The dlc, (d)emocratic leadership council, put out their long awaited policy on Iraq.
In January of 2007, after Harold Ford, Jr's loss for the Senate, and unable to take the position from Democratic Chairman, Governor Dean, he states in his new position as the Chairman of the (d)lc, they will have a place in stating policy for the 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate.
"In a lengthy interview last week with a handful of reporters, Ford outlined his plans for the DLC -- ranging from its involvement in the 2008 presidential race to its work as the policy shop for the eventual Democratic nominee.
"This is the incubator," Ford said of the DLC, which was founded in 1985 in the wake of Ronald Reagan's landslide reelection. "If you look at the last ten great domestic policy ideas in the last 10-15 years ... 75 percent have come out of this organization."
I guess we got to the DLC's influence in the last Democratic Presidenital Debate, where many of the Democratic Presidential candidates couldn't even promise we would be out of Iraq by 2013.
(CBS/AP) The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.
"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.
"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
2013? They couldn't promise we would be out of Iraq by 2013 and they wonder why we have a problem believing what they say when they give such double speak as "I support the use of funds and to re deploy the troops within a year." And they can't promise...with them being (supposed) President, making the policy, that they would withdraw from Iraq by 2013?
Seeing an opening, Senator Dodd and Richardson offered their reassurances.
"I'll get the job done," said Dodd, while Richardson said he would make sure the troops were home by the end of his first year in office.
What is the excitement about having our troops withdrawn by 2013, if we're LUCKY? We've been being told they want them home as soon as possible, 8 months, then a year. Now we're holding hope for 4 more years?
Maybe this is why.
Last week, Founder Al From joined Chair Harold Ford, Jr in writing their policy on Iraq.
Ending the Stalemate on Iraq
by Harold Ford, Jr. and Al From, 10.18.2007
They have a different idea than most of us on how to handle Iraq. Yes, they like the politics of saying one thing, to get support, as long as they can do another.
Republicans are holding out for an illusory victory. Democrat rightly want to force a new direction, but they’re not going to get it if the only option they offer is immediate withdrawal. It’s clear the votes for immediate withdrawal are not there, and the resulting impasse will empower President Bush to maintain his same failed policy through the rest of his administration.
But a "new direction" doesn't mean the correct or good direction. It's "stay the course", but take a "different path". [insert smile here](snark).
We need a new strategy now — a strategy that both brings more peace and stability to Iraq and serves as a 21st century national security policy that focuses on containing the spread of Islamic terrorism around the world.
The key to a new course is to forge a bipartisan agreement in support of a small sustainable military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future to guard our strategic interests in the region.
YES, you did read that correctly. They then go on to explain.
The size of the force should be determined by conditions on the ground, but it should be significantly smaller than our current force. Whether we like it or not, the United States is part of the balance in the Middle East, just as we were in Europe for the last half of the 20th century, and we must stay engaged in this part of the world to help protect our interests and to contain Islamic fundamentalists from spreading terrorism in the region and throughout the world.
The smaller American military force should be deployed away from the fault lines of the civil war. They should have a clear strategic mission with four main objectives: train the Iraqi military, interdict terrorists from coming over the borders of Iran and Syria into Iraq, carry on the fight against Al Qaeda and prevent genocide in Iraq. A smaller military force can achieve all of these objectives, while preventing the Iraq War from turning into a wider conflict in the region.
A phase down of American troops must be accompanied by a new diplomatic surge. When the Iraqis see the United States is serious about reducing and re-deploying our troops, they may be more open to striking the agreements necessary to create political reconciliation and stability in the country.
Is there any wonder why no progress is being made? We are being run by one idealogy. This is the same exact policy of the current NeoCons, just hidden under costumes.
Now is the time, before our primary votes have been cast, to hold these candidates and office holders looking for re-election to their records, not empty words. Otherwise, we may find ourselves lost on a path that takes us back to the beginning.
**Thank you to floridagal for her efforts, story and link.