Five more Democratic challengers have officially signed on to the Responsible Plan to end the war in Iraq, including Alan Grayson (FL-08), Harry Taylor (NC-09), Leslie Byrne (VA-11), Bill O’Neill (OH-14), and Greg Fischer (KY-Senate). That brings the total number of endorsers to 25 from 16 states, with several more expected shortly.
On this week’s podcast, the Seattle P-I’s Joel Connelly explains that challengers are generally loathe to get out in front on issues like this because the safer strategy is to make the campaign less about themselves and more about the incumbent. So why are so many challengers willing to stick their necks out on the Responsible Plan? Well, it could just be that the Plan is surprisingly, well, responsible.
In a commentary posted to Democracy Arsenal, Moira Whelan of the National Security Network addresses the understandable skepticism with which “national security wonks” and other experts generally greet any candidate plan: “… you roll your eyes [and] you know it’s not wonky enough to meet your standards… right?” But, she continues, “Not so with this plan…”
Folks at NSN have become pretty familiar with this plan in the last few weeks. When we got a call asking us to meet with Darcy Burner, who drafted a plan, we thought of it as nothing new…after all, lots of candidates want to find the silver bullet to change things in Iraq, and often don’t have a feel for all of the moving pieces in Iraq and around the globe. Sometimes, candidates are more concerned with developing the plan that won’t get them in trouble, rather than the one that embodies their approach and forces real change. We were pleasantly surprised by Darcy.
Darcy laid in front of us 20 pages of a comprehensive approach to Iraq—a project that started after a conversation with General Paul Eaton. She’d done her research, and based her ideas on legislation already introduced in Congress. She went beyond the idea of troop deployments, and political stability to address more systemic problems with the US government that got us into this mess in the first place. The Responsible Plan for Ending the War in Iraq looks at things like media accountability, government transparency, torture, FISA and trade-offs on issues such as Afghanistan. She wrote the whole thing herself, and sought advice from “experts” as well as her fellow challengers. In other words…her plan is peer reviewed…and approved.
Two things make the plan especially compelling, and demonstrate a changing dynamic in elections that we’re surely going to see this cycle.
First, the people who drafted it—the 10 candidates who’ve attached their names to it so far—understand Iraq in very real ways. Burner’s brother served in Iraq. Donna Edwards is a military brat. Tom Periello worked in Iraq and Afghanistan doing development work. The list goes on and on. In other words, the idea that progressives “don’t get it” is completely blown out of the water based on those who are introducing it. Not only do they get it, they’ve embraced it and are now running for Congress to change the realities they see—that’s public service of which you can be proud. They’re actually walking the walk.
Second, voters and candidates care about Iraq and the rest of the world—in a detailed way. Contrary to what some political advisors are saying, these candidates started this strategy because “what are you going to do about Iraq?” is the top question they’re getting from their voters. It’s no longer sufficient for candidates to say they believe in ending the war, voters want to know how they’re going to do that. Voters are insisting on details because they know the details. In other words, our candidates and our voters are smarter on Iraq and the world we live in than we’ve seen in recent elections.
[…] A few months from now, people will look back on this crew with a “where it all started” approach. We’ll be counting this class as a new generation of leaders who are smarter and stronger on security than ever before. More will adopt their plan as a blueprint, and they’ll walk into the halls of Congress with a mission, with allies, and with knowledge.
Through his spokesman, Dave Reichert insists that he wants to bring our troops home from Iraq as well. The difference is, Darcy Burner is actually attempting to do something about it.
The PDF of the plan has (finally!) been repaired, and I’m already impressed. Another name on the list jumped out at me, and I know that he is no stranger to the military or to effective military planning. He’s also got a lot of experience in the consequences of “speaking truth to power”.
Captain Larry Seaquist, USN, Ret. The fellow who told his bosses that the USS Iowa (BB-61) was not ready for combat because of a lack of available training for the Sailors operating the 16″ guns (among other things).
The Navy, of course, replaced him with someone that would say that everything was just ducky. We can all remember the results of that, when 47 Sailors were killed by an explosion in the number two turret.
I’ve just finished reading the plan, and although it’s 36 pages long, it is just an outline. There is lots more work to do, and as always, the devil will be in the details.
