Key Democrats Call for Iraq Withdrawal

[ProSense]

Key Democrats Call for Iraq Withdrawal

Key Democrats in House and Senate Unite in Call to Begin Iraq Withdrawal by Year's End
By ANNE PLUMMER
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Key Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have united to call on President Bush to begin pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, citing an overtaxed military, billions of dollars spent and ongoing sectarian violence.

Snip...

Democrats had previously advocated reducing troop levels in Iraq, but were split on the precise approach. During a recent floor debate in the Senate, Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin proposed legislation that would require troops to be out of Iraq by July 2007.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other Democrats backed a measure that called for a phased redeployment to begin by Dec. 31, but did not set a deadline for all troops to be home.

The recent letter is dated July 30 and signed by every top Democrat on committees with oversight of military, intelligence and international affairs. It is significant because it solidifies the Democrats' position and presents a unified front as members head into election season.

The letter was signed by Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, his House counterpart.

more...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2256846&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[bullimiami]

1. why are they always so slow to respond.

they should change the dem logo to a mule rather than the intelligent and nimble footed donkey.

[blm]

14. They didn't back Kerry and Feingold because they wouldn't see it then

and that vote was less than two months ago. Jack Reed and Biden went to Iraq recently and realized that Kerry and Murtha were accurate in their analysis - Iraq is in civil war.

Biden has been trashing Kerry for his analysis and his withdrawal plans since last fall - now he wants to be the one identified with withdrawal.

[ChiciB1]

2. I HOPE This Isn't A Joke! n/t

[panader0]

3. Damn Demo terra-ists

don't they know they're giving comfort to the enemy?

[rodeodance]

4. highly recommend

[BobRossi]

5. Dems acting like Dems?

What's next? Conservatives acting like conservatives?

[rodeodance]

6. this is good newsl

The recent letter is dated July 30 and signed by every top Democrat on committees with oversight of military, intelligence and international affairs. It is significant because it solidifies the Democrats' position and presents a unified front as members head into election season.

The letter was signed by Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, his House counterpart.

[welshTerrier2]

7. way toooooooo little ...

way toooooooo late ...

maybe they'll at least get some political gain from this bogus approach ...

[gratuitous]

8. I agree and disagree

I would have liked to see something much sooner, and that supported Mr. Murtha when he first made his statements. Unfortunately, the Democrats aren't like the GOP in that regard. Where the GOP makes a top-down decision and all their little minions fall into lock-step behind that decision (whether it makes sense or not), ideas come from all over the Democratic party, and sometimes coalescing support behind one position takes some time.

Hopefully, now that this letter has been issued, more Democrats will feel secure enough to make public statements based on this letter. Certainly the tone of the accompanying article is an improvement on the "Democrats are divided and in disarray" meme so prevalent in other parts of the popular media. This is a unified call for troop reductions in Iraq.

But considering the minority status of Democrats in both houses of Congress, what more can be done? They can't hold hearings. They can't issue subpoenas. GOP leadership stops every Democratic bill from being considered. Writing a letter to the president seems kind of limp, but there's not much else that can be done from a civil society standpoint.

[welshTerrier2]

9. "ideas come from all over the Democratic Party"

i'm all for finding common ground in the party ... i think it's critical ... but this proposal is crap ...

a recent Gallup poll showed that 47% (perhaps a majority by now) of Democrats want to see immediate withdrawal from Iraq ... the lame idea being discussed here not only doesn't begin a withdrawal until the end of the year but fails to include a "date certain" ...

your statement that "ideas come from all over the Democratic party" is very true ... the problem is that roughly half of all Democrats remain completely unrepresented by this bogus proposal ... this is no way to represent a constituency you hope will support you ... where's the dialog? where's the negotiation? where's the compromise?

and Iran is next ... will Democrats just rollover again while bush destroys any chance for peace and destroys the US in the process?

[gratuitous]

12. Murtha and Biden both signed the letter

Which makes for a much broader consensus and I would argue puts a floor under any local Democrat who's still trying to ride the moderate fence of staying the course (okay, Lieberman mostly, but there are others).

As far as getting totally out of Iraq, there's no question that a total withdrawal can't happen tomorrow. There are just too many military folks and equipment to make for an orderly withdrawal that doesn't start with a draw down of the troops, while still maintaining the security of those who are waiting their turn to go.

I guess I'm pretty accustomed to not having my views represented in a lot of areas of my life, whether it's the running of the American system, the politics of the Democratic party, or even the administration of my denomination. But I'll take this letter as a step in the right direction and an improvement of the Democratic position over what it was last week.

As far as Iran goes, I think the current bellicose language out of the administration is just so much hot air. The troops in Iraq can't be used to cross the border into Iran, and there's precious few units not currently engaged that can report ready for some kind of offensive action--excuse me, preemptive action--in Iran. Unless the Bush administration is already reduced to a latter day Children's Crusade, there just isn't the pep to back up their rep.

