"Obama has apparently reconsidered his position against setting a 'date certain'"

It is a disingenuous half measure calculated to look anti-war while in reality enabling more war.

Is that Republicans don't want to pull out and admit we blew it. They don't want to be thought of as the people who lost a war. Many Democrats are worried that if we pull out, we'll leave complete chaos behind, which means we will have gone in, slaughtered a lot of people, destroyed the nation, and then left our mess behind. That bothers a lot of people.

I have sympathies with the latter sentiment, but not enough for me to agree that we need to stay. What I'd like to see is us announce a pullout, and then hand the task of training an Iraqi government force and trying to establish peace to some third party. We have too much baggage, no faction in Iraq will trust us or side with us. Any faction will use us as a weapon (and we are too dumb to know we are being used that way), but none will trust us to establish a government that serves everyone's needs. Therefore the longer we stay, the longer we delay a real solution to the anarchy there. This, of course, suits Bush, since his only goal is to control Iraq's oil. But for those who legitimately want a peaceful end to the atrocity we are committing, a continued military presence is the worst of all options.

I don't question the intentions of those Dems who want us to stay, but I do question their ability to understand what's happening. Republicans... I don't trust a one of them for anything, anyway.

IMO, I'd love for the troops to be out yesterday but I could understand a transition period of no more than six months for us to get all of our equipment out of Iraq and such. I can understand a year for the sake of getting bipartisan support if it absolutely comes down to that. Anything more than a year I can't understand.

But in sheer numbers it's better than Hillary's call for troops to be out by January 2009 just so that the next President doesn't have to deal with it.

maybe they'd all agree on a pullout strategy.

presidential runs instead of doing the right thing. And that's the impression I'm getting today with Obama. I won't forget it either.

He's more interesting and charming than most, but he's no more liberal or pure than the rest.

I'd love to see a mainstream candidate say what I'm thinking. But so far the only one I agree with all the time says he won't run. So I'm left trying to guess the real intentions of those who are so carefully trying to craft their plans.

one of the only ones who wants to cut the funds and put a kibosh on this now, which is where I stand, too. Our presence in Iraq isn't accomplishing anything other than getting Americans and Iraqis killed. But you know that. I wish Obama, et al., would admit it and move on from that premise.

I might even support him if he ran. I just don't think of him as a superstar like Gore, Clinton, Obama, and to a lesser extent, Biden, Edwards (not comparing him to Biden!).

I like Dodd, too, but his campaign so far is creating less buzz than Carol Mosley-Braun did last year. I'm still watching him, though.

reading that, but no one is impressing me, for various reasons. :shrug: But I have time to listen and try to figure out who would best serve our interests and not solely their own.

Superstar isn't a good or bad word for me, it's just a shorthand for "Candidate with mass name recognition and general favorable appeal to the public."

I try to figure out who I like the best, and then figure out who can do the best job if elected (there are candidates whose ideology I love but wouldn't vote for them because I don't think they have the experience or demeanor or some intangible to do the job), and then figure out who is electable, and I mesh the three to come up with my candidate. For instance, in 92 I liked Harkin better than Clinton, but thought Clinton would be a more effective president with a better chance to win, so I voted him in the primaries. In 88, I thought Dukakis and Biden had the best chance to win, but I liked Jesse Jackson's ideology and personality better, and had enough issues with Biden and Dukakis (different issues than with Biden), so I went with Jackson.

Don't know why that's important to anyone but me :) , but I already wrote it so I'll post it! :rofl:

The civil war that is raging now was raging then, too, and had been for 5 months by the time the withdrawal vote was taken in the senate.

I hope Sen. Obama's June 2006 speech against the withdrawal plan submitted then doesn't get him labelled a 'flip-flopper' by the RW machine. We all know they can and will spin ANYTHING against any Democrat.

He's not a statesman. he's just another slick politician Holding his finger up to the wind and taking a position with the least amount of risk. Don't get me wrong; I think he's a fine senator, but we need a true leader with a vision and pragmatic experience. There isn't a "War for Dummies" book that we can reference and solve the middle east problems. I don't see him leading on any issues, just merely emphasizing his geniality and his go along to get along attitude.

