Democrats Unveil National Security Plan

Sean-Paul Kelley | San Antonio | March 29

The Agonist - The Democrats have unveiled their new national security plan. You can find it here, or if you prefer *.pdfs here.

Washington Post discusses it here. The New York Times here. Georgia10 at Kos discusses it here. Senator John "Corruption" Cornyn discusses it here. And it appears Atrios doesn't like the plan, at least the portion that has to do with Iraq.

I'll have more soon.

Nota bene about the Democrat's plan and some of the criticism already bubbling up in progressive circles: let's remember a couple of things here first before we lay into the Congressional Democrats for not calling for an outright withdrawal from Iraq, ok? As I wrote in the comments, "The Democrats have never put anything out like this before. It had to be approved by almost 200 politicians. . . and the Democrats don't have the luxury of ignoring the National Security Council and the State Department to create their own little neo-con Feith-based policy shop like Bush does." They can't even rely on the pleasant atmosphere of the Center for American Progress (which has a great policy shop, just using them by way of example). Their staffs are harried and pressured. They have to make compromises that we in blogistan can barely imagine. It's a damn good first step and a damn good place to start having the conversation. The question is, are progressives going to actually read it or just snipe and add to the Republican narrative already in place?


Sean Paul Kelley March 29, 2006 - 6:41pm

I would not call that a plan. An agenda, maybe.

This is a plan.

EDIT: Note that the only issue I have with it is calling it a plan. (And KRT appears to agree. While the AP hed uses 'Strategy'.) I agree that it's a great first step.

And now FT

Ziusudra March 29, 2006 - 4:51pm

put anything out like this before. It had to be approved by almost 200 politicians. I know it is far from perfect, but the Democrats don't have the luxury of ignoring the National Security Council and the State Department like Bush does.

Love Firefox, Hate IE

Sean Paul Kelley March 29, 2006 - 6:24pm

or does 'outright withdrawl' not sound very 'progressive'? Should we coin the phrase 'neo-prog'? (Oh damn, it's already a music genre.)

'Cutting and running' would be just as big a mistake as getting into this war was.

Ziusudra March 29, 2006 - 7:38pm

to frame it because that is exactly what it is.

Love Firefox, Hate IE

Sean Paul Kelley March 29, 2006 - 8:21pm

Gosh. Not a word on the news about this. You'd think they'd just whistled into the wind.

Whitened Sepulchres

dejah thoris March 29, 2006 - 8:31pm

speech at Freedom House. Of course Bush propaganda was more important. Bush got 2 hours. Reid got 3 minutes.

Love Firefox, Hate IE

Sean Paul Kelley March 29, 2006 - 8:55pm

The odd thing is that people were really expecting some detailed plan for withdrawal -- as if the purpose of a Democratic Plan was to take the focus off the Republicans and fix it instead on themselves.

The goal is to reinforce the idea that we are living in a state of National Insecurity thanks to Republican mismanagement and corruption. This is something we all agree on. This is the message we should stick to. Everything beyond that is superfluous, devisive and fodder for their propaganda machine.

You go against their strong point. Once that's taken care of, all the rest of their obscene agenda will fall clattering to the ground.

Independent Illinois Grassroots: IllinoisDemNet.com

leo March 31, 2006 - 1:40am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.