But… Even though I just finished telling Puddy not to fall into lockstep with anyone, I have a great deal of respect for Captain Seaquist. The fact that he is one of the authors of this certainly speaks well of the plan.
And the fact that Ms. Burner asked him to help speaks well of her. I don’t expect that my Representatives are experts in everything. I just ask that they be willing to listen to people that are experts in their areas.
Which dope-smoking pothead dreamed up this plan? Timothy Leary’s ghost? The first 2 points are a joke.
End U.S. military action in Iraq:
There is no military solution in Iraq.
This is a lie. Here is an absolute; there are no exceptions to this rule: NO COUNTRY HAS EVER CHANGED ITS FORM OF GOVERNMENT THROUGH ANYTHING OTHER THAN WAR. Whether hot or cold, it has ALWAYS taken a war to change a form of government. Saddam wasn’t going to just give up. Just as Hitler was never going to give up.
Using U.S. diplomatic power:
To negotiate with terrorists/terrorist states? Are you NUTS?!? Again, this has ALWAYS led to disaster. Negotiating with terrorists will only give you more of the same. Killing them FIRST is the only answer. It’s exactly why the surge is working so well and the liberal media won’t talk about Iraq anymore. But you guys wanna stop our success and turn things around.
You whack-job commie-demos have done so maaaaaaany drugs yer brains are fried. Quitting without victory is called “surrender”. You on the left don’t care about this country’s survival.
When you are FORCED to kneel facing East 5 times a day and yer women are wearing burkas you will say “we won”.
So not only is Burner showing that she can develop solutions to problems like ending the Iraq war, she’s also showing the leadership to be able to get so many good people to come together on a project like this, or to sign on to it. Wow. That’s certainly a lot more than Rep.
419401 out of 435 has done, and Darcy’s not even in office yet. Man, election day can’t come soon enough.“Dave Reichert insists that he wants to bring our troops home from Iraq as well.”
And Hitler wanted to bring his troops home from Stalingrad — but not quite in the way it worked out.
@2 is a good example of why no wingnut should ever be put in charge of anything. Their “solution” to every problem on the face of the earth is kill, kill, kill.
@2 “You whack-job commie-demos …”
As long as we’re name-calling here, I’d like to point out that you and your ilk relish killing so much you guys make Ted Bundy look like a jaywalker.
@2 illustrates the value of education by highlighting the consequences of having none.
cmiklich asked:
That would be:
MAJOR GENERAL PAUL EATON (U.S. ARMY RET.) former Security Transition Commanding General, Iraq
DR. LAWRENCE KORB former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration
BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN JOHNS (U.S. ARMY RET.) specialist in counterinsurgency and nation-building
CAPT. LARRY SEAQUIST (U.S. NAVY RET.) former commander of the U.S.S. Iowa and former Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning
cmiklich also stated:
Hmmm. Perhaps you should tell that to General Petraeus. He stated “There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq.” Certainly I’m not calling the General a liar, but if you want to, you’ll have to come up with something better than what you have so far.
Then cmiklich said:
Well, I haven’t heard that anyone is planning on having Osama over for a chat, but considering that the Bush plan can’t seem to do anything else about him, even that might be worth a try.
Beyond that, I seem to remember that we’ve negotiated with lots of countries that could be considered “terrorist”. Some of those states are actually allies now, others are, at least, staying pretty quiet.
We just seem to re-categorize them when we’re no longer fighting with them. Examples would include Egypt, Jordan, Nicaragua. There are others, but you get the idea. Or more likely, you don’t, but most reasonable people do.
Oh, and about how well that “surge” is working. 2007 had more casualties than 2006, prior to the surge. What actually seems to have begun to work is negotiating with the local militia groups (we used to call them “terrorists” before we started to negotiate with them) by paying them not to kill us.
Of course, I’m not crazy about the method of “negotiating” in this case, because it sounds way too much like Danegeld, but apparently General Petraeus disagrees.
As to the rest of your ranting, well, it’s hard to counter gibberish and nonsense. Several of the folks that wrote this plan were career military officers who have actually seen combat. They think it makes sense.
Additionally, I’m career military, and I think it makes sense.
