So I said "let's pack up our crap and go home, we, and the UN, can talk our way out of trouble with these Muslim folks. They'll leave us alone if we just leave them alone." referring to the Democratic plan for the war on terror, yes, dumb name, but that's what we got.

It is reportedly a straw man argument because no Democrat in any position of power has advocated that.

Let's get some definitions on the table first.

What is a position of power? Would a senator or representative be a powerful person that could change and effect policy? I vote yes.

What about the head of the Democratic National Committee? I vote yes again, this would be the guy that sets strategy for getting more Democrats elected.

Now, what is Diplomacy?

Answers.com defines it thus: 1. Process of conducting activities with another with tact in order to bring about a good relationship. An executive who is diplomatic in dealings with clients, suppliers, and employees is careful to say the right things at the right time to avoid ill will.

I like to refer to it as talking your way out of trouble, or talking about things.

So, let's look at some data.

First there's House Joint Resolution 73 sponsored by Rep. John Murtha on 17 Nov 2005. There were 105 Democratic co-sponsors for this resolution. The last one added his name to the document on 11 July 2006 - less than 2 months ago.

Here's the summery according to the LOC:
SUMMARY AS OF:
11/17/2005--Introduced.

States that: (1) the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date; (2) a quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region; and (3) the United States shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

As I remember that resolution, the timetable for pulling out of Iraq was within 6 months. We would have gone home by now if it had become law. It would have been viewed as a victory for Al Qaida.

Let's move on.

Senator John Kerry, former and future presidential candidate for President of the United States, a powerful position indeed, sponsored 2 pieces of legislation. Senate Joint resolutions 33 and 36, summerized again by LOC as follows:

S.J.RES.36 SUMMARY AS OF:
5/8/2006--Introduced.

States that: (1) U.S. forces shall be [B]withdrawn from Iraq[/B] at the earliest practicable date if Iraqis fail to form a national unity government by May 22, 2006; (2) if Iraqis form a national unity government by May 22, 2006, the United States shall reach an agreement with such government on a schedule for U.S. combat troop withdrawal by December 31, 2006, leaving only forces to complete the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces; (3) the President shall consult with Congress on this schedule; (4) the President should convene a summit that includes leaders of such government, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), representatives of the European Union (EU), and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, to reach a political agreement for Iraq that addresses fundamental issues including federalism, oil revenues, militias, security guarantees, reconstruction, economic assistance, and border security; and (5) the United States should maintain an over-the-horizon military presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.

S.J.RES.33 SUMMARY AS OF:
4/6/2006--Introduced.

States that: (1) the President should convene a summit that includes Iraqi leaders, U.S. allies, Arab League members, Iraq's neighbors, and representatives of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to reach a comprehensive agreement for Iraq that includes forming a unity government, security guarantees, disbanding the militias, and a process for reviving reconstruction efforts and securing Iraq's borders; (2) U.S. forces shall be withdrawn from Iraq at the earliest practicable date if Iraqis fail to form a national unity government by May 15, 2006; (3) if Iraqis form a national unity government by such date the United States should reach a withdrawal agreement with such government, and the President shall consult with and and present such withdrawal agreement to Congress; and (4) redeployment of U.S. forces to rear guard status in Iraq for security back-up, training, and emergency response should be accelerated.

All three resolutions involve pulling out of Iraq. If not immediatly, by the end of this year. 3 months away. How will the arab world see the pullout in December in light of the recent Hezbollah victory in Lebanon?

Interesting to note also, in Kerry's resolution he provides for troops over the horizon to pursue the war on terror in his Iraq resolution. De facto, Kerry acknowledges as does OBL that Iraq is part of the war on terror. Something the Democrats are trying to deny as this November's election draws nearer. Kerry introduced these resolutions all within the last 6 months. He wants us to discuss with Iran and Syria what we should do with Iraq and how the government there should work. I don't think Iran or Syria should really have an opinion that counts on how Iraq does or does not work. Surely he knew that Iran and Syria weren't too friendly with us, we were fighting a proxy war with them when he was introducing his resolutions...

Well, folks, it's late. I'll maybe go for part 2 tomorrow sometime when we'll look at some other folks who feel as though we should pack up our crap and go home and let the UN talk about it.

I feel pretty comfortable with what I said. No straw man needed.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone