Reply #3: Point 2 does not involve American troops. That is all the point. [View All]

[Mass]

It says explicitely that funds will not be used for American troops. The view is that, if there is no funding for that, the troops will have to withdraw, just as was done in VietNam.

In my opinion, this bill is better than Kerry-Feingold, because it states clearly what the goal is: withdraw troops, without any other possibilities.

I am sick and tired to hear senators say they are for a deadline but would "keep the troops after the deadline if necessary". They have to stop being afraid to look weak on defense and accept that, if American troops are the problems, we have to withdraw them ASAP and find other ways to help Iraq (the international conference that was proposed by Kerry is a good thing. A FIRM deadline to withdraw ALL troops would be great). Proposing a deadline and having to push it every six months because Bush did not do anything is not a good thing (because the execution depends on Bush). Modifying a bill that was reasonnably good to get a few more senators to vote for it (what happened a few months ago) is definitively not the way to go, particularly when the bill has 0 chance to pass in the first place.

This said, dont get me wrong. Kerry/Feingold is the best bill we have in the Senate, and a lot better than what the Dems proposed yesterday following the Third Way report.