What, exactly, are your qualifications to say that it doesn’t?
Wow cmiklich @2, your ignorance of the situation in Iraq is stunning.
Even the generals on the ground in Iraq understand there is no military solution that can solve this problem.
In addition, there are plenty of examples of conflicts being influenced, and brought to a conclusion by non-militaristic means.
But your ignorance is revealing in that you have been sold that the point of our invasion of Iraq was to bring about a change in the form of government there. Did you just pick that from one of the many false justifications the Bush administration lied this country into believing?
The situation in Iraq isn’t just a matter of defeating terrorists. It is a matter of reconciling the differences of the three forces that are represented within Iraq: Shiite, Sunni and Kurd. It is dealing with a nation’s infrastructure that needs rebuilding following the destruction we helped precipitate. It is dealing with the humanitarian crises that has driven so many Iraqis out of their homes. It is bringing back their economy and providing people there with more than just the hope they won’t get blown up at the market or 4 hours of electricity a day.
And any plan needs to make sure that the circumstances that started this invasion and ongoing occupation cannot happen again.
al Qeada sympathizer @ 2:
“A “failure of the national political leadership” is responsible for the “nightmare” of the Iraq war, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said Friday.
If some of America’s political leaders were in the military they would have been relieved or court-martialed long ago, Sanchez told a conference of military journalists.
The so-called surge of troops in Iraq is “a desperate attempt by the administration,” and the best the U.S. can do at this point is to “stave off defeat,” Sanchez said.
Asked when he realized the war was on the skids, Sanchez said, “15 June 2003” — the day he took over as commander of coalition forces.
The officers and military leadership involved in the planning for the war in Iraq suffered from “an absolute lack of moral courage to stand up and do what was right in terms of planning,” Sanchez said. “We allowed ourselves to believe we would be greeted as liberators,” he said.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21272663/
On the other hand, what the fuck does Lt. General Sanchez know? He was just THE fucking military commander on the ground in Iraq?
You mother fuckin’ unpatriotic conservative. That’s all conservatives are, unpatriotic.
re 2: “There is no military solution in Iraq.” The ‘idiot’ who said that is General David Petraeus.
Dumb ignorant right-wing piece of shit cmiklich @ 2 says:
Here is an absolute; there are no exceptions to this rule: NO COUNTRY HAS EVER CHANGED ITS FORM OF GOVERNMENT THROUGH ANYTHING OTHER THAN WAR.
Brazil says hello, cmiklich. Or rather, bom dia. Brazil went from a monarchy to a republic in 1889 without a shot fired in anger. The king and the people simply sat down, worked out a deal, signed it, and went to the beach.
Now go back and hide under your bed. You’re a gutless weenie, just like every other “conservative” who posts here.
cmiklich @ 2
I believe there may be a military solution to the problem of your ongoing waste of air. I am quite sure diplomacy will never get anywhere near resolving that problem given your aversion to reason.
harry poon @11 says:
re 2: “There is no military solution in Iraq.” The ‘idiot’ who said that is General David Petraeus.
Sorry harry, that is not exactly what Gen. Patraeus said and has been taken totally out of context by the authors of this so-called plan and most who are discussing it.
He actually said:
“And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like THAT in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq”.
This quote was specifically referring to the U.S. troops ability to “protect all Iraqis from thugs with no soul bent on reigniting sectarian warfare”.
The footnotes in this plan are mostly from media such as CNN, NPR, N.Y. Times, etc. Responsible people should not take a journalist’s interpretation of a quote, and/or the quote out of context, and assert that it means something else.
Lynn @14 – One and the same thing. We’re being sold the need for troops in Iraq to quell an insurgency. We’re being told that without the troops the country will descend into chaos.
Neither are true: as Patraeus points out, the military cannot eliminate an insurgency or remove the reasons people want to join up to it, and the country is already in chaos despite our continued presence there.
Daniel @14
Where and when did Petraeus say that? And unlike some here, and the authors of this plan, I do think there will be serious consequences in Iraq and the entire region if we don’t continue with the effort until the stated objectives are met.
I think that cmiklich has left the building. Too many facts.
Too bad, as I was really looking forward to seeing how he explained calling General Petraeus a “liar” and calling those senior military officers “dope-smoking potheads“.