Obama is too young, too inexperienced, too untried by tragedy and adversity and too reminiscent of equivocating Slick Willy to me. We are facing perhaps the most difficult and complicated time in our country's history since the civil war and we need to do better than a slick, risk averse politician.

to say.

However, I think Obama offers great promise. Yet, it's hard to move on sometimes...

Jim McGovern's bill for example . . .

U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern introduces bill to end funding for Iraq War
Contact: Michael Mershon
(202) 225-6101

January 31, 2007

U.S. Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) today introduced legislation to cut off funding for the War in Iraq. Rep. McGovern’s bill, the “Safe and Orderly Withdrawal From Iraq Act,” (H.R. 746) gives the Bush Administration 6 months to complete the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

“In blood and treasure, the costs of the war in Iraq have been high,” Rep. McGovern said today on the House floor. “I believe that we must change the dynamic in Iraq. We must end our occupation, engage the countries in the region to help the Iraqis negotiate an end to the sectarian violence tearing their country apart, and let the Iraqi people determine their own destiny.”

“I firmly believe there is no military victory to be had in Iraq,” Rep. McGovern said. “So, I am convinced that that we must focus our efforts on the uniformed men and women we have put in harm’s way and bring them safely home.”

“There are no easy answers for the many questions facing Iraq’s future,” Rep. McGovern said. “There is no ‘perfect’ legislative answer for the situation in Iraq. But I do know that our troops don’t belong in the crossfire of a violent, Iraqi, sectarian war. The American people understand this. They are far ahead of the politicians in Washington. They want us to do what’s right. They want us to bring our troops home. And they want that to happen in a safe, orderly and responsible manner.”

In the last Congress, Rep. McGovern was among the first members of Congress to advocate using the “power of the purse” to force the Bush Administration to end the war in Iraq. A summary of the “Safe and Orderly Withdrawal From Iraq Act” is attached.



SUMMARY: THE SAFE AND ORDERLY WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ ACT

Rep. James P. McGovern (MA-3)

110th Congress

(Introduced January 31, 2007)



1) 30 days after enactment, the U.S. shall begin the safe and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq;

2) Withdrawal to be completed within 180 days;

3) Withdrawal will be paid for by already appropriated funds; and

4) Upon completion of the withdrawal, all funds for deployment of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq shall be terminated.


Exceptions include:


1) Military personnel assigned to the security of the U.S. Embassy in Iraq and U.S. diplomatic personnel; and

2) At the request of the Government of Iraq, members of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may remain in Iraq in order to complete reconstruction projects currently in process.


Other provisions of the legislation:


1) The number of troops may not be increased during the period of withdrawal;

2) Nothing in the bill restricts the locations outside of Iraq to which units and members of the Armed Forces may be redeployed, including nearby countries or Afghanistan/Operation Enduring Freedom;

3) U.S. facilities, bases, etc. will be transferred to the authority of the Government of Iraq as part of the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq;

4) The bill does not prohibit the Department of Defense from providing financial assistance and equipment to the Iraqi armed forces and/or to a multinational force, at the request of the Government of Iraq; and

5) Nothing in this act prohibits non-Defense Department funding for social and economic reconstruction.


In addition, out of concern for those Iraqi civilians who have worked with our Armed Forces while in Iraq:


1) Nothing in this act shall prohibit or restrict the authority of the President to arrange asylum or other means of protection to Iraqi citizens who might be endangered by the withdrawal because of their associations with U.S. military personnel (e.g. drivers, translators, administrative personnel, etc.).

Those sniveling about him not leading appear to back those that voted "yes" on the IWR that helped put us in Iraq in the first place by virtue of six little words that abdicated to Bush the sole authority to wage war.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary.

Also, using the Kerry-Feingold versus Levin-Reid amendments as a weapon is such epic bullshit since neither had a snowball's chance in hell of passing.

Same bullshit arguments, different day. Feh.

is claiming to not support a war, then being against a deadline for withdrawal before being for it.

to oppose the war right from the start like he did, we wouldn't even be talking about any of this right now. How ironic that all the rah rah supporters of Kerry always fail to mention that not only did Kerry help vote us into this mess, but he made the entire theme of his campaign a war theme. "I will seek out those terrorists and KILL them better than Bush."

Hypocrites! yeah.