Julie

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (Reuters) - President Bush challenged Democrats Friday to offer their plan for winning in Iraq as he swept across Republican strongholds in the U.S. heartland to try to help his party's candidates survive on Election Day.

Encouraging audience participation from thousands of Republican loyalists at a rally, Bush said Democrats should be asked, "What's your plan?" for winning in Iraq and a host of other national security issues separating the parties.

"What's your plan?" the audience yelled back.

"Truth is the Democrats can't answer that question," he said. "Harsh criticism is not a plan for victory."

Democrats seeking to recapture Congress have sought to cast Tuesday's elections as a referendum on Bush's handling of the Iraq war, where another five American troops were reported killed.

Defending the Iraq war is a central theme for Bush on a final pre-election blitz in 10 states.

Reflective of the difficult political landscape for Republicans, they were all states Bush won in 2004: Montana, Nevada, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Florida and Texas.

His strategy is to appear in Republican strongholds, try to encourage as big a turnout as possible and hope that concern about Iraq and various Republican scandals do not depress the number of loyalists who turn out.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said it won't work. "President Bush's failed, 'stay the course' rhetoric is not only bad for America but has been a drag on Republicans on the ballot who have rubber-stamped the White House's failed agenda," Dean said in a party release.

Bush also crowed about a Labor Department report showing the U.S. unemployment rate dropped in October to 4.4 percent from 4.6 percent, its lowest in 5 1/2 years. He called it proof that tax cuts he engineered are working, a claim disputed by Democrats who say the cuts have increased the U.S. budget deficit.

Bush said Democratic claims that the tax cuts would hurt the economy were wrong.

"Well, if their election forecasts are as good as their economic forecasts, we're going to have a great day on November 7," he said to cheers.

Bush said Democrats are taking a "calculated gamble" by attacking him on Iraq without offering their own plan for what they would do if they win control of either the House or the Senate or both.

"They believe the only way they can win this election is to criticize us and offer no specific plan of their own," Bush said.

He said Democrats still have four more days to do so and urged Republicans to ask them to.

Bush campaigned in Springfield, and later in Joplin, for Republican Sen. Jim Talent, who is in a neck-and-neck race with Democrat Claire McCaskill. Later he was to appear in Iowa for Republican Rep. Jim Nussle's race to become state governor.

http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/...N03481162.html

gunnut

It's a fair question. If you don't like my plan and constantly attack it, then let's hear your ideas.

I criticize welfare all the time. I also offer my solutions.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

astralis

certainly so, but bush's plans are not all that clear either

in fact, the first inkling of an organized plan was only formulated around late 2003/early 2004, when it started to become clear that it was not all roses, and that a certain mr. chalabi wasn't very popular in-country.

well, bush has said, "we stay until the job is done", then he presents a bunch of benchmarks that iraq should pass to qualify for the job being done.

all well and good, but it seems clear that despite the fulfillment of most of these benchmarks, things did not improve. putting a time limit on this is rejected, more benchmarks are formulated, but despite fulfilling even these later benchmarks, well, iraq is still as it is today. part of the reason why these benchmarks have not largely contributed to order is probably because some of the benchmarks were set into motion in the wrong order, and some of the benchmarks were merely too-little-too-late fixes for the dumbarse decisions made in absence of an organized plan (aka disbanding of iraqi army and too much de-baathification).

given that the modern presidency is the main driver of US foreign politics, and given that bush has proudly proclaimed himself to be a War President, the onus is on him to produce a plan that works. he (and of course the democrats) still has two years before he can credibly demand an organized set of plans from an opposing party leader.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

dalem

Untrue.

"The plan" has always been

1) Win the war.
2) Stabilize Iraq to the point where it can defend itself.
3) Get a form of democratic government started.
4) Leave when asked.

So far 2) has been hard, but none of it's ever been a mystery.

-dale

Anon

"2" is probably unobtainable under any workable moral strategy, but it is almost certainly unobtainable under the current strategy.

It's a real bummer i tell ya.

highsea

The problem is that our primary focus has always been to get the Iraqi forces stood up as quickly as possible, rather than to first make the country secure.