[welshTerrier2]

13. "too many military folks and equipment"

just for the record, my preferred definition of "immediate withdrawal" is as quickly as the safety of OUR TROOPS will allow ... i'm not sure any reasonable person would mean by "immediate" that we should leave tomorrow even if it endangers our troops ...

and attacking Iran can be done with or without a massive movement of troops ... it could be done solely with a massive bombing campaign ... either way, it would be a disaster ... you may be satisfied with the Dem position on Iran; what little i've heard from Democrats has been fairly hawkish ...

[gratuitous]

15. Iran will require a new mandate

At least, I don't think the Bush administration can unilaterally expand the Global War on Terror into Iran (whether they actually will is, of course, a different question). And if it requires a new congressional authorization, my reading of the current political climate is that Congress will have to work through a bill to let George go into Iran, and a lot of the questions that should have been asked four years ago will be raised this time around. And Bush's plans don't usually put up with a lot of scrutiny (viz. his hare-brained idea for social security privatization).

And if that's the case, then certain Democrats can join in the posturing and chest-thumping, safe in their estimate that such congressional authorization will not come to pass. I've also heard a lot of Democratic (as well as Republican) voices calling for tidying up the messes in Afghanistan and Iraq before any further foreign adventurism will be allowed. And George hates cleaning up his own mess.

[ProSense]

10. The letter:

Democratic Leaders write to President Bush:


The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

While the world has been focused on the crisis in the Middle East, Iraq has exploded in violence. Some 6,000 Iraqis were killed in May and June, and sectarian and insurgent violence continues to claim American and Iraqi lives at an alarming rate. In the face of this onslaught, one can only conclude that the Baghdad security plan you announced five weeks ago is in great jeopardy.

Despite the latest evidence that your Administration lacks a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq and achieve victory, there has been virtually no diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian differences, no regional effort to establish a broader security framework, and no attempt to revive a struggling reconstruction effort. Instead, we learned of your plans to redeploy an additional 5,000 U.S. troops into an urban war zone in Baghdad. Far from implementing a comprehensive "Strategy for Victory" as you promised months ago, your Administration=' strategy appears to be one of trying to avoid defeat.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops and taxpayers continue to pay a high price as your Administration searches for a policy. Over 2,500 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice and over 18,000 others have been wounded. The Iraq war has also strained our military and constrained our ability to deal with other challenges. Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam, as virtually no active Army non-deployed combat brigade is prepared to perform its wartime missions. American taxpayers have already contributed over $300 billion and each week we stay in Iraq adds nearly $3 billion more to our record budget deficit.

In the interests of American national security, our troops, and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained.

Rather, we continue to believe that it is time for Iraqis to step forward and take the lead for securing and governing their own country. This is the principle enshrined in the "United States Policy in Iraq Act" enacted last year. This law declares 2006 to be a year of "significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq." Regrettably, your policy seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

This legislation made clear that Iraqi political leaders must be informed that American patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited. We were disappointed that you did not convey this message to Prime Minister Maliki during his recent visit. Reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq will not only give the Iraqis a greater incentive to take the lead for the security of their own nation, but will also allow U.S. forces to be able to respond to contingencies affecting the security of the United States elsewhere in the world.

We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006. U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel.

Additionally, every effort should be made to urge the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. It is also essential to disarm the militias and ensure forces loyal to the national government. Finally, an international conference should be convened to persuade other governments to be more involved, and to secure the resources necessary to finance Iraq's reconstruction and rebuild its economy.

Mr. President, simply staying the course in Iraq is not working. We need to take a new direction. We believe these recommendations comprise an effective alternative to the current open-ended commitment which is not producing the progress in Iraq we would all like to see. Thank you for your careful consideration of these suggestions.

Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader
Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader
Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip
Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee
Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee
Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee
Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_07_30_atrios_archive.html#115436584357328317

Looks like the same group that voted for no timetable!

[KoKo]

11. NPR yesterday interviewed three pollsters...one was Charlie Cook,

Harris and another one. One of them said that the Democrats poll numbers started going up with Murtha spoke out against the war. Went up with both Dems and Independents. Said that the DLC's American Dreams plan released last weeks sounded like something from the early 90's. So, the War is the issue...and these Dems just jumped on the badwagon because of the polling, I think...rather than from some change in convictions.

This was on the Diane Rheem show but Susan Page from USA Today was filling in for her and she really didn't identify who was talking so it was hard to say whether it was Cook or Harris and I don't remember the third Pollster because she only identified the three at the top of the hour. I don't know if that was by accident or design.

[ProSense]

16. Hagel: The Iraq War Is ‘An Absolute Replay Of Vietnam’

Hagel: The Iraq War Is ‘An Absolute Replay Of Vietnam’

Four months ago, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) described the conditions in Iraq as a “low grade civil war.” Today, his view is much more bleak. In an interview with the Omaha World Herald, the Vietnam War veteran said that the country had descended into “absolute anarchy” and the war was “an absolute replay of Vietnam.”

Hagel also blasted the Pentagon’s plan to send 5,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, saying the move was opposed by several four-star generals:

more...

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/31/hagel-vietnam

Now will he call for withdrawal? Wait for it (but breathe)!