stilltrucking wrote:Bottom line Rumsfeld still did not offer a plan, a rehash of what Murtha and other democrats said.
(cutting)
What plays in Peoria, are you old enough to remember Everet Dirksen of Illinois.
No, I don't know anything about Everet Dirksen, and I agree with you that Rumsfeld didn't offer anything new, but it was a surprised to me to hear he actually agreed with Murtha.
There was another interesting article at CSM - and there is a quote by a general that I think bears heeding (emphasis added by me):
Now in control, Democrats seek unified war strategy
In pushing for a bipartisan plan, they seek to avoid 'ownership' of the war.
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
December 1, 2006
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1201/p01s02-usfp.html
Before the midterm elections, Democrats in the House and Senate agreed to three points on Iraq strategy: ensuring a "significant transition" to full Iraqi sovereignty in 2006, including the "responsible redeployment" of US forces; regional diplomacy and more pressure on the Iraqis to "make the political compromises necessary" to defeat the insurgency; and holding the Bush administration accountable on issues ranging from "manipulated prewar intelligence" to poor planning and contracting abuses.
Last June, all but six Senate Democrats backed a nonbinding amendment by Sens. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan and Reed, calling for a phased withdrawal within six months. The amendment failed by a vote of 39 to 60.
In the first congressional hearings on Iraq since the elections, Senator Levin, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, renewed his call for a "phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months."
"America has given the Iraqi people the opportunity to build a new nation at the cost of nearly 3,000 American lives and over 20,000 wounded. And the American people do not want our valiant troops to get caught in a crossfire between Iraqis if Iraqis insist on squandering that opportunity through civil war and sectarian strife," he said at the Nov. 15 hearings.
On Tuesday, his cosponsor, Reed, said he was "less comfortable with the timetables and deadlines," and that redeployment could also mean "redeployment of forces in Iraq."
All nine freshmen Democratic senators in the new Congress campaigned to redeploy US troops as rapidly as possible.
In fact, critics say, it will be tough for Democrats to fulfill voter expectations for any quick change in the situation on the ground in Iraq.
"Congress wants to maintain the fiction that somehow we have control of the affairs on the ground and that we are decisive actors. We are not. We haven't had much control or influence in that country in the last two years," says retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, author of three recent books on the US military.
"Nothing is going to be sorted out until we get out. This is what the Democrats are failing on: They need to say this occupation is a serious mistake, and we need to get south of the Euphrates river as soon as possible," he adds.
On Nov. 14, Sen. Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin introduced legislation requiring US forces to redeploy from Iraq by July 1, 2007.
Meanwhile, many Republicans are shifting into defensive mode as they give up control of oversight committees. GOP Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee and Sen. Johnny Isakson (R) of Georgia said this week that they are backing Sen. John McCain's plan to boost troop levels by as much as 20,000 in Iraq.
I think the General is correct and we tend to forget this when we argue over this stuff; further - if anyone can stand up in congress and say "this occupation is a serious mistake, and we need to get south of the Euphrates river as soon as possible" - Pelosi can.
December 6th the recommendations will be coming out.
So 'til then ~ it's just 'wait-n-see'
