All that is true, but it still buys into what is likely a fallacy:  the very notion that we have any say in events there at all.

We're going to be pushed out.  It's out of our hands.  This is turning into Rwanda with better weaponry and we won't be able to do any "peacekeeping" without being seen as taking sides.

All this could easily happen before November.

In other words, the situation is so bad that even good American leadership can't save it.

Having said that, I would have preferred a plan that included the more aggressive positioning you describe, at the very least, to demonstrate a willingness to illustrate the midterm choice in sharp contrasts.

Democrats should run on putting new leadership in charge of the military situation there.  If Democrats take Congress, they can force this to happen, one way or another.

Impeach Rumsfeld? I think there must be some sort of parallel universe thing going on here, because, so far as I can see, even if the Dems got 67 in the Senate (and who has forecast that?), they'd be lucky to get 51 votes for conviction.

Plus - don't you think the GOP wouldn't be putting all their street-fighting skills into making the entire 110th a farce, and pinning the blame on a vindictive, monomaniacal, out of touch Democratic party?

And this is the 2006 Dems - the ones driven to apoplexy by Feingold's censure res; the ones whose leaders apologise (for being nasty to senators, or hosting reports about abuses by reps); the ones who fell over themselves to renew the PATRIOT Act.

The ones who've spent six months not getting our their 'Contract with America'.

Circumstances alter cases; but I can't forsee circumstances in which this band of milquetoasts will have the stomach for impeaching anyone! (The daily Gingrich-style GOP assaults
will be more than enough for them to handle, I reckon.)

Already, we've had Gingrich embracing the 1946 analogy - 2006 as a Had enough? election. With more than a hint that 2008 will play out rather like 1948: only, this time, the Do Nothing Congress will be Dem-controlled, and the winning prez candidate a GOP.

That's Gingrich's fantasy. So far.

Pursuing an impeachment strategy (against Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush or anyone else in the regime) is a pretty good way of helping it come true.

There is no problem with Bush/Cheney's plan?? Continued occupation, placing our sons and daughter in the middle of civil war? Come on.. The whole premise that our military is the solution in the Middle East is the problem, and MyDD seems to be part of that problem. Let's take care of America first, start closing bases over seas and start protecting our own facilities, our own infrastructure, our own economy, our own people. that's a plan.

This is going to be a tough one, but  I think we can take control of this issue.

The better words are very simple:  'smart' 'tough' 'fast.'  All these can hold the debate, but 'plan'--as you rightly point out--is a loser.

Harry Reid also is a problem.  He was weak, today.  We need someone who is ready to rumble.  We need someone who is not senatorial.  The Democrats cannot look 'strong' with Harry Reid as their front man.  They need to give to to someone else.  Someone barrel chested, square-jawed.

It's McCain we need to size-up.  Not Bush.  We won't have any more 'Heh, Heh' comments to kick around  anymore.  Someone needs look and sound tougher than McCain.