And in talking about peaceful changes of government, I had forgotten about Brazil, although I suppose that we could also point out most of the countries that came out of the old Soviet Union.
A few of them got rather ugly, but most of them went through peaceful changes from a totalitarian dictatorship to representative democracy.
Considering how often we hear wingnuts claim that somehow President Reagan made all that happen without firing a shot (along with building the Pyramids and digging both the Suez and Panama Canals), you’d think he would have remembered them.
But then again, wingnuts don’t talk so much about Reagan these days. He signed the most liberal abortion rights law in the country and believed in keeping government out of people’s personal lives. Ronald Reagan, RINO.
Oh, and Lynn. The quote comes from a press briefing given by the General on March 08, 2007, in response to a reporter’s question. The General said “any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq.”
I believe that there are similar quotes from other interviews, but I pulled this one straight off the Official Multi-National Force – Iraq website.
John,
Yeah, I know. That’s what I quoted and that site was my source. My question to Daniel K was his assertion that Petraeus said that the country “was in chaos despite our continued presence there”.
Lynn @18 – I never made the assertion you posit. Please note my use of punctuation. What I said, and I’ll try to be clearer for you, is that Petraeus has pointed out the military cannot eliminate an insurgency or remove the reasons people want to join up to it, and in addition to what he said, the country is already in chaos despite our continued presence there.
Apologist for staving off defeat in Iraq Lynn.
Check out what General Sanchez said. The surge is an attempt by Bush to stave off defeat. So he can leave office with a trillon dollar war that he said would cost us $60 billion, 4,000+ soldiers lost, 30,000 wounded, a military in shambles just so he can say “I didn’t lose the war in Iraq.”
YEAH, he did lose the war by going in on a lie. Just like LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. You can never win a war entered into on false pretenses.
Dumb ass.
I’d like to thank you all for the education and warm welcome to Seattle politics. I just moved to the 8th Congressional district from out of state. I am a democrat leaning independent, who although doesn’t have time to get really involved in politics, I try to inform myself on the issues and vote accordingly. I don’t protest, but I am against the war in Iraq. I never posted to a blog before, and only found you here because I heard Darcy Burner on NPR the other day. Quite frankly, she sounded like an idiot. She reminded me of my daughter when she was in high school. A new friend assured me that Darcy was great and that I should check out this blog site to get up to speed on the local political scene, and that Darcy must have just been nervous being on the air. So, I read her plan, which to me was lacking in substance and not taking into consideration any consequences of the actions it proposed. I look at this site, post several harmless but truthful opinions, and I am called names by the people who support Darcy Burner. This experience has made me decide that my vote in November will not be for Darcy Burner. I guess I’m just a moderate democrat at best, not a nasty name calling ideologue. Happy Easter to all. I won’t be back.
@21 – Lynn, these people do this to all of us! I feel your frustration! I have been called a troll, an idiot, a liar and so forth. Also have been told numerous times that I am a republican (although my voting record begs to differ) There are a few (very few) on here that will show you the ropes of politics, along with including links, pointing you in the correct direction for political facts and fiction. I have been told to ignore the “16%ers” (the one’s that call u names when you don’t agree 100% and act like they are the only ones who know anything, the attitude they carry is it’s either MY way or NO way, childish behavior)…so my advice…ignore those also….good luck and HAPPY EASTER! :)
HA is a fairly bare knuckle site Lynn. I kind of enjoy reading it. Hope you find a place to your liking. One piece of advice. Read a site awhile before you post.
I’d like to see our national candidates pick up on this plan.
Sorry fellas & whatevers: Didn’t leave the building. After posting during lunch, I had to attend some meetings and do some work. I’d explain “work” to you whacko-lefties, but that could take… years. Meanwhile, you might miss yer pushers or the mailman w/ those monthly checks.
Wow. Where to begin?
1) Brazil changed its Gov’t in 1889 BY A MILITARY COUP. Hmmmm. Yep. That’s about called a WAR! It sure wasn’t peaceful. The Emperor FLED TO PORTUGAL!! “…went to the beach…” What an @ss!! 1 point for me.
