Darcy Burner and a group of other congressional challengers have done the official release of their responsible plan to end the war in Iraq. I had the chance to read it before the official release, and it's good. And good for them for seizing this issue by the horns in the context of their campaigns.
« McCain On the Economy | Main | Black Swans »
Ending the War
17 Mar 2008 06:06 pm
Comments (20)
How come 'Remember my personal info?" is just a cruel joke?
Anyway, I am not just a Darcy Burner fan (and frequent contributor), but I am also a future constituent, living as I do in WA-08 CD. The current representative, Dave Reichert, is no Tom Delay (that is, not pure evil) but rather he represents the banality of evil. He is a reliably Republican dullard, elected in 2004 on the strength of his name regognition as King County (the major component of WA-o8, containing Seattle) Sheriff, and on the credit for catching the Green River Killer, which never happened while he was detective on the case (in fact, he let the killer go), but rather happened to occur while he was Sheriff.
In case you don't know, Darcy Burner is a rising star--ex-Microsoft (means really smart and driven, among other things), military family, Wellstone grad who started from absolutely nowhere and built a first-class organization, matched her incumbent opponent dollar-for-dollar, and came within 1.5 percentage points of beating him in 2006. This year she comes back with name recognition, drove her primary opoonent out of the race by raising over $100K in a single weekend last year, and is now taking the race to her opponent in a big way as well as defining the terms of this election by taking a national leadership role in the anti-war movement.
By way of (lame) defense, Dave Reichert has promised to stop requesting earmarks for his district. Next year. Really, he promises.
Darcy Burner is outraising Dave Reichert, and the visibility this planning document will give her, as well as the ability to wave it around like Joe McCarthy, will play to her strengths as an antiwar candidate as well as set an agenda that will not allow her opponent to masquerade as a "moderate."
Darcy's doing fine, is what I'm saying. Give her some love if you want a strong progressive antiwar Demcrat as well as a new generation party leader in the House.
https://secure.darcyburner.com/page/contribute/
I don't work for her, I just vote for her.
Thanks - any idea why she's been so much less visbile this time around? Is it just my imagination? I live in the part of King Co where I think she needs to pile up tons of votes and would think she'd be hitting the pavement pretty early.
My list of books that people should read to understand the Iraq war and the forgotten wars in Afghanistan and against Al Queda: http://www.politicalinaction.com/2008/03/iraq-war-anniversary.html
Brian
http://www.politicalinaction.com
I could've sworn Darcy Burner was the name of the guy who smoked the mythical PCP-laden doobie and thinking his girlfriend had turned into turned into a serpent-ette plunged five floors from his dorm room window, landing safely and unharmed on both feet in a patch of unusually plush astroturf.
It's possible he was also the fellow who saw fit to disrobe one semester inspiring a rogue's gallery of less beatific followers to do the same as well as a host of new local ordinances prohibiting most discernible variations on the possibility of public nudity. As I recall that episode ended in a tense standoff with the law with Burner nakedly occupying the roof of his shared bungalow lobbing - or at least attempting to lob - boulders he had piled high at the police.
Ah Linus, you big kidder you...
This Darcy might be flattered by the reference to your Darcy and his infamy, but she wouldn't be a good type cast.
To the thread...glad to see Darcy taking the leadership role. I think she walks all over Reichart this time as he has truly exposed himself the dullard DaddyLove describes him to be.
1. Leave ASAP in 2008, leaving no residual forces, leaving Iraq with no Air Force or Navy or mech/artillery forces when we leave.
2. Establishes an independent international group that, staffed with several non-friendly countries amongst others, will be empowered to violate the chain of command and arrest US soldiers in war zones for "alledged atrocities".
3. Giving Habeas corpus rights to US civilian courts for unlawful enemy combatants, putting them outside US military authority. Something we didn't even do with uniformed Nazis or captured civilian unlawful combatants.
4. Establishing a program that hopes to end our oil crisis by avoiding all exploration for oil, calls for no synth-fuel, does nothing about US population growing to 420 million by 2050 from legal and illegal immigration, and bases it's hopes on "exciting research breakthroughs" that will find perfect energy sources that don't pollute.
5. Mass resettlement of Iraqis that fled rather than fight for a better Iraq alongside American soldiers to go to the US where they have better benefits as refugees than many Vets do now.
6. Other sections of crap law that won't go anywhere.
Just from the 1st consequence - cut n' run with Iraq lacking a modern professional military - with the only Americans left guarding the embassy...it is the same silly tripe that makes Democrats so distrusted on matters of war and national defense.
Dismissing Ford as usual as a lunatic Ku Klux Klan member, I do have one large doubt about the suggested course of action.
The problem is simply that flooding Iraq with a ton of NGO workers isn't going to work. And while it really won't work if any of them are Americans, it will still not work if they are from Muslim or even "neutral" states.
