Lots of people seem to have shifted since General Wes said a couple weeks ago, while in Kosovo, we should start a withdrawl soon. ;)

Watch the Senate this afternoon, if you can. The Dems have, as of right now, two amendments to the Defense Authorization Act they are planning to introduce.

One by Fienstien, Levin, Salazaar, Reed which is close to Wes' position, I believe. And another by Fiengold, Kerry, Boxer with a timetable.

Niether will pass, imo, as the repubs will not vote for either....but the Dems will hash it out here....I hope.

most of the rest of us, agree:

The US military presence in Iraq is retarding a political settlement.

My problem with the two Dem resolutions is that the first one sounds purely 'rhetorical' in Cole's synopsis, it's all too typical of namby-pamby-Dem-speak. No accountability required...the second uses somewhat stronger language. The July '07 'deadline' is 12 + months out. That sort of deadline doesn't bother me fwiw and seems a means for holding our P-Ni-AC-als accountable on some small level.

I would love to hear the General's 'take' of course.

As far as either one passing it's probably moot - affording the Dems nothing more really, than an opportunity to 'show their stuff' to the c-span audience from the floor of the senate...

But who knows, maybe the Dem Party's 'plan for Iraq' will emerge through this debate...barring pre-emption by an impromptu speech from the Oval Office of course.

What would you do for a Klondike Bar?

From the exchange with Letterman (to be aired this Friday).  I got this via a post at Kos:

On Iraq

Here, Letterman was barely holding back his contempt for what is going on there, and I totally applaud him for that.  The exchange went something like the following:

DL:  We have over 2,500 of our soldiers dead.  Anywhere between 60,000 - 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead.  Are we knee deep in a mess of our own making?

 

AG:  Yes.

DL:  What happened?

AG:  There was flawed decision making.  Now, there are no good options and we have to find the "least bad option" to get the troops home quickly (this got major applause).   Even those of us who opposed the war initially share in the obligation to help think through a process to not make it worse ot to increase the odds of anarchy or civil war.

DL:  And now we are asked to be patient with the trouble that we caused.

AG:  There are now factions fighting each other, and we are both in the middle of it and a magnet for it.  However, there are also areas that could descend into a total bloodbath if we pull out without thinking.

DL:  What about the WMD that we were told was there?

AG:  Well, we know that Saddam was a bad guy - I supported the first Gulf War, but he had nothing to do with terrorism and nothing to do with 9/11.

DL:  Well, prolonging this war is not a road to stability.

AG:  I agree, but we can't make the moral mistake of pulling out without thinking and making things worse.  We need a fresh team in there, not the ones who got us in there. (he mentioned Rumsfeld here, and got lots of applause)

Here's to us all...

LindaG

"December 06"...

So now they're saying July 07? A deadline without a deadine is a .... suggestion....

I see from rereading this earlier post that Cole was arguing for withdrawal then too, but also urging caution, thinking the exit through:

...The US needs to get out. Its troops are a constant provocation of the local population, stirring insurgency rather than quieting it. They have never developed the kind of local intelligence or even language skills that would allow them to do real counter-insurgency. When hot civil war nearly erupted in February, US troops could not intervene between Sunnis and Shiites anyway, without becoming a party to it. So what good are they in such a crisis? Better to get them out of harm's way. Moreover, the Bush administration is both incompetent and corrupt, and therefore cannot hope actually to accomplish anything good in Iraq. The longer the US is there virtually unilaterally, the worse the final crash and burn is going to be. But the US has a responsibility, having thrown Iraq into civil war, to make the best arrangements it can for the aftermath.

The six neighbors have the highest stakes in Iraq-- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran. They should immediately be called to a 6 + 3 meeting with the United States, Britain and the Arab League to begin the work of constituting a post-US multinational force that might hope to keep ethnic and religious militias from marching against one another in the thousands and killing milions.

Exit is easy. Exit with honor will be the hardest thing the United States of America has ever done in its over two centuries of history. Exit without honor will endanger the security of the United States for decades. (I think this is the statement that most stayed with me from that past entry.)

Here's to us all...

LindaG

on Iraq."

According to the story, some feel he's too focused on running for President...

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NY_Times_Democrats_complaining_about_Senator_0620.html

NY Times: Democrats complaining about Senator Kerry's 'stubbornness' on Iraq

RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday June 20, 2006

Democrats are complaining about Senator John Kerry's "stubbornness" on Iraq, according to an article set for the front page of Wednesday's New York Times, RAW STORY has learned.

"When John Kerry was their presidential nominee in 2004, Democrats fervently wished he would express himself firmly about the Iraq war," writes Kate Zernike.

"Mr. Kerry has found his resolve," Zernike continues. "But it has not made his fellow Democrats any happier. They fear the latest evolution of Mr. Kerry's views on Iraq may now complicate their hopes of taking back a majority in Congress in 2006."

"As the Senate prepared for what promises to be a sharp debate starting on Wednesday about whether to begin pulling troops from Iraq, the Democratic leadership wants its members to rally behind a proposal that calls for some troops to move out by the end of this year but does not set a fixed date for complete withdrawal," Zernike writes.

However, Zernike reports, "Kerry has insisted on setting a date."

Excerpts from the Times article:
#

Senate Democrats have been loath to express their opinions publicly, determined to emphasize a united front. But interviews suggest a frustration with Mr. Kerry, never popular among the caucus, and still unpopular among many Democrats for failing to defeat a president they considered vulnerable. Privately, some of his Democratic peers complain that he is too focused on the next presidential campaign.

The Democrats' exasperation has increased in the last week, as they postponed a vote on Mr. Kerry's amendment to try to fashion a broader consensus among themselves. Democrats up for re-election asked him not to propose a fixed date. But Mr. Kerry, several Democrats said, was unwilling to budge from that idea, even though his co-sponsor, Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, seemed willing to compromise for the sake of consensus. In the end, Mr. Kerry agreed only to extend his deadline, from Dec. 31 of this year to July 2007.

(NOTE: An earlier version of the Times article received by RAW STORY included 'stubbornness' to describe Senator Kerry's current position on the Iraq war)
#
Full Story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/washington/21kerry.html?hp&ex=1150862400&en=d52bb8294f60def2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Visit www.zianet.com/insightanalytical - Home of the World Media Watch M-W-F, also at Buzzflash.com

I listened to the Senate all day while I did some things around here....waiting for the amendments to be brought to the floor.   <heavy sigh>  Maybe tomorrow........

I just posted a comment about George Allen's strategy in his re-election campaign to equate Jim Webb with John Kerry. Webb, unlike Kerry, knows what he is talking about, and I glad to see the Democrats wising up and putting Kerry in his place. Just as the article says, Kerry's so-called "plan" is hurting the Democrats' chances of winning in November.

I wish the Democrats had the sense to put Clark right in the forefront of the entire debate. Instead of emphasizing just withdrawal, he would expose the administration's incompetence, insist on accountabilty of the leaders of this huge blunder, and propose a postive, intelligent plan on how to proceed in our present state.

Unfortunately, the Democrats would rather spit out some soundbytes on TV and remain as clueless as they are divided about what to do from here forward. It goes without saying the Republicans have proven they have nothing to offer except the slogan of "stay the course," when means nothing.