Pelosi's thin skin will prove an additional layer difficulty in navigating the already counter-productive legislating environment in Washington. Ask Steny Hoyer.

Although I think the Democrats' actions can only be characterized as either counterproductive or pointless, I fail to see how the Speaker's comments amount to "he's questioning our patriotism."

Pelosi is accusing Cheney of accusing her of deliberately sabotaging national security. Perhaps "questioning our patriotism" isn't the best shorthand for it, but it's close.

Except that, per usual, Cheney gets it exactly ass-backwards. It's HIS policies that have "validate[d] the Al Qaeda strategy," at least according to U.S. intelligence analysts in the April 2006 NIE which says that the war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists.

I do agree with him however, that we should hold people accountable for consequences of their policies. I'd suggest we start with him and his boss.

By the way, it was really classy of him to lob that bombshell at Pelosi on the day of her brother's death.

You know, Cheney is so full of it. Iraq is part of the al Qaeda strategy now, but only thanks to him.

Al Qaeda's leaders have always been very open about exactly what their strategy is. First, to their goals. Zawahiri wanted to bring down the corrupt gov't of Egypt, Bin laden the House of Saud. But they knew that was impossible as long as the US continued to prop them up.

That was the problem. What was their solution --- their strategy to end our support of Egypt and Saudi Arabia? They based it on their victory over the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s: they intended to cripple our economy via protracted guerilla warfare. Bin laden spelled it right out on tape saying he "bled Russia for ten years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat."

9/11 was the tactic was to draw us in, but Bush/Cheney outfoxed him completely in Afghanistan. Then we blew it by walking right into Zawahiri/Bin Laden's trap in Iraq.

So enough Cheney bull about Pelosi validating the Al Qaeda strategy. He's the biggest asset they've got.

If the MSM had been doing their job, the arguement the vice-president is making would be self-evident. It seems he is the only one who is aware of the facts. You certainly dont hear it from anyone else. The rest of the GOP have deserted the President and the Vice-President. Time to go back to being an Independent.

Cheney's statement is one of the most ignorant things I've heard in awhile. "We can't correct our mistakes. That's just what they want us to do." He's letting al-Qaeda dictate our policy. Or, he would be anyway, if he believed his own posturing.

Looks to me like Pelosi is calling Cheney a liar. That is a heck of a lot more than "I disaprove of the message." She has, perhaps, too much decorum for my taste which makes her response somewhat tepic, but we will see gender communicative differences emerge with Pelosi as chair. I think its an error to assume she will engage male styles.

"She should be prepared to defend the Democrats' strategy on its own merits."
This may be difficult for her. The problem is that other than opposing whatever the Republicans are doing, the Democrats have no strategy.

Mike O

This may be difficult for her. The problem is that other than opposing whatever the Republicans are doing, the Democrats have no strategy.

That's about as uninformed as someting you'd see on Little Green Footballs.

First of all, the Dems march in lockstep on NOTHING besides Soc Sec, especially if they don't have a leader in the WH.

Secondly, Rep Murtha has unveiled a detailed strategy for Iraq. You've probably read about in in the Moonie Times.

Sen Biden also has a detailed strategy for stabilizing Iraq. You can read about it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301419.html

I am unfamiliar with the Clinton and Obama plans that have been recently unveiled, so I can't say whether they are actual strategies, or are merely tactical like Bush's escalation.

But you can take a look for yourself here at all the various plans (over fifty of them) aggregated from Dem leaders and think tanks here at : http://www.comw.org/pda/0512exitplans.html

They are from 2005, but I think they prove my point.

Whatever happened to Conservatives wailing about how uncooth it is for politicans to criticize US leadership while on foreign soil?

Though being in Australia with suck-up Howard is about the only foreign soil Cheney can dare step on any more.

John S
With the exception of Joe Biden who is only partly Democrat these days the other 49 are the same. The Iraq war is a terrible thing, it's all the Presidents fault, and we need to cut and run now. This is not a strategy.

Recognizing that the Republicans have already lost the war -- that there is no such thing, after such egregious military and diplomatic mismanagement, as a plan for victory -- and then, recognizing that cold, painful fact, trying to take steps to minimize the further loss of American blood, treasure, and respect... that's not cutting & running. That's basic sanity.

To put it differently: the various Democratic plans for withdrawl from Iraq have, at worst, the exact same likelihood of producing a stable, peaceful Iraq as any plan put forward by this administration: zero. At best, our withdrawl may actually spur the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country; but honestly I think it's far too late for that.

Mike O

Democrats have overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that Bush's open-ended troop commitment to Iraq undermines our national security. Thus, their plans largely focus on redeployment and providing ways for Iraqi leaders to come up with power sharing agreements to end the civil war.

So, your statement that the Democrats have no Iraq strategy is factually incorrect.

Sorry, I momentarily confused Joe Biden who is certainly a Democrat with another Joe. The plan Sen. Biden outlines in the article is a good exit strategy. I like that he understands that there are lessons to be learned from Bosnia. He also seems to be the only Democrat you mention that knows that timing is important. There are differences in implementing the Bosnian type solution here that didn't exist there including Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, plus an army providing national security for the three participants that could be powerful enough for a coup. The plan is pretty much in effect already everywhere but Baghdad. Baghdad is a problem and our operations there now are probably a good idea that needs to be finished. We all hope oil revenue sharing will be the glue that holds them together and national pride, which they have shown at the polls, will help. According to the Captain’s Quarters the Kurds have signed off on a revenue sharing plan that Nouri al-Maliki already supports. The Sunnis have yet to be heard from but it had been thought that the Kurds were more likely to upset the apple cart than the Sunnis. An agreement on revenue sharing would be the kind of event on which to base withdrawal time tables. Sen. Biden’s time table may turn out not so bad, the others you mention are in a political race to see who can get the boys home first.

Baghdad is a problem and our operations there now are probably a good idea that needs to be finished.

What does "finished" mean? What is the mission, even, and how long will it take? I have seen reports that say the escalation will last from 6 to 7 months up until 18 months, at which point our army may well be broken. "He is now caught between admitting the war was a mistake and his policy has failed, or trying to tough it out," says Joseph Cirincione from the Center for American Progress, and i can't agree more.

Meanwhile, Josh Marshall just put a post up with this quote from a James Fallows article in the Atlantic Monthly, which reinforces my earlier point on why Bush/Cheney are SO wrong:

"Documents captured after 9/11 showed that bin Laden hoped to provoke the United States into an invasion and occupation that would entail all the complications that have arisen in Iraq. His only error was to think that the place where Americans would get stuck would be Afghanistan.

Bin Laden also hoped that such an entrapment would drain the United States financially. Many al-Qaeda documents refer to the importance of sapping American economic strength as a step toward reducing America’s ability to throw its weight around in the Middle East. "

Now somebody please explain to me how Bush/Cheney's open-ended troop commitment to Iraq isn't validating Bin Laden's strategy.

I had such high hopes for the Bush / Cheney administration in 2000. But, after the past 4 years of mismanagement and incompetence, they have truly done what I thought was impossible, I now have more hope for the Democrats.

As much as people spew the talking points and blindly follow one side or the other, as a person who once was on the "right" but has been pushed to the "center" by his own party, I think the Bush administration will be judged by history as one of the worst blunders.

It all does depend on the outcome of Iraq, but I fail to see any positive resolution in that place. First, it takes years to effectively build a nation and second, it usually only works AFTER ethnic hostilities have been played out by a prior war. Bosnia and Kosovo are an example. And even those are far from perfect as without a substantial foreign military presence, they would be far from what they are today. And those conflicts played out in the 90's, a decade ago.