Leading Senate Democrats Call for Iraq Troop Withdrawals Beginning This Year

[Frodo]

Senate Democrats Urge Beginning of an Iraq Pullout This Year, but Avoid a Firm Schedule

By KATE ZERNIKE and CARL HULSE
Published: June 20, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 19 — Trying to bridge party divisions on the eve of a Senate debate, leading Democrats called Monday for American troops to begin pulling out of Iraq this year. They avoided setting a firm timetable for withdrawal but argued that the Bush administration's open-ended commitment to the war would only prevent Iraqis from moving forward on their own.

Coming the week after partisan and often angry House debate over the war, the Senate proposal, a nonbinding resolution, was carefully worded to deflect any accusations that the Democrats were "cutting and running," as their position has been depicted by Republicans. The Democrats behind the measure did not even use the word "withdrawal," and talked about how to guarantee "success" for Iraq, not about any failures of the war.

"The administration's policy to date — that we'll be there for as long as Iraq needs us — will result in Iraq's depending upon us longer," said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, who has been designated by the Democratic leadership to present the party's strategy on Iraq. "Three and a half years into the conflict, we should tell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent."

The resolution was cobbled together by moderate Democrats trying to smooth over differences within the party. The minority leadership has tried to distance itself from a proposal by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts setting a mandatory deadline for American combat troops to be out of Iraq by the end of this year, a limit that Mr. Kerry modified only marginally on Monday. Some Republican lawmakers and the White House pointed to that proposal last week in attacking Democrats as inconsistent and weak on national security.

[MODU]

A watered down version of Kerry's bill.  This too should not pass.  However, I can already see it now . . . Levin taking credit for troop reductions as Iraqi forces begin to police most of their state as US troops are redeployed back to Qatar and Kuwait . . . even though it has been expressed numerous times in the past by the Pentagon and the Bush administration.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

All troops should've been pulled out the day the government was sworn in, and we should've told Iraq they won't get old soldier stationed there or one penny of aid until they elect a secular government. NO DEAD AMERICANS FOR ISLAMISTS.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Republican Congress is much more interested in the Paris Hilton tax cut than actually dealing with Iraq or increasing the minimum wage.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

I stand by what I have said for the past year, we should give the troops everything they need to achieve total victory, or we should just get out rather than bleed a slow and brutal death brought on by politicized warfare.

[MasterJedi]

We shouldn't listen to them, the troops stay in until it's necessary.

[True Democrat]

Horrible People

[MODU]

Common sense prevails.

Kerry's bill fails:  86-13
Levin's bill fails:  60-39

CNN.com

[nlm]

We shouldn't listen to them, the troops stay in until it's necessary.

This one always confuses me. Until when? Until the Iraqi army is a powerful as the Iranian army? Until they are able to enforce order upon their own people? Until no power on earth can possibly defeat them? When? Will we just magically know when the time is right, or is there some measuring stick for this?

[MODU]

We shouldn't listen to them, the troops stay in until it's necessary.

This one always confuses me. Until when? Until the Iraqi army is a powerful as the Iranian army? Until they are able to enforce order upon their own people? Until no power on earth can possibly defeat them? When? Will we just magically know when the time is right, or is there some measuring stick for this?

The easy guage is when Iraqi troops take over as lead on all policing elements within their nation.  Of course by this point, US troops will already have begun redeployment to Kuwait and Qatar. 

[David S]

The sign that we are leaving will be when hell freezes over.

There is no plan for the US to leave. There is no intention for the US to leave and there never was. This administration plans for us to be there permanently.

Although I agree with the call to withdraw troops I suspect the Democrats are doing it more for political reasons than anything else. If a Democrat was president they would be supporting the war.

[nlm]

The easy guage is when Iraqi troops take over as lead on all policing elements within their nation.  Of course by this point, US troops will already have begun redeployment to Kuwait and Qatar. 

Is anybody that counts on record as having said that is the plan?

The sign that we are leaving will be when hell freezes over.

It sure looks that way.

Although I agree with the call to withdraw troops I suspect the Democrats are doing it more for political reasons than anything else. If a Democrat was president they would be supporting the war.

I suspect you are correct.

[The Dowager Mod]

Posturing by both sides nothing more.

[Boris]

I don't quite understand what Kerry's doing. If he wants to win the presidency in 2008, demanding a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq isn't going to help him very much. It might improve his ranks among those in the liberal base who may decide the nominee, but he's going to have to move much more to the center in order to win the job that couldn't two years ago.

Of course, it's an outright dumb move to withdraw troops at this point. I oppose the Iraq War and think that it was a mistake to invade in 2003, but it simply isn't feasible to withdraw troops at this point.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't quite understand what Kerry's doing. If he wants to win the presidency in 2008, demanding a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq isn't going to help him very much. It might improve his ranks among those in the liberal base who may decide the nominee, but he's going to have to move much more to the center in order to win the job that couldn't two years ago.

Of course, it's an outright dumb move to withdraw troops at this point. I oppose the Iraq War and think that it was a mistake to invade in 2003, but it simply isn't feasible to withdraw troops at this point.

I think Kerry learned after he was completely trashed by lying attacks from the Republican party and the so called media that pandering to the "center" in America is a complete waste of time.

Maybe we can nominate Gore / Kerry 2008 with the motto "We've got spine now!"

[J. J.]

I don't quite understand what Kerry's doing. If he wants to win the presidency in 2008, demanding a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq isn't going to help him very much. It might improve his ranks among those in the liberal base who may decide the nominee, but he's going to have to move much more to the center in order to win the job that couldn't two years ago.

Of course, it's an outright dumb move to withdraw troops at this point. I oppose the Iraq War and think that it was a mistake to invade in 2003, but it simply isn't feasible to withdraw troops at this point.

I think Kerry learned after he was completely trashed by lying attacks from the Republican party and the so called media that pandering to the "center" in America is a complete waste of time.

Maybe we can nominate Gore / Kerry 2008 with the motto "We've got spine now!"

And if the result in the Senate is example, they can add, "... and 12% of the vote."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And if the result in the Senate is example, they can add, "... and 12% of the vote."

Gore is polling just about as well now as he was in 1999.

[Nym90]

I definitely would like us to begin scaling back troops; to a large extent, the Iraqis have very little incentive to take over protection of their own country so long as we are willing to do it for them. For that reason, I think there needs to be a strategy for gradual withdrawal that is not entirely tied to Iraq being ready to take over. At some point you have to cut the umbilical cord and force them to stand on their own.

However, a strictly set timetable that does not take into consideration the real world progress on the ground would be quite bad, too. I think we need to gradually pull out but not by strictly set dates.

[J. J.]

I definitely would like us to begin scaling back troops; to a large extent, the Iraqis have very little incentive to take over protection of their own country so long as we are willing to do it for them. For that reason, I think there needs to be a strategy for gradual withdrawal that is not entirely tied to Iraq being ready to take over. At some point you have to cut the umbilical cord and force them to stand on their own.

However, a strictly set timetable that does not take into consideration the real world progress on the ground would be quite bad, too. I think we need to gradually pull out but not by strictly set dates.

I wouldn't object to establishing some criteria (at least informally), but not a time table.