39 Democrats support Levin troop withdrawal

[sandnsea]

Today was a good day. 13 Democrats support a date certain on ending the occupation, 38 Democrats and 1 Independent are calling for transition, redeployment out of Iraq, and refocusing on Afghanistan and the terrorists.

There is no reason to help the right label the party as divided when the truth is we're more united on Iraq than we ever have been. 90% of the party agrees that Bush's failed policy has us on a collision course, that we must change strategy for the security of our troops and the safety of the Iraqi people. 90% of the party agrees that it is time to start withdrawing troops and send the message to Iraq that our military can't replace diplomacy and Iraq control over their own country.

This should not be a time of division, this really can be a time of unity.

And all you Kerry supporters, well, I'm honestly surprised at you. I expected better.

Out of Iraq, that's the strategy and the truth is, Democrats are behind it.

(Except Lieberman :eyes:)

[TayTay]

1. I expected 8 votes for the K/F/B/L amendment

It got six votes last week. (In the sham form that McConnell submitted it in.) Sen. Byrd withdrew from it, but it got 8 new people to hop aboard. This is not nothing. (LOL!)

I was heartened today, not depressed. This is progress. As we all should remember, progress is halting, slow, agonizing and requires oodles of patience. I want this occupation to end. However, the Dems are not in a position to end it. It's Bush war and Bush's policy. The Democrats have presented an alternative to what Bush and the Repubs are doing. It takes time to gell in the public's mind.

We will win this. And it will take time. Progress always does.

[sandnsea]

3. I agree

Agonizingly slow progress, but it is progress.

Did you hear Byrd's explanation for withdrawing? Something about unConstitutional? I was thinking because the Kerry bill sort of ordered the President to conduct a war in a particular way, which is unConstitutional. Was that it?

[mike_c]

2. and as soon as physically possible UNLESS...

...there are clear objectives to be met by staying for some interim time, and I mean real, achievable goals with significant milestones we can use to determine when they've been met, not vague open ended generalities. I've said repeatedly that I don't accept any "timeline for withdrawal" that proposes some future date because I don't believe such objectives exist, and if no real achievements will be attained by staying in Iraq for six more months, or another year, or whatever, then why stay another day? If the only thing being accomplished is unnecessary bloodshed and political chest-pounding in Washington, there is no justification for prolonging the occupation any longer than necessary to pack up and leave, without delay.

On the other hand, IF there were such a clear and unambiguous mission, and if it were debated openly and honestly by Congress, I might support some reasonable continued occupation-- that would depend on whether I supported the objectives. Frankly, it's hard to imagine ANY objectives that would justify an illegal war of aggression, but I'm open to the possibility. In liu of that, however, I want immediate and unconditional withdrawal, and will support leadership that comes closest to that position.

[BeFree]

4. Right

If the warpublicans think they can win an open and honest debate on why we should stay another day, I am willing to listen.

But given the empty platitudes of "until we win" as the sole basis for another day, I ain't buying, and neither is the public.

[sandnsea]

6. "Past Time to Change Course"

While I think laying out benchmarks was where Kerry and Feingold were last year, at least the majority of Dems are there now. I know it's not fast enough for your preference, but even the 39 Dems don't support open-ended deployment in Iraq and permanent bases and the like. We either go this direction, or end up with occupied Iraq in 2020. I think it's better to support the imperfect, with your own personal qualifiers, than paint the Levin Amendment as the same as Bush's stay the course.

"The Levin/Reed amendment recognizes that it is time to transform the U.S. mission in Iraq and to begin the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces this year. It builds upon the bipartisan Senate amendment we passed overwhelmingly last year calling for "2006 to be a year of significant transition in Iraq." With the mid-point of 2006 upon us, that transition must begin.

The open-ended commitment advocated by the President and the majority is not the way to get the Iraqis to assume responsibility for governing and securing their country.

The Levin/Reed amendment recognizes that there are only political solutions remaining in Iraq--not military ones."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-harry-reid/it-is-long-past-time-to-c_b_23611.html

[mike_c]

8. I hear you....

eom

[patrice]

5. Kerry did well against Warner yesterday(?)

Or was it the day before?

400,000 Iraqi security forces and their political leaders will never do what they need to do to get along and work together - unless the HAVE to, because we have re-deployed over the horizon and troops are going Home to stay. They don't HAVE to make it work as long as we are there. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

NO PERMANENT U.S. BASES. The Iraqis can build their own bases.

We are not War Slaves!

John Murtha also still has great Credibility.

[sandnsea]

7. Kick for the truth against Rovian tp's

And that the Levin Amendment is not stay the course. Democrats oppose Bush's failed collision course and call for a real beginning on getting troops out of Iraq and refocusing on Afghanistan and terrorism.