Reply #11: Withdrawal,

[ProSense]

even in Kerry-Feingold, is a defensive, not offensive posture.

the first is that you seem to be suggesting that creating the international security force is a "PRE-CONDITION" for withdrawal of American troops ... the bill states that FUNDS can be used to provide "FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OR EQUIPMENT" to Iraq security forces and international forces ... it does not make that a condition for withdrawal ...

You are making a leap! If the troops withrdraw before such a force is in place, why would international forces go in after the fact of U.S. withdrawal, leaving a big security gap?

Your statement doesn't correlate to this:

"This week, I am introducing a resolution to prohibit the use of tax payer funds to deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq. The bill, however, will allow funds to be used for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops. It will allow us to support transitional security provided by other countries - including international organizations like NATO and the United Nations. The bill will also allow for continued support for Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq - as well as funding for reconstruction efforts. This is not a cut and run strategy. Rather, it is a way to support efforts that I believe can be more helpful in creating a more stable Iraq. But, the bill makes clear - no more U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq.

http://www.house.gov/mcgovern/pr102505outofiraqbill.htm

You are implying that the bill calls for withdrawing U.S. forces and introducing security forces at a later date, after U.S. troops are withdrawn.