And the countries formed from the Soviet Union’s collapse (thank you, Ronald Reagan) didn’t come about peacefully. It took decades of wars all around the globe to make *that* happen. 2-0.
2) The United Nations declared OVER A DOZEN TIMES that the WORLD was coming to Iraq. Dozens (and DOZENS) of countries formed the Coalition. Wasn’t just G.W. Bush and his buds. Point 3 for the good guys.
3) Somebody >HERE
(That is some SOA software you clowns have here…)
3) Somebody >HERE
(Try again. One sure way to stifle debate is to be leftist and not allow it. Like Hitler. Or Stalin. Or Pol Pot. Or the current Chinese Gov’t…)
3) Somebody *HERE* claims to be former military? Wow. That’s stunning. And, really unbelievable. At least for American military service. Sure it wasn’t France?
BTW, since THE SURGE in late June, 2007, casualties have dropped to the lowest consecutive monthly totals of the war. So, the clown above posted a totally unpatriotic, unAmerican, defeatist twist on truth. 4-0.
And, it is ironic that Sanchez realized we were in deep sh!t the minute *HE* took over. At least *HE* realized what kinda crappy leader *HE* really was.
5-0.
4) Me “buying into” an idea that Saddam needed regime change? Sure, just exactly the same as B.J. Clinton said. Oh, that’s right. You lefties always forget he said that. Repeatedly. Except he didn’t have the cojones to make it happen. They were in Monica’s mouth. 6-bupkis.
And why did Israel bomb their nuke facility in ’81? SO THEY COULDN’T MAKE NUKES! Wow. That one wasn’t difficult. And why did Israel bomb the Syrian facility last year? The one that Saddam (working w/ the North Koreans) transferred there?? So the world could be a little safer. You commie-demos don’t get that at all, do you: That freedom ain’t free?
How many points is that for the real Americans? We won: 7-0. Won by a touchdown; a good, patriotic American score.
And lynn, you are right. Darcy Burner is as dumb as they come.
HEY FIRST SOME ONE SHOUKLD OF REPLACED YOU IN THE NAVY ILL BET YOU WERE ONE ASS KISSING CHIEF.NOW WHY DONT YOU TELL EVERYONE WHEN THE GOOD CAPTAIN RETIRED?WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME HE WAS IN IRAQ? AND JOHN DO TELL US WHAT A BLACK SHOE DRIVER KNOWS ABOUT GROUND OPS.ALL HE KNOWS IS THAT HIS 16 INCH GUNS WILL TRAVEL ABOUT 26 MILES.
HEY BARRELLI IF YOU WANT TO RESPECT SOMEONE TRY ADM FALLON WHEN ASKED ABOUT IRAN HE SAID THEY ARE LIKE ANTS AND WHEN THE TIME COMES YOU JUST STEP ON THEM.
JOHN YOU WERE A FUCKIN NC NOT EXACTLEY A FIGHTING RATE ONCE AGAIN WHEN DID THE BG RETIRE TRY 1978 YOU DUFUSE.
AND HERE @10 WE HAVE GBS WHO WAS THROWN OUT OF THE NAVY FOR BEATTING UP A GUY IN A WHEEL CHAIR FUCKIN LOSER CRAWL BACK UNDER YOUR ROCK WHERE YOU BELONG HOWS THE BCD WORKIN OUT FOR YA COCKBREATH.
I see our fake Lieutenant is back. Articulate as ever, with the same level of cogent argument that we have come to expect from him.
On to people that can actually string a sentence together.
cmiklich
On Brazil. Both sides can make a case here for the 1889 coup, but there was no battle, and the transition was peaceful.
However, it is beyond doubt that in 1985, Brazil finished its peaceful transition from military rule to civilian government. No shots were fired, and a complete change of the form of government was accomplished.
And as for your comments about my military service, it seems obvious that you must be one of those folks who had better things to do than to actually join the military and serve our country.
There are a number of Veterans that post here. Along with myself, there’s Roger and GBS that I know, and I believe that SeattleJew is also a Vet. I’m sure that there are others that I’ve missed.
So, if you’re looking for points, I might suggest checking between your ears.
Lynn
A couple of people here were rude to you, so you’re going to become a Republican?
