Dems are united on timetable for Iraq

[ginnyinWI]

This is an issue they can run on in '06, because all but four Senate Dems are now on board with setting a timetable for troop withdrawal:

http://www.mydd.com/section/senate

<<Remember how we have often heard about how congressional Democrats are divided on withdrawal from Iraq? Well, we are divided no more. The amendment Senator Feingold stopped by to tell us about was opposed by only four Senate Democrats: Lieberman, the two Nelsons, and Mark Pryor. Shame on them, but I'm not really sure how much we need them in this case.
The key difference between the Democratic and the Republican resolutions must be emphasized: nearly the entire party is on record supporting a flexible timetable in Iraq, and the entire Republican caucus is on record opposing it. Democrats are in favor of withdrawal, Republicans are opposed to it. Now, demanding a timetable from Bush, even if only a flexible timetable, is officially an issue we can run on in 2006. That is, of course, as long as we have the guts to actually do it, and stop being quiet about Iraq when it comes to our agenda / platform. >>

[Mass]

1. He forgets Conrad (ND) who is the only Dem who voted against the

two resolutions.

But it is still good news. It is a subject we should run on.

[mzmolly]

2. Excellent news, recommended!

Lieberman will be lucky to have a job by the time he's done. It's a shame because he's a man of integrity - but he's wrong on the war.

[Tom Joad]

5. Integrity? Supportive of a war of agression but has integrity?

How's that?

[mzmolly]

6. I believe HE believes in what he's saying.

He's sympathetic to Israel and feels that this war will bring "stability to the region" etc. He felt that Saddam was a threat to others in the area. He believes that if Iraq can become a "pillar of democracy" others may follow suit. I think Bush and Lieberman who are both zealots for the war, have very different reasons for supporting it.

I consider the entire man and his whole career going back to his marching with MLK when I speak about integrity.

I thoroughly despise his position on Iraq, however.

[AmericanDream]

3. Finally! Recommended.

[Tom Joad]

4. We need troops out now.

Most of the proposals I have heard call for the troops to only BEGIN withdraw next year. It will be done in phases, and only when Iraq is stable (that is, quietly supporting the current government). All these preconditions mean my 10 year-old nephew could eventually be called up to fight this fucking war.

We do not belong there. Occupation is a crime. Troops home now.

[mzmolly]

7. Ain't happenin. So, let's accept a viable option.

Even Cindy Sheehan says we need to "begin" troop withdrawl. It never happens overnight.

[Tom Joad]

9. The Dems plan is for several more years of Iraq. Ain't acceptable.

It is not really offering America a choice.

No wonder the Republicans are confident about election next year.

[mzmolly]

10. Several more years? 2006 is NEXT year. And, I'm not sure what

Republicans you speak of? Most are afraid for their future and are refusing to support Bush for that reason.

[Tom Joad]

14. Several resolutions in Congress speak of...

beginning of troop withdraw next year. Not completing it. Most also talk of certain conditions, which would mean that it will not be completed for years to come. I think even the Bush administration will begin troop withdraw next year.

If there is a resolution the Senate Democrats are uniting behind that says the troops will be removed by even the end of 2006? I hope i am missing something.

And we are too often told here, by a few, that we must be "realistic". However, offering such a tepid "alternative" is really offering nothing at all. I want the slaughter to stop. I am first and foremost an advocate for peace, not for those who say they are for a better managed imperialism.

[mzmolly]

21. Condi Rice said we'd be in Iraq for TEN YEARS. Not 12 more months.

There is a HUGE difference between the PNAC agenda and that of Democrats.

[Tom Joad]

22. I asked for a citation. The Democrats are calling for all troops out

by the end of 2006? Can you send me a quote?
Thanks mzmolly.

[mzmolly]

23. See the link in the OP. Read the entire thing.

http://www.feingold.senate.gov/DemocraticIraqAmendment.pdf

[Tom Joad]

24. Feingold stands against a quick end, wants phased withdrawal. Brave.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/13175386.htm
"Feingold, who introduced the resolution in June, followed that up with a call in August for a target (as a goal, if conditions are met-Tom) date of Dec. 31, 2006, to complete the military mission and remove all U.S. forces. The Democratic amendment Tuesday did NOT include a specific date."

