Posted on 06/21/2006 11:10:04 AM PDT by Graybeard58
WASHINGTON -- Two potential 2008 presidential candidates appealed Tuesday for the Senate to support their call to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq "by a hard and fast deadline," a position putting them at odds with most of their fellow Democrats.
"Our country desperately needs a new vision for strengthening our national security, and it starts by redeploying U.S. forces out of Iraq," Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin wrote in an e-mail sent to 3 million people nationwide.
"It's time for every member of the Senate to send an important message that we must change course," the senators wrote, imploring recipients to "take a stand against the senseless 'stay the course' Bush policy" and tell their senators to vote with the two Democrats.
In what promises to be a highly partisan election-year showdown Wednesday, the GOP-controlled Senate plans to take up the proposal by Kerry and Feingold that would require the Bush administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007.
Redeployment would begin immediately, under the proposal.
At least six other Democrats have publicly or privately indicated support for that position in recent days. The Senate will vote on the proposal by week's end.
The Senate also will consider, and eventually vote on, a separate nonbinding resolution that has the backing of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and, his aides say, a majority of Democrats.
It would call for -- but not require -- the administration to begin "a phased redeployment of U.S. forces" this year, and would not set a firm deadline by which time all forces must be out of the war zone.
Seeking support, Democratic sponsors of both proposals pitched their positions during the party's weekly policy luncheon on Tuesday. However, neither proposal is expected to win enough votes to be attached as an amendment to an annual military measure pending in the Senate.
Both proposals, nonetheless, are drawing ridicule from Republicans, who lumped Democrats into two groups -- what they called the "cut and run" crowd backing the Kerry-Feingold position and the "cut and jog" folks supporting the other proposal.
"We cannot retreat. We cannot surrender. We cannot go wobbly. The price is far too high," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Tuesday, suggesting Democrats want to do just that.
Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, disputed the GOP characterization of the resolution that would call for U.S. troops to start leaving Iraq this year.
"It's not a cut-and-run strategy. It does not set a fixed timetable or an arbitrary deadline for the redeployment of our troops," he said. "We believe it represents where a majority of our caucus is."
With midterm elections less than five months away, Republicans are working to highlight divisions in the Democratic Party on Iraq as they seek to hang onto control of the House and Senate when polls show the public favoring a power shift to Democrats.
A week ago, the GOP-controlled Senate and House engineered back-to-back votes on Iraq that forced lawmakers in both parties to go on record on the war that polls show most Americans no longer support amid a rising U.S. death toll and a soaring price tag. In the end, both chambers of Congress soundly rejected timetables for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq.
Led by Levin, Senate Democrats have spent the past week writing a proposal on Iraq that could get wide support among their rank and file. At the same time, Kerry and Feingold announced they would press their own separate proposals calling for a quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
A somewhat curious pairing, the two joined forces -- and offered one amendment -- after failing in private meetings to convince fellow Democrats that the so-called "consensus" proposal should include what they call "a date certain" for all U.S. forces to have left Iraq.
Feingold first proposed withdrawing from Iraq in a speech last summer, but his position has been overshadowed by Kerry, who has a stronger national profile because of his status as the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee.
Both are positioning for possible presidential runs in 2008, and their positions on Iraq play well with the liberal wing of the party -- the Democratic faithful who will vote for the next Democratic presidential nominee.
so what's the difference between the Frist\Levin dog & pony show
and Pres. Bush's "Iraqis stand up, we stand down ?
"When the primaries are over, she will then go with a timetable."
NEVER going to happen. You can save this, quote me on that and if I am wrong, I will pop for a case of your favorite beverage.
She will not get the nomination. She can't even win in the national polls against "an un-named Republican". All the pollls I have seen have the majority in the "never vote for her" column. The "abortion lobby" will vote Democrat, regardless of who's running. Any Dem has that locked up. Hillary has no might in a national election. She is not held in very high esteem between the coasts at all.
My opinion.
Is this for real?
We will 'redeploy' U.S. forces HOME when we WIN!
Okay, you got me. I did not read the last line. Good one.
"Feingold Cut & Run" Ping!
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
If she gets past the primarys she will be dangerous as hell running as a centerist. She isn't a centerist but she looks very good compared the rest of the party.
But it isn't a cut and run policy and they support the troops.
When the dems start doing this, why do I always envision that character in Madagascar saying, "Lets go see the pansies." hehehe
It's too bad their parents didn't practice early pull out.
Last line: This record is fake but accurate.
Only a dimwit liberal would say we must change course when we are winning. Horrible events do not change that fact.
Liberals are stupid.
Can John Forbes Kerry (he served in Viet Nam, by the way) name another instance where a nation has announced that it was pulling its troops out of a war by a specific date? Doing so would give certain advantages to the enemy, wouldn't it? Has the US ever done this - Viet Nam, Korea, WWI, WWII, etc. Has any other nation ever done it?
Sorry...I didn't see post #7.
Or, how about pulling out of Bosnia. That MUST be a failure since we are still there.
How about giving up on the war on drugs? After all, that MUST be a failure since we have been at it for what, 25 years??
Or how about forgetting the war on poverty? After all, we have been at that for 40 years??
Reminds me of the old SNL skit:
Weekend Update has just learned that Fidel Castro is pulling out of Angola.
The frustrated Angola could not be reached for comment.
What we need is the democrats to pull out of congress. Talk about a major morale boost!
Ultimately, yes. But from their perspective, not really. I think this and the Murtha crap are classic trial balloons to check the public's reaction and see just how anti-war the public is. If the polls following such statements aren't favorable, such statements will disappear and be replaced by mealy-mouthed, Clinton-esque "triangulation".
In any event, they know such a pull-out isn't ever going to happen anyway, so they are hermetically sealed off from any consequences of their "idea" but get to score the political points if it catches on, while very few will remember or care about these comments after Labor Day if it doesn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.