Bush's Lack of a Plan Stands in Contrast to Roosevelt's Strategy for Victory, Says Democratic..

U.S. Newswire ^

[Sub-Driver]

Bush's Lack of a Plan Stands in Contrast to Roosevelt's Strategy for Victory, Says Democratic National Committee

12/7/2005 4:19:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Karen Finney of the Democratic National Committee, 202-863-8148

WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney issued the following statement on President Bush’s speech today and his commitment to a failed policy in Iraq:

"Today marks the 64th anniversary of the tragic attack on Pearl Harbor, a terrible day that compelled our nation to a war in the service of our greatest calling: the triumph of democracy over tyranny. Because President Franklin D. Roosevelt presented a clear plan for success to the American people, our troops and our allies, the United States was the decisive force in one of history’s most important struggles.

"Today, as we reflect on that victory, it is hard to ignore the stark contrast between President Roosevelt’s leadership of the Second World War and President Bush’s failed leadership on Iraq. Even today, President Bush delivered yet another speech in which he failed to present a clear plan for victory in Iraq. Americans understand that the President’s current strategy has made us less safe, and that we need to change course. We need a plan for victory that includes clear benchmarks for success.

"Together, America can do better than an open-ended commitment to the White House’s failed strategy. Staying the course is not a strategy, but a sad excuse for not having a plan. We can only win this war if the Iraqi people are able to play a greater role in peacekeeping and if the president gives an honest assessment of what’s really happening on the ground in Iraq.

[Sub-Driver]

what sillyness...grow up.

[SeaBiscuit]

Can't think of anything better than what you said.

[popdonnelly]

The Democrats' total lack of support for this war contrasts sharply with the Republicans' support for FDR.

[mainepatsfan]

FDR's plan was to force the Axis powers into unconditional surrender. Is that the plan they're talking about?

[MNJohnnie]

What COMPLETE morons. Read "The National Plan for Victory in Iraq" released to the public last week. It has been available to Democrat Congress Critters since 2003. Are the Democrat Leaders tell us they did NOT bother to read this plan either??????? What have they been doing for the last 30 months??????

[popdonnelly]

I wouldn't mind seeing our adversaries forced into unconditional surrender. They're not offering us any peace terms.

[BenLurkin]

Correct.

[inquest]

And their strategy for victory has been...?

[hsalaw]

So what's the dems' plan? Cut-and-run? Yeah; great plan.

[mware]

Bush's Lack of a Plan Stands in Contrast to Roosevelt's Strategy for Victory, Says Democratic..,

Oh really, tell that to the dead at Tarawa.

[x]

This is a very different sort of war from what we saw in the 1940s. The idea of "fourth generation war" may explain a lot.

[Tarpon]

The Defeatocrats have spoken, but is anyone listening

[Brett66]

What tools, the DNC faxes them this tripe and they dutifully report it.

[mainepatsfan]

Most of them would rather take the way out many Japanese did.

[tet68]

Dear Karin,
Just when exactly DID FDR lay out this explicit "plan" before the nation? This was after the hidden "lend/lease"
destroyer program and after the "I will not send your boys
to war" speech?

I'm sure the Republicans were running around talking about
how FDR had no plan, how he was a moron, how American boys were killed in vain. If that was the case then the total
killed at Pearl, didn't even come close to the WTC. and
FDR should have packed it in right then. I mean that is what you are advocating, ISN'T IT ???

Come back when you have some facts.

[mainepatsfan]

Horrible battle.

[Congressman Billybob]

Now, let's see what we have. President Roosevelt's "plan" was to fight until we prevailed. President Bsuh's "plan" is to fight until we prevail. I conclude, therefore, that this spokeswoman for the DNC is a geopolitical moron.

Did I miss anything?

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "What Side is the New York Times On?"

[RogueIsland]

Bush's Lack of a Plan Stands in Contrast to Roosevelt's Strategy for Victory

And how many Americans died before that victory was assured? Something tells me that if FDR had been Republican, today's Democratic party would have been calling for impeachment and immediate withdrawl the third week of hostilities, claiming Roosevelt lied about pre-war intelligence that Japan was allied with Germany to get us into a "quagmire" in Europe.

[AmishDude]

Roosevelt? ROOSEVELT? Are they all 85 at the DNC?

Oh, wait...

[FreeRep]

There is where the difference comes in. President Bush is fighting the War and a policy battle, Congressional leaders are playing "gotcha". This in not what happen to FDR. The DemoRats really do believe we'd be safer if we just "apologized" to bin Laden, "negotiated" to "OK" Iran's nukes, and "acknowledged that we are the root of all evil." The new DemoRats have no interest in, or knowledge of, WWII history, military affairs, or foreign politics. DemoRats used to be as hard-nosed and realistic as Republicans back in WWII, occasionally will you see remnants like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman to remind one of that.