Democrats should UNITE behind the Levin Iraq ammendment NOW.

Democrats want Iraq pullout to begin quickly
Levin: Proposal is not a 'timetable'


Monday, June 19, 2006; Posted: 4:23 p.m. EDT (20:23 GMT)
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, says the U.S. cannot sustain an open-ended commitment in Iraq.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Democrats offered an amendment Monday that would demand that a pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq begin this year.

The plan, the product of weeks of intense negotiations between Senate Democrats and Minority Leader Harry Reid, is designed to give Democrats a unified position on Iraq as the November midterm elections near.

The amendment would:

Begin the "phased redeployment" or pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2006.
Require the administration to submit a plan by the end of 2006 for continued phased redeployment beyond 2006.
Transform the role of troops left in the country to a "limited mission" of training and logistical support for Iraqi security forces, protection of U.S. personnel and facilities, and targeted counterterrorism operations.

The Democrats' plan will be offered to a major defense bill that the Senate took up last week.

Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is the ranking member on the Senate's Armed Services Committee, said Monday during a news conference that the amendment would not establish a "timetable" for withdrawal, but would signal to the Iraqis that the U.S. deployment is not open-ended.

"Our amendment does not address the speed or the pace of the phased redeployment that we call for. In other words, our amendment does not establish a timetable for redeployment," Levin said. "It does urge that a phased redeployment begin this year, partly as a way of moving away from an open-ended commitment and a way of avoiding Iraqi dependency on a U.S. security blanket."

Levin introduced the amendment along with Democratic Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Dianne Feinstein of California, and Ken Salazar of Colorado. Reed said the amendment will put the burden on the Iraqis to bring their country together.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/19/iraq.pullout/index.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would add that the ammendment also puts the burden on the administration to craft the details of a plan. That's exactly what Democrats need to do...unite behind an approach that holds the President accountable for formulating a plan that expresses the will of the people. We are not responsible for formulating a plan, a timetable, or anything else. That is the President's job, and the best thing we can do now is keep the pressure on with the Levin ammendment. It's the perfect approach.

then they will never have a consensus on the war

that calls for a timetable and total withdrawl by July 2007?

Of course I am for the Feingold/Kerry ammendment, but beggers cannot be choosers

Joementum backer can't wait to stop this war!

stick together on this..at least they will have some form of fucking unity...but I'm not holding my breath..

>>>Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is the ranking member on the Senate's Armed Services Committee, said Monday during a news conference that the amendment would not establish a "timetable" for withdrawal, but would signal to the Iraqis that the U.S. deployment is not open-ended.<<<

Hey Carl, those are Bush puppets in Iraq that you are trying to signal. They don't represent the will of the Iraqi people. You can blow smoke up our asses from now until doomsday, it ain't going to change the facts on the ground in Iraq.

Don

rather than a leading Democrat. What do you propose?

They can call it whatever they want. Redeployment? Peace with honor? I don't care. Lets just get our soldiers out of other peoples countries who don't want us there.

Don

If we began tomorrow, it would take at least 6 months to withdraw all the troops and equipment safely. Any way you cut it, it's a lot harder getting out than going in logistically.

And a resolution asking for that doesn't have a chance politically at the present time. Since we are not in charge, we ought to do the best we can to put pressure on the administration to move the situation in Iraq in the direction we want sooner not later, don't you think?

are hammered in the M$M and even here on DU for our lack of unity? :grr:

This is a Repuke admin that led the US to an illegal war, backed by a repuke Congress. As Murtha says, we must change course but BushCo keeps saying we must stay the course. Let's unite at least on changing the course!

At least Levin's plan is a plan. Yes, a plan for phased withdrawal is a compromise and is not "out of Iraq now" but it's certaintly better than "stay the course" which is only getting us further in the hole and is not helping Iraq solve its problems.

Levins, Reid, Feinstein vs Kerry, Feingold and Boxer.

Feinstein, Levin and Salazar. It does not call for a timetable and to me is falling for the Rove talking point "cut and run". It also makes Bush the judge on when to withdraw troops, I think we all know the answer to that.

They had a press conference about it today, you can watch it here:

http://www.cspan.org/videoarchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&ArchiveDays=100

makes it ahead of this one.

What we need to do is hold him accountable. It's not our responsibility to come up with a timetable or plan, it's his. He's the commander in chief (not the legitimate one, but still).

We should unite on this; it's something we can all agree on.

is a co-sponsor with Kerry and Feingold. Why not everyone unite around their admendment ?

I don't think all agree on the Levin amendment. It apparently is too open-ended. If the tables were switched, and Kerry was offering the Levin amendment, people would be crucifying him, saying it doesn't deliver and that he's just playing politics.

That said, I reckon Boxer and Kerry and Feingold will vote for the Levin amendment if it comes to a vote, and I would hope that Levin and Feinstein and Salazar et al would vote for the Kerry/Feingold amendment if it comes up to a vote.

Normally many folks don't associate Feinstein in particular with any kind of anti-war sentiment, so I would think that they'd be eyeing the Levin amendment with some suspicion.

We'll see how it all comes out in the wash though.