[A CA Guy]

You go out too soon without properly trained people to keep the peace there and there will be slaughtering of Iraqi citizens.

The left had also broken the will of the American people as they try to do now in Nam. As you know, those that stood with America in Nam were pretty much abandoned and they were slaughtered.

200k troops of Iraq are trained to some level of competence, when they have the ability to make a go of handling themselves, we go. Or if we are asked to leave earlier by an Iraqi President to leave, we go sooner.

[jude24]

200k troops of Iraq are trained to some level of competence, when they have the ability to make a go of handling themselves, we go. Or if we are asked to leave earlier by an Iraqi President to leave, we go sooner.

A reasonable exit strategy. Beats the heck out of the "we're done when we're done" line Bush gives.

The problem is that our very presence is fueling the insurgency. Every day, more insurgants (not all of whom are immigrants) are created out of anger at our continued presence there. There comes a point in time when the Iraqi government has a better shot without us there. That's not "cutting and running." That's a recognition that we can't do everything.

Murtha's argument - which I have tried to argue for him just now - has merit as I see it. He deserves to be listened to, and not just shouted down by some chicken-hawk. No one has the right to call him a coward, even if he thinks the time has come for us to leave Iraq.