I am very concerned about the recent PR tool she has released for getting out of Iraq.
From her campaign I learned that the intent is to offer a legislative agenda to support withdrawal. A legislative agenda is NOT .. however a plan.
The plan, as written, is very poor. It offers the usual solution of new alliances. Fair enough. BUT, there is no way of knowing what such alliances will look like or when they will be created. Nor, kn discussing the concept of allianaces, does the "plan" consider such critical players as Egypt and India.
Then the plan goes on the propose that we replace the US presence with a peace corps style operation. How these workers will be protected is a mystery.
Worse yet, there is no sense of contingency planning .. e.g. how a complete withdrawal would protect the Kurds or keep Syria out of central Iraq.
A vague faith in the good outcome of diplomacy fails to answer the most critical question ...
"is this the same sort of faith based behavior GW Bush would pursue?"The "faith" may be different but isn't the level of naiveté similar? Why would I have any more faith that an undescribed diplomatic effort would lead to "success" then I id in GW Bush's "plan" that the Iraqis would welcome us with copies of the US Constitution waved high in the air?
I am sure this is inadvertent, BUT the potential for Reichert to make this a campaign issue is obvious.
Darcy needs to make it VERY clear that this in NOT a plan, it is a legislative agenda to support a plan.