We have been trying to maintain a low profile, staying on FOB's and in the green zone (for fear of looking too much like occupiers), and not showing a consistent presence in the streets. It doesn't work, and once again the militias own the streets.

We need 50,000 more troops in Baghdad, and we need to make security #1 priority. Get rid of the militias, by force if necessary (and it will be). Only then can an Iraqi security force be built up that is capable of maintaining security.

We need to take back the areas under local militia control all over again, and this time we have to stay put and not just move on to the next hot spot (which just allows the militants to just come right back into the same neighborhoods).

We can't do this without more troops.

If we leave now, the Iraqi military (such as it is) will disintegrate instantly. They are entirely dependent on us for logistics- food, equipment, ammunition, etc.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Anon

Donald Rumsfeld disagrees.

Still...

highsea

Which alone is a pretty good argument in my favor.

Bottom line is, there will be no security when militias can take over local police stations with impunity, and the act goes unpunished.

So we either abandon the effort and let Iraq degrade into full scale civil war, or we commit the necessary forces to do the job right.

Anon

Rumsfeld says transformational technologies and special forces is enough, and that the 'messiness' is part and parcel with this sort of 'dirty business'.

He says our criticism is 'not helpful'.

texasjohn

Guys, here is my FANTASY solution. Yes, it's completely open to tear down!!

But heck! It's my fantasy. Here goes:

I wake up in the morning and I find out Rummy got fired. Bush begs a military guy ( Colin Powell or Shinseki) to take over. Troop levels are increased to 5-600,000 and we completely secure the area.

No more law and order problems -boots on the ground take care of that. We especially secure power staions and water purification plants. We bring / build those up to max efficiency ( now less than in Saddam days). The Iraqis quit griping about no power and water and start to get optimistic.

Then we undo all the F*ups Bremer did. Put the old Iraqi Army (minus Baath/ Saddam loyalists) back in place, with THEIR traditional military uniforms. These are battle hardened veterans and giving them an income will take them off the street, and back to what they were used to. It will also get us out of the Police business - soldiers are not cops and were not trained to that end.

Eliminate Iraqi gas lines at the pump. Fix their refineries - we blew them up anyway, and we love to rebuild!! Give the contracts to local Iraqis not US companies. More people at work, less violence.

More hearts and minds won over. ( Still my fantasy )

Quit trying to meddle in Iraqi politics. This nation is a few thousand years old ( Abraham was from Ur). They can figure it out. There will be some bloodshed, but with infrastructure in place they will remember us for making their life better and therefore be US friendly.

We rebuild hospitals and schools, under the watchful eyes of over 500,000 troops ( overwhelming infantry).

Then we leave after improving their lives. They love the US.

Then I woke up!!

Anon

That would've been a good plan had we done it from day 1.

Now, there is so much Sunni-Shia hatred and things are so far gone, i don't know that it would even be helpful to flood the streets with troops.

We've had to suffer through Rumsfeld and McNamara in one lifetime....what are the odds of such bad 'luck'?

gunnut

Johnson and Carter's terms were less than 10 year apart...

Anon

And now followed by eight years of Klinton and then six plus more(so far) of Dumnamara.

We're snake-bitten.

astralis

dalem,

one has to be more specific than that. you are right in that number 2 has been hard (an understatement if there ever was one), but if anything, number 2 and number 3 needed to have been better planned out than it was.

number 2 was made on the fly after the pentagon decided to throw out the state dept's work on the matter. it was then worsened by the ever-so-intelligent decision to disband the iraqi army and the whole mess over abu ghraib. number 3 was made on the fly as well, and then it was thrown out when sistani disagreed with it, and another plan was made on the spot!

and as the whole brouhaha over the troop numbers show (as well as the wildly optimistic plans made by the bush administration just prior to the invasion), number 2 was VERY poorly planned out indeed.

dalem

But those are the broad points and they have been articulated quite clearly since the buildup to the invasion began. Claiming that the administration had no plan or that the plan was not clear or that staying wedded to taht plan is stupid is disengenuous.

I agree that the details of the broad points are where the discussion should be.

Perhaps.

Perhaps.

-dale