Counter argument to the 'don't set a date for surrender in Iraq' nonsense used by Republicans

Of COURSE we should set a date to end our commitment. And OF COURSE it would not be a "dangerous signal to the enemy." Here is why:

Look, nobody with half a brain thinks that anything Congress passes is set in stone. What Congress does it can undo -- happens all the time.

But forcing Bush to get focused -- requiring him set some goals and produce some progress by a set date and using the threat of defunding to enforce it -- is a fine idea. If Bush could show actual progress (and in doing so, get the American people behind the war once again), he'd have no problem getting more time and money from Congress.

But it defies common sense to suggest that the American taxpayer should continue to bankroll a failed, aimless policy indefinitely. and it is immoral to expect even one more soldier to fight a war with no plan for victory -- or even a definition of victory.

No patriotic American wants to see the U.S. bankrupted and humiliated because our president won't cut or losses and refuses to create a plan.

they sure as hell can wait out a 6 month surge.

long enough! Screw the fucking cons and their surrender bullshit! Didn't they say Mission Accomplished years ago?

I think it lasted 114 years...