The reason is that the conflict between Sunni and Shia is not over yet, and Al Qaeda is still functional. Therefore these NGO workers are going to be targeted for attacks, and the Iraqi forces are not going to be able to defend them.
The reality of Iraq is that until the civil war is over, nothing can be done to repair the economy and infrastructure. And that task is going to take probably ten years or more once it's started.
This really has been the worst destruction of a country since probably WWII. And the US will be paying for that for decades to come.
Nothing is going to solve Iraq. There IS NO solution to Iraq except letting it sort itself out however it will. If that costs another half million lives, then that's what it will cost.
Sooner or later, either one side is going to win definitely - and that really isn't that likely, given the Sunni ability to raise arms and money from places like Saudi Arabia - or a nationalist coalition government will be formed once exhaustion sets in on both sides. The only other possible outcome is a completely failed state.
And in any scenario, the presence of US forces is simply going to make the situation worse and delay a resolution as well as getting more US troops killed at an ever increasing monetary cost to the US taxpayer.
The suggested plan probably is not particularly feasible and probably will not materially affect the outcome. Until the civil war is more or less over to some degree, nothing can be done.
This is no "plan", but a risible pipe dream. The very idea that lots of volunteers from NGOs are going to flock to Iraq after our troops leave when practically none will go there now is typical of the fantasy nature of this document. I guess making sense is not seen as a qualification for Congress.
"The war" was over at the point Iraq elected a government according to its new constitution. The troop presence we have there now is already transitioning to a posture which is strictly supportive of the legitimate Iraqi government, and will inevitably be coming down. There is no sign of a coherent opposition with cadre, legitimacy, or a plan for governance, rather a collection of factions trying to get a slice of the pie. It is not in our interests to micromanage Iraq, but it is certainly not in our interests to just let matters take whatever course without any input from us. It's hard to see how we provide meaningful input to this process with only satellites and cruise missiles.
If the government we elect in November doesn't want to support developments in Iraq going forward, it's hard to see any justification for a military establishment at all. No one is about to invade the US (except Mexican economic refugees). Why don't these people just advocate for eliminating the Army and Air Force altogether. If we're really going to become isolationist, all we need is the Navy and the National Guard.
"strictly supportive of the legitimate Iraqi government"
LOL! This alone discredits your post, Powell. There is no "legitimate Iraqi government." There is a puppet government of occupation that says and does what the US military occupation wishes.
That even most neocon yahoos acknowledge it would not last a day without US military protection is sufficient evidence for its lack of legitimacy.
This just in, from the Department of No Sh*t Studies:
U.S. Adapts Cold-War Idea to Fight Terrorists
By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER | Published: March 18, 2008 | The New York TimesIn the days immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, members of President Bush’s war cabinet declared that it would be impossible to deter the most fervent extremists from carrying out even more deadly terrorist missions with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.
Since then, however, administration, military and intelligence officials assigned to counterterrorism have begun to change their view. After piecing together a more nuanced portrait of terrorist organizations, they say there is reason to believe that a combination of efforts could in fact establish something akin to the posture of deterrence, the strategy that helped protect the United States from a Soviet nuclear attack during the cold war...
...The emerging belief that terrorists may be subject to a new form of deterrence is reflected in two of the nation’s central strategy documents.
The 2002 National Security Strategy, signed by the president one year after the Sept. 11 attacks, stated flatly that “traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents.”
Four years later, however, the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism concluded: “A new deterrence calculus combines the need to deter terrorists and supporters from contemplating a W.M.D. attack and, failing that, to dissuade them from actually conducting an attack.”...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/washington/18terror.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
So I guess these so-called "National Security" guys are now all a bunch of liberal surrender-crats too, because now they are willing to entertain the idea of being rational as opposed to blowing up the world to stop the worldwide Caliphate about to smash us all.
Or maybe it's safe to think this way now, since the 2004 danger of long-faced French-looking fancy pants John Kerry -- who suggested that law enforcement & investigation were major tools to stop terrorism -- was narrowly averted.
I think it's been clear for a long time that "law enforcement & investigation" is the way to go, especially since the most significant terrorist threat to the US comes from European cities rather than places like Iraq or Afghanistan. We have the task of supporting legitimate elected governments in Iraq and Afghanistan at their request, which is significantly different from rooting out terrorist cells in places where they have guaranteed rights, welfare support, politically correct status, and passports that allow visa-free travel to the US like Londonistan and Hamburg.
