Democrats to propose withdrawing US troops from Iraq within one year

He's a good debater.

K&R!

I just emailed my senators on this.

This is a good standard to rally around. The REthugs are going to attack Dems no matter what. They might as well attack Dems for a real idea. IT will be a better contrast.

.

:kick:

The Iraqi's want us to stay and help them? Most want us out, the Kurd's being quite on the issue. Besides, one year is not cut and run- one year doesn't sound immediate to me. The Iraqi's have to want a democracy.
Giving a timetable plays into the terrorist hands. They will sit and wait for us to leave? Then what? Take over Iraq? I don't think they are there for Iraq, they are there because we are. The fact that we are there fuels the unsurgency. Isn't it possible that waiting for us to leave could make them weaker, lazier and easier to attack. Is containment actually really better than having them dispursed and weaker? It has been said that once we do leave the Iraqi's will never allow these insurgents to remain.

I hope this is a real good sign that many other Dem's are coming over to Kerry's and Feingold's way of thinking on this. I think it is the right move.

Some are still saying, "you've gotta stay and help us". Others are saying it's time to go.

It reminds me of when I was teaching my daughter to ride a two-wheeler. As long as she kept yelling, "Mom, don't let go! Don't let go!" and I didn't, she could never learn to ride. You have to give them warning, and then let go.

Terrorists can only thrive in a failed state. When the U.S. is out and Iraq gets its government together, its terrorist problem will end.

having to learn to stand and fight for themselves. All parents know, you have to let your children go,let them take their first steps alone,go to school alone, drive the car etc. and give them the guidance and freedom necessary to learn and grow.

that 12 months dosn't poll well. Hate me now but you will see, after it is shown that this won't poll well, it will be "re-defined" and the timeline extended.

Isn't there a rumor that Kerry has already suggested adding 6 months to the July 07' deadline? Or is it just a rumor?

The circular firing squad is gathering again, this deadline proposal is a very fragile stand, I hope it is not handled as a "thing to say". If so it will backfire ..........badly.

Ending the war is the moral thing to do!


And Americans it seems know that:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1458430&mesg_id=1458430

any debate over this war, containing the word "moral" has very little meaning for me now.

My point was more this, if troop withdrawl is used as a campaign tool to gain votes and get elected then it had better not be open to polling opnion, that is something that should be said only if it is meant, regardless of the political consequences. And yes..... before I'm lambasted with "KERRY WAS A VET"... I know he was, .........and I want to believe that he is not using "troop withdrawl" as a political talking point. The only thing worse than a half-assed start to a war in a half-assed end, more soldiers will die in the end than the begining if "troop withdrawl in 12 months" is a campaign slogan. If the Democrats don't REALLY believe in troop withdrawl, and are willing to risk political firestorms, then they are about to "swiftboat" themselves in the mid-term elections, not to mention 08. And the true suffering will only be known in Iraq.

The two sides I see in this debate are "comitment to the troops", and "use of the troops". A link to a past discussion in a closed community, offers me no comfort, but thanks.

Iraq is progressing toward complete chaos and there is no chance a Democracy will emerge any time soon. Americans don't need to be in the middle of a civil war. Many of those opposed to a timetable have echoed these sentiments. Where is the end once chaos envelopes the region?

Ending the decline into chaos is not a half-assed end. It's smart and it will save lives. Troop withdrawal is possible in twelve months, and generals have said so.

Two sides to the debate: withdrawal or stay the course until...

I did not mean to imply that ending the war was a half assed idea, I just don't want to see it done in a half assed manner, in order to try and gain votes.

I saw Kerry speak at Faneuil Hall - this is not playing politics. Kerry has pushed very logical reasonable plans since 2004 for dealing with Iraq. Things would likely be substantially better had he won in 2004. Kerry is not pushing this as a campaign slogan. Shortly after losing, DU and Dkos posted photos of a millitary funeral for a MA soldier attended by Kennedy and Kerry. Kerry's face reflected the grief he felt as he spoke to the family. This is real to him. I have seen speeches where he spoke of the Vietnam wall, war is very real to him. Kerry is committed to the troops.

I don't know who you support, but throwing that type of accusation at any Democrat (unless there was some proof) is really sick.

it is well though out and backed by facts. It is a more complete plan than anything the re pubs have ever proposed. Frankly, I can not see this backfiring at all.Any step in the direction of a free and democratic Iraq is a good step. A years time is enough. It sounds reasonable and better yet it can be accomplished. What is the alternative you would suggest?
As far as a changing date? I haven't heard of any. I believe Kerry settled on a years time to compromise and be a bit more reasonable.

I think I may be confusing in my remarks.

What my "backfire fear" is, is that this will again divide the Democrats in the eyes of the American voter, if Democrats are united, and stay united,.. then 12 months is a reasonable timeline. If 1/3 believe in the 12 month withdrawl, 1/3 don't, and 1/3 just don't comment I think it will do the troops no good, and even embolden Republicans to further the "war on terror".

We'll see, but everyone I know thinks we need a concrete pland and deadline for troop redeployment, even those who supported the war in the first place.

The polls were not for withdrawal in 12-15 months when he proposed that last October. Nor, were they with him in his April plan. Kerry's record shows that he is not driven by polls and has often taken stands that are unpopular. Bill Clinton was, Kerry isn't. That was a RW lie to counter Kerry's image.

Hold your breath for just a second and try not to think I am trying to tarnish Kerry's military carrer, Kerry's political record shows me that he will listen to people when they tell him to back away from important issues.

