North Dakota’s Congressional Delegation Responds To The President’s Plan For Iraq
Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad and Earl Pomeroy have all responded to the President's plan for Iraq.
A concrete strategy for Iraq? All due respect to Rep. Pomeroy, but this seems like a pretty concrete plan to me. And why isn't more of the same in Iraq the answer? All we've done to date is rout Saddam's army, established an interim government, held two successful national elections, brought thousand of Iraqi security troops online, all while the terror insurgency has grown so desperate that they're now targeting their cowardly attacks on their own people.
Seems to me like "more of the same" is the past to victory.
The article continues:
Where is Conrad getting his information?
Here's the President speaking back in February of 2003:
The goal is not a democracy just "like ours," but rather a stable country with a government that yields to the consent of the governed.
From the President's plan for Iraq:
Obviously, stability is very much the main goal. Once stability has been obtained, our troops will begin coming home.
More from the article:
Again, I refer to the President's plan for Iraq. Scrolling to the end of that document you will notice eight specific pillars, or objectives, for victory in Iraq. Isn't that what Dorgan is asking for?
Honestly, given these responses, I have to wonder if North Dakota's congressmen even bothered to read the President's plan before they began espousing the mindless rhetoric being pushed by the rest of their party.
(via the ND Democrats Blog)
Fargo Forum - The three members of North Dakota's congressional delegation said Tuesday that they would like to see a change of direction in the Iraq war.
Sens. Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad and Rep. Earl Pomeroy, all Democrats, responded to President Bush's speech Wednesday in which he refused to set a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals and asserted that once-shaky Iraqi troops are proving increasingly capable.
Bush's speech at the U.S. Naval Academy did not outline a new strategy for the nearly three-year-old war. Rather, it was intended as a comprehensive answer to mounting criticism and questions.
Pomeroy echoed other Democrats in saying the president needs to "talk about a concrete strategy for security in Iraq while bringing our troops home."
"Clearly more of the same in Iraq is not the answer," he said.
A concrete strategy for Iraq? All due respect to Rep. Pomeroy, but this seems like a pretty concrete plan to me. And why isn't more of the same in Iraq the answer? All we've done to date is rout Saddam's army, established an interim government, held two successful national elections, brought thousand of Iraqi security troops online, all while the terror insurgency has grown so desperate that they're now targeting their cowardly attacks on their own people.
Seems to me like "more of the same" is the past to victory.
The article continues:
Conrad said there needs to be a "course correction."
"This notion that we are going to turn Iraq into a Democracy anything like ours anytime soon is just not realistic," he said. "Our goal should be to stabilize the situation."
Where is Conrad getting his information?
Here's the President speaking back in February of 2003:
The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.
The goal is not a democracy just "like ours," but rather a stable country with a government that yields to the consent of the governed.
From the President's plan for Iraq:
As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:
* In the short term:
o An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
* In the medium term:
o An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
* In the longer term:
o An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
o An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
o An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.
Obviously, stability is very much the main goal. Once stability has been obtained, our troops will begin coming home.
More from the article:
Dorgan said the president needs to set goals for training Iraqi troops.
"Having some goals to measure against makes a great deal of sense," he said.
Again, I refer to the President's plan for Iraq. Scrolling to the end of that document you will notice eight specific pillars, or objectives, for victory in Iraq. Isn't that what Dorgan is asking for?
Honestly, given these responses, I have to wonder if North Dakota's congressmen even bothered to read the President's plan before they began espousing the mindless rhetoric being pushed by the rest of their party.
(via the ND Democrats Blog)