This site is notorious for what Mr. Weston calls “bare knuckle” brawling, but the name itself is pretty much a dead givaway, and anyone reading for long enough to make a coherant comment should be able to figure that out.
So, you’re telling us that because you got your feelings tweaked here, you’ve decided that warrantless searches are ok, torture is just ducky, the Constitution is just a “scrap of paper”, George W. Bush really has been a great President, and you want to support the folks that will carry out his policies.
Ok. If that’s really where you are, then as one of the folks that tries to be polite to all but the worst of our wingnuts, I wish you a happy life. The door is to the right, please be careful with it, as it swings quickly and with a bit of power behind the swing.
If that’s the case, then you belong in the Republican party. MegaDittos to you. (I think that’s considered to be the appropriate greeting for a Republican.) Argument is not allowed over there, but don’t worry, you won’t be expected to actually do any thinking, so the problem won’t come up.
Of course, if you don’t agree with all of that, then I wonder how you’ve managed to survive as a Democrat. We routinely get accused of treason and of hating our country by all those folks that love their country so much that they’re willing to let me bleed and die for it.
HEY JOHN I SEE THAT YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.AND JOHN IM NOT A LT AND I PROBLEY MADE CHIEF WHEN YOU WERE STILL PISSING YOUR PANTS.
JOHN THE ONLY TIME YOU BLEED FOR YOUR COUNTRY WAS WAS WHEN YOU FEEL DOWN A LADDER ON THE WAY TO THE GOAT LOCKER AND HIT YOUR HEAD.
Lynn,
It wouldn’t matter who or what you advocated in here, someone would be rude to you about it. Maybe your thin skin and lack of confidence does not suit you to this sort of pursuit. Best of luck at the library.
cm
Here is an absolute; there are no exceptions to this rule: NO COUNTRY HAS EVER CHANGED ITS FORM OF GOVERNMENT THROUGH ANYTHING OTHER THAN WAR.
So you are saying that they way to establish a liberal democracy and an America-friendly country is to invade, destroy, occupy and refuse to rebuild a country while murdering and torturing thousands of its citizens and turning five million of them into refugees you refuse to assist. Yeah, that’s worked real well so far.
Saddam wasn’t going to just give up. Just as Hitler was never going to give up.
Then again, and you probably need periodic reminders of this, Saddam wasn’t Hitler. Saddam was the two-bt dictator of a Third World country wiht a weak military whose biggest crimes were brutally repressing political opposition (never a big deal to us before, and certainly not with ’80s Saddam, who was our buddy against Iran) and invading the tiny but repressive, male-suffrage-only monarchy next door. Hitler ruled the world’s preeminent industrial power and built the world’s (then) most powerful war machine in a bid for massive regional domination. Saddam was never going to dominate anything larger (or tougher) than Kuwait.
To negotiate with terrorists/terrorist states? Are you NUTS?!? Again, this has ALWAYS led to disaster. Negotiating with terrorists will only give you more of the same. Killing them FIRST is the only answer.
Which is why it was such a mistake for Britain to successfully negotiate the release of its hostages in Afghanistan from teh Taliban, and why it was such a tragic mistake to use a decade of behind-the-scenes US and UK diplomacy to persuade Libya’s Muammar Khadafi to give up his paltry little proto-nuclear program. Yup, I see your point.
What I don’t see is your definition of “terrorist” which appears to apply to whoever you want it to. The ordinary people of iraq who oppose the presence of a large foreign occupying army and oppose it by force of arms are not “terrorists,” as you would similarly not be if a large foreign army occupied your neighborhod and you opposed them.
It’s exactly why the surge is working so well and the liberal media won’t talk about Iraq anymore.
The
surgeescalation isn’t working, because its sole intent was to achieve a political reconciliation that has not occurred.Let’s take a look at the goals outlined in the president’s escalation announcement:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.....110-7.html
But other than that, the escalation was a screaming success and has brought Iraqi and US casualties rates back down to those of the peaceful and successful days of 2005.
DL @ 35
Great stuff as always – totally lost on a right wing loon like cm.
To the grave he’ll go bitter and angry at a world that refuses to be insane like him.
At least the rest of us can benefit from your comments here.