Thanks for the examples, out of the two you expressed, and the one I did, Kerry is 0-2 with one on-going.

I hope he doesn't screw this one. That's my point if it gotten to confusing. Alito is in, and he caved for the election, hopefully he has the coconuts to stand firm for troop withdrawl.

Afterwards over brandy they all sat around and jerked each other off, and claimed a victory for who? And where did they jerk each other off? Not in the White House, remember. But the "filibuster".... what a victory.

I hope he DOES something this time, not just enough to excape political humiliation. The best political fight he could muster, was not enough.
Is that true or not? Intentions don't always count, results matter, Kerry cannot produce results. Don't take it personal, he just doesn't have what it will take to complete the goal.

Don't confuse the winning with courage, that's Karl's job. It's possible to come out ahead without an ounce of courage! Kerry is a fighter. Not every fight is going to be won, but one keeps fighting on principle! More people should understand that, but they don't. Instead they look for leaders who will stroke their egos, and that's why Bush is in office. That's why he enjoys some support still: they can't let go of their egos!

I guess I don't understand. I look for an ego that will get results.

and I'm not even sure what you are talking about now, but I'll bet you've spit crackers all over your monitor.

Kerry will turn wishy washy, before long, and the troops will suffer for it. Troop withdrawl in 12 months has only one chance to succeed,.. if the majority of Democrats agree. And I don't think Kerry can rally them, wipe off your monitor and have a nice day.

the position you think is correct is backed by 10 and only 10 Senators? Change sides so you can be a winner? Some times you can't both be right and win.

Kerry has a reason pre-prepared every single time he misses the mark, and the Democratic party in general can't agree on issues that really matter, with a 50/50 split in Democrats there will be plenty of time to debate that, while we enjoy more "war on terror". Democrats are elected to be the voice of those that cannot be heard, but they never seem to get or stay united on much for very long.

That sounds like a great Democratic slogan, "sometimes you can't both be right". One good man cannot change much, one good man that can convince others to follow is a leader. Kerry is not a leader, but he is a good man.

Kerry did get his Small Business plan to help NO passed very convincingly - though to pass it he had to take his name off what had been Kerry/Snowe. He also got the amendment passed that the Senate should get information on the clandestaine prisons. He also got some veterans support amendments made - some by being accepted into the bill itself.

I think most people who become Senators can lead - which is why they run. The problem may be too many leaders and no followers. Kerry seems to be good at cooperating, but reserving his right to follow his conscience when a bill reguires it.

That slogan is NOT what I said. I said,

sometimes you can't both:
be right

and

win

(diagrammed for clarity)

Imagine if Clinton hadn't closed the books on IranContra and BCCI - too bad so many Dems chose to abandon Kerry's work on those crimes against the constitution. There would have been no 9-11 and no Bush would have been allowed even NEAR the WH.

He may not have won the filibuster, but he did everything he could. If you want to criticize Kerry fine, but it is not entirely his fault that not every Senator votes his way. Let's be fair.

not because of Kerry - that was a winnable battle - why not knock Reid.

As to the election, unless you have LEGAL proof that it was stolen in NOV or DEC 2004, there was nothing he could do.

I hope there is some unity for troop withdrawl, that's how this started.
in the eyes of the American Democrat who was right? Reid, or Kerry? Split the loyalty again and we get more years of Republican house, Senate and White House.

I don't believe in Kerry, there I said it. Let the name calling begin.

Kerry is to blame because Alito is in, which you think is a bad thing. Reid didn't want Alito blocked Kerry did - but you blame Kerry for not backing Reid in letting Alito in.

How would following Reid's timid leadership get us troop withdrawal. His amendment suggestssome withdrawal starting this year. Pretty vague there.

Who do you believe in?

And I DO believe in Kerry. There, I said it.

I would suggest that if you think he only does things according to polls, you haven't taken a good enough look at him.

Kerry fought everyone in both parties to continue the BCCI investigation - including Jackie Kennedy who he greatly respected. He even took it outside the Senate when he had no path to continue working on it. On Contra drug running he was absolutely tenatious fighting the Reagan people with very little support. The RW Reagan people hit him with everything they had to stop him.

I know of no issue where he changed because someone told him too. He ignored Bill Clinton in 2004 when Clinton advised him to endorse all the gay bashing amendments even those that would have taken away rights gay couples already had. He also refused to vote for DOMA though he was up for re-election in his toughest race.

You may disagree with his votes, but they are his honest choice. He also is extremely good in putting in the record his reasons on votes.

do you? Or National Security Archives.

What a FOCKING JOKE..

Guess you missed how most of DC, including his own party, OSTRACIZED Kerry for years because of his investigations first into IranContra, then BCCI - and no one wanted to touch CIA drugrunning that Kerry wanted exposed - and that was during Clinton's term.

So.... humor us...WHERE did you come up wit that conclusion of yours that Kerry's "record" shows he does what his party wants?

that would have worked.

go with what most Americans would choose.

every time i hear someone say there are 150000 or more trained iraqi
soldiers, i wonder how they can be trained but not responsible enough
to take over more duties ... they should be manning checkpoints, protecting supply movements, gaurding oil fields, etc. the iraqi government needs a clear ultimatum and a timetable may be what will work!

the roads.

If you pay Iraqis 20K a month, you'll be able to train them to do the work in 3 weeks. And it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper than paying the military and mercenaries.

Dems got their mojo back.