"After the amendment was defeated, the Senate approved a Republican alternative that said 2006 "should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," with Iraqi forces taking the lead in providing security to create conditions for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces."
The Iraqi government, set up by the US, has taken the lead... in torturing Iraqis. We cannot just cut and run now, this fine government will collapse. :sarcasm:

"What we're proposing is nothing like cut-and-run," said Feingold. "A lot of Americans are saying, 'Why don't we just get out of there?' That's not my position, and that's not the position of Democrats."
In this I will give Feingold & Dems credit for standing against those who would end US involvement in this war crime much more quickly, with minimum loss of troops, our wealth, and especially Iraqi lives. I am NOT one of those who say the Dem leaders lack a spine. They stand against populist agendas all the time, and this is a great example.

I am for cut and run. I was for cut & run in Vietnam, I was for cut and run in Central America, I am for cut and run in Iraq. Its the only honorable thing to do.

[mzmolly]

25. Honorable? There is no honor to be had, it's a matter of sensibility now.

The choices are readying Iraqi's to take over, or staying ten years as Condi suggests.

[Mass]

26. These propositions have been watered down to get everybody on board

But it is a first step given that before that, the senate would not even talk about it.

The Democratic amendment was proposing that Bush says no to a permanent occupation and that he establishes a timetable for "troop redeployment".

The Republican amendment did not retain these two points and just calls for the Iraqi government to take progressively the government of their country.

[ginnyinWI]

13. Kerry's plan is for 12-15 more months, not several years. n/t

[mzmolly]

8. Kicking with the hopes that others recommend.

:kick:

[mzmolly]

11. This is such an important thread. UGH!

Why it's being ignored is beyond me? If we were to post "Democrats not unified on Iraq" we'd get lots of BS comments about how spinless Dems are etc...

[ginnyinWI]

15. thanks for your support, anyway!

I agree: the negative posts always get more attention. I guess it's more fun to bash Dems. :banghead:

[welshTerrier2]

16. oops ... please ignore ... sorry ...

[ProSense]

17. You're right! Thanks!

Democrats are putting the pressure on Bush and his support is melting.

Very important.

[welshTerrier2]

12. unity on Iraq? you can't be serious ...

the following Congressional Democrats are co-sponsors of Jim McGovern's bill to immediately shut-off funds for Iraq with the only key exception being funds for a safe withdrawal of our troops:

The following members (all Democrats) are original co-sponsors:
Frank, Schakowsky, Serrano, Velezquez, Woolsey, J. Lewis, D. Payne, Waters, Stark, C. Kilpatrick, Kucinich, B. Lee.

you can read the details here ==> http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/end

also, the problem with disunity goes beyond elected Democrats ... a strong majority of Democrats want the war ended ASAP - not at some far away date in 2006 ... Senate Dems are out of touch with what the majority in their own party wants ...

[sandnsea]

18. It doesn't end the war

It just turns it over to NATO & the UN. It doesn't even have a date in it.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `End the War in Iraq Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO DEPLOY ARMED FORCES TO IRAQ .

(a) Prohibition- Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may not be obligated or expended to deploy or continue to deploy the Armed Forces to the Republic of Iraq .

(b) Exception- Subsection (a) shall not apply to the use of funds to--

(1) provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Iraq ; or

(2) ensure the security of Iraq and the transition to democratic rule by--

(A) carrying out consultations with the Government of Iraq , other foreign governments, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations, and other international organizations; or

(B) providing financial assistance or equipment to Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq .

(c) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or otherwise restrict the use of funds available to any department or agency of the Government of the United States (other than the Department of Defense) to carry out social and economic reconstruction activities in Iraq .

(d) Definition- In this section, the term `Armed Forces' has the meaning given the term in section 101(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code

[Tom Joad]

19. McGovern Bill is what to rally around.

I don't want to hear Reid and others talk about a "strategy for success".
Iraq invasion is a crime, and only its ending can be a success.

[mzmolly]

20. "ended ASAP" is a relative term. 2006 is next year, that IS asap.

Unfortunately, that is as close as it's gonna get. Condi Rice (for example) said we'll be there another 10 years.

Also this bill would not interfere with the Democratic plan noted above:

The bill would allow Defense Department funds to be used only to provide for: the safe and orderly withdrawal of all troops; consultations with other governments, NATO, and the UN regarding international forces; and financial assistance and equipment to either Iraqi security forces and/or international forces.