Murtha’s website referred me to numerous press relases and in particular one from June 27, 2006 where he details his plan and mentions when, how and where. Murtha’s phone number was busy.

Oh, I haven’t called or written either Congressman, I’ll do that as soon as I finish this post. Since looking at the internet is the “preferred” method, I started there first and spent about 10 minutes finding what Skelton and Murtha are up to on Iraq.

Further, most of these public officials have failed to present a plan both on their websites and in any other manner.

Again, here’s what I’m after. A plan sufficiently detailed that I could know when they are following that plan or not. I’m looked for a plan that is compliant with the verification theory (see here).

I’ll call and write Jack Murtha and Ike Skelton, they’ve been aroud a while and have actually fought in wars unlike the Republican chickenhawks that are mucking things up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Somebody else take two others and let’s post the results. We might then have a reasonred discourse about what makes a “plan”, rather than a self-selected survey of websites and a pre-determined conclusion of incompetence or lack of meaning.

“What say you?” said Aragorn to the king of the dead.

I think that statement hit the nail on the head. As well, both major parties are scared to do anything at this point. There is such a chest beating match between the two that they are afraid if either of them doesn’t do exactly the right thing (or if the American public disagrees) that it will be the demise of their party.

I think that the Libertarian party has certainly got it together though. Too bad the US is so obsessed with this two party system of ours.

What do I mean by “meaningful”? A “plan” is meaningful if it has enough detail that I can recognize when it is (or isn’t) being followed. The Republican “plan” and the Democrat “plan” could both mean EITHER of the following: A) We’ll be in Iraq for 20 years, still trying to run the country (and doing so badly) or B) All of the U.S. troops will be pulled out next year. In other words, the two most powerful political parties in the U.S. are both presenting “plans” that can mean all things to all people. In sum, the Iraq “plans” being presented by both the Republicans and Democrats are utter gibberish.

I admit to having ulterior motives in pointing this out, but not only does the Libertarian Party list Iraq as an issue, they have an exit strategy proposal on their website (I wish I could say that the Green Party does too, but they have less national unity). I suppose the party can afford to openly express its stance because it has nothing to lose. I just wish the Democrats would realize that a stronger offensive wouldn’t hurt at all.

Another reason for Dems to not provide a plan for Iraq is that it’s a bit like smashing a raw egg on the ground and asking for a plan to put the egg back together: does anyone have a good plan for that?

Another reason for Dems to not provide a plan is because it’s a whole lot easier, and perhaps gains greater political traction, to just bash Bush. Why talk about a plan — which will undoubtedly draw ridicule no matter its merits — when slamming Bush might be all it takes to win re-election? Ideally, politicians would set aside such issues for the sake of saving the lives of American troops, but such altruism seems a rare commodity in Washington these days.