Part of the difficulty in arriving at decent policy solutions is the obstacle of obnoxious partisan zealots like Joel. I suggest looking up "legitimate" in the dictionary, then comparing the process by which tens of thousands of Iraqis risked their lives to elect far and away the most representative, and consequently legitimate, government in the Arab world. Maybe Joel sees more legitimacy in the hereditary tyranny enforced by a police state in other Arab countries. Who exactly is he suggesting will "legitimately" take power in a day if we bail out? Talk about yahoos. Is it any wonder Republicans can make hay with the "Defeatocrats" label? Joel is arguing here for the legitimacy of people setting off carbombs in marketplaces rather than those actually elected by actual Iraqis in a UN-certified election!
The impulse to sell millions of people down the river because their chosen government is cooperating somewhat with the US is reprehensible. Oh wait, they're not really cooperating enough, right? Where's the reconciliation? Are they are reflecting the wishes of their citizens instead of demands by US politicians? How illegitimate!
Wow, you've become totally unhinged, Powell!
"Maybe Joel sees more legitimacy in the hereditary tyranny enforced by a police state in other Arab countries."
Where's the logic in that, Powell. Because the Iraq government is illigitimate means therefore that all other governments are legitimate . . . how?
"Who exactly is he suggesting will "legitimately" take power in a day if we bail out? "
Don't know. Does the possibility that one illigitimate government blocks the takover by another illigitimate government legitimize the first? My god, schoolchildren understand logic better than this!
"Joel is arguing here for the legitimacy of people setting off carbombs in marketplaces rather than those actually elected by actual Iraqis in a UN-certified election!"
LOL! Powell is making up phony arguments for me because he has none of his own that he can defend.
"The impulse to sell millions of people down the river because their chosen government is cooperating somewhat with the US is reprehensible."
Ah. Powell strikes another courageous blow in the global war against straw.
"Oh wait, they're not really cooperating enough, right? Where's the reconciliation? Are they are reflecting the wishes of their citizens instead of demands by US politicians? How illegitimate!"
Heh. So by not pursuing reconciliation (a stated goal of the surge) they are legitimized?
Smarter trolls, please.
Wow, Joel is even more of an idiot than I thought!
What's the definition of "legitimacy"? A government that shares Joel's anti-American political bias.
Who might be more legitimate that the current freely elected Iraqi one? Joel doesn't know, but he's able to overrule the Iraqi voters on sheer hubris.
Smarter terrorist collaborators, please.
Powell: STFU.
Excellent, Hack! A big improvement. I mean, if you've got nothing to say, it's far better to keep it short.
"the current freely elected Iraqi one"
BWHAhahahaha!! I didn't realize there were folks around who still parrot such obvious nonsense!
A fraction of the Iraqi electorate in a country under military occupation chooses from a slate of candidates approved by the occupiers. The money to run the country is controlled by the occupiers. The government has no control over the occupation.
Must be a new and unfamiliar use of the phrase "freely elected."
If this happened in the US, nobody would call it a free election.
"if you've got nothing to say, it's far better to keep it short."
LOL! As in calling those who point out your irrationality "terrorist collaborators?"
Robert Powell: Feeblemindedness on stilts.
The Iraqi election was certified free and fair by the UN, which may not be as great an authority as "Joel", but it will do. Many qualified observers who was actually there, including a lot of Administration critics, verify that we played little to no role beyond providing security. Candidates "we" liked, like Ahmed Chalabi, got little to no support. Lots of ones we didn't like at all got elected. Frankly, most of them we didn't know anything about. Turnout was quite high, actually (see the UN report), but then "Joel" doesn't seem to have any sources beyond his incredible telepathic powers.
It is boring to debate with someone who doesn't cite any facts, but instead depends on his hubris and anti-American bias to slander decent Iraqis risking their lives to run their own country while touting the "legitimacy" of an increasingly isolated and hapless, if murderous, "opposition". If you have something to say that's based on facts rather than your own fashion-statement politics, maybe I'll read it. Otherwise, you go in the "scroll past" bin with Hack.
"It is boring to debate with someone who doesn't cite any facts"
So far, the only facts that matter are (1) that the elections involved only candidates that the US approved of (notice how Powell changes this to "liked"), (2) that large numbers of Iraqis didn't participate (notice how Powell changes this to "turnout was quite high", which isn't a contradiction), and (3) those elected serve only at the pleasure of the US occupying forces.
All facts.
To which Powell can only reply with slander and name-calling.
Smarter trolls, please.
Comments closed March 31, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Darcy Burner campaigned very visibly in the runup to the 2006 elections but I don’t think I’ve seen any of her flyers/bumperstickers/ads etc this time around.
I know that CW was that if Reichert survived in ’06, he’d be pretty safe moving forward but the demographic trends in east King county aren’t favorable to him and there was some story of him getting passed over by the GOP for a congressional leadership position a couple of weeks ago.
Any word on how Burner is looking for 2008?
Posted by BFR | March 17, 2008 6:29 PM