they would NEVER let Iran get the bomb? What do they propose for Middle East peace or even Darfur? Was Iran talk just machismo to get elected? What happened to passing equitable amnesty or producing a healthcare proposal that can pay for itself? What about preventing voter fraud? Unless you can show me otherwise, how has the Democratic position NOT become simply a Bush-bashing singularity? Howard Dean told TDS that Gore discovered Global Warming? Oh really? Did Jon protest? If you are a Liberal, how can you stand the degeneration on the Left that can now barely defeat such a mistaken and unpopular administration? Maybe we should bring back dueling. Yes? Did you cheer for Burr or Hamilton?