WP: Democrats Split Over Timetable For Troops

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/26/AR2006082600811.html

Most Democratic candidates in competitive congressional races are opposed to setting a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, rejecting pressure from liberal activists to demand a quick end to the three-year-old military conflict.

Of the 59 Democrats in hotly contested House and Senate races, a majority agree with the Bush administration that it would be unwise to set a specific schedule for troop withdrawal, and only a few are calling for substantial troop reductions to begin this year, according to a Washington Post survey of the campaigns.

The large number of Democrats opposed to a strict timeline for ending the military operations runs contrary to the assertion by President Bush and top Republicans that Democrats want to "cut and run" amid mounting casualties and signs of civil war. At the same time, the decision by many Democrats to refrain from advocating a specific plan for withdrawal complicates their leaders' efforts to convince voters that they offer a clear new direction for the increasingly unpopular war.

"It is like dropping a raw egg and asking me what my plans are for putting it back together," said Chris Murphy, the Democrat challenging Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.). Murphy favors bringing home National Guard and reserve units, or about 25,000 of the 138,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq, beginning next year, and leaving it to Bush's military commanders to determine the rest of the exit strategy.

While Republicans have largely stood by Bush in opposing a timetable for troop withdrawal, congressional Democratic leaders this month coalesced around calls to begin drawing down troop levels by December, with no specified pace or completion date. But rank-and-file Democrats are far from unified.

That is all. Carry on, citizens.

NGU.

We'll just leave it to the next Repugnat Resident.

recognize when to get out. WTF is wrong with these people?!? Iraq is lost, its over and its the fault of the Bush administration. Their grand oil experiment is one huge mess.

"No Republican is advocating that the United States maintain high troop levels indefinitely."

I can think of at least one, can you?

...that the U.S. maintain troop levels indefinitely. High and low are relative terms.

NGU.

that I have scissors and my Adidas ready for them to borrow any time they like, and recommend they wield them and trot with pride.

raise your hands!

Events on the ground will force the fence sitters to call for a date certain once it becomes obvious that Iraq is lost.

Certainly makes for odd reading: "Democrats split" followed by "a majority aren't split." "The large number of Democrats opposed to a strict timeline" followed by the GOP "cut and run" talking point. "Republicans have largely stood by Bush" implies that there are some who are in favor of a timetable; but apparently, that's not cutting and running for some reason.

It's like reading something written by someone with bipolar disorder.

This article is another example of the propaganda eminating from Pravda on the Potomac

It shows that in the Democratic Party we are not afraid to debate even the most controversial issues. It shows we are not afraid of dissent, even within our own ranks.

Republicans, at least of late, follow the party line and if any waver they are punished. Debate is jeered as a sign of weakness. Only single minded, stick to the plan strategy is allowed.

The American ideal and dream is not about material things but rather about the things that make a democracy strong. Namely respect for our differences and right of each opinion to be a part of the debate. The Republican ideal is about materialism and protecting property and possessions even at the expence of the democratic principles founding our Republic.

Disagreeing, debating and eventually reaching compromise and consensus are both Democratic and American. Let's celebrate them instead of wringing our hands over them.

Charlie Stuart is running for FL-8 as a Democrat. This district was gerrymandered for a Republican.

He said he would set measurable goals to make Bush accountable for the "when Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down" - How many have to be trained? Iraq has some troops trained, why aren't we pulling out? So, he doesn't propose a time table, but he does believe there should be quantifiable measures. This seems like a very logical, pragmatic and moderate view.

Rather than get drawn into a discussion of what we would do, because let's face it no one knows what to do, just keep the focus on the Republicans and their massive failure. Don't let the public be distracted from that.

Gil Gutknecht, Walter Jones, Chris Shays - all Republicans who favor withdrawal

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-shays26aug26,0,6159593.story?coll=la-home-nation

This state can do better. We need no quislings, who for no political expediency abet the crimes of the state.