Start U.S. Iraq withdrawal in 4-6 months: Democrats

Reuters ^ | 12 November | staff

[shrinkermd]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats, who won majorities in the U.S. Congress in last week's elections, said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin in four to six months.

"The first order of business is to change the direction of Iraq policy," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), a Michigan Democrat who is expected to be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the new Congress.

Levin, on ABC's "This Week," said he hoped some Republicans would emerge to join Democrats and press the administration of President George W. Bush to tell the Iraqi government that U.S. presence was "not open-ended."

Bush has insisted that U.S. troops would not leave Iraq until the Iraqis were able to take over security for their country.

"We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months," Levin said.

Speaking on the same program, Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), a Delaware Democrat who is expected to head the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he supported Levin's proposal for a withdrawal.

[Max01]

No they won't. President Bush is Commader-In-Chief. He makes the policy decisions. As long as President Bush has troops deployed they would not dare to cut off funds. Congress will not cut off funds. That would be political suicide. dems know that. What you are hearing now is presidential politics for 08. Even if the Radical Left in Congress got funding cut off to Iraq, President Bush by Executive order could fund the troops. If ultimately the American sheeple want to cut & run then they will elect a Democrat or RHINO President with that view. Go back to the Presidential election of 1864. By that time the North was wary of war. Majority in Congress wanted to stop the war & give the South independence. President Lincoln as Comander-In-Chief said no way & policy continued. It would only change if the Democrat Copperhead would of won the Presidency in 1864 which he did not & the war continued until the South surrender in 1965. That's how are system works. Finally, the elections results are more historical averages & Republican scandal then a policy for cut & run in Iraq. The MSM & the Seditious LEFT want you to think that to further their chances in 08. My best advice is TO TURN OFF MSM & THAT INCLUDS FOX NEWS.

[italianquaker]

Your right polls dont matter but elections do and the results will be seen in Iraq shortly. Next time maybe there will be more voting and less whining

[smoketree]

Exactly. But worse than that they are doing it solely to regain power. Even though they sacrifice our security.
I can see that if they had a superior plan that is one thing but they have no plan except to get back in power.
But if they had a superior plan that means they know how to think and if they knew how to think they would not be undermining the CINC in time of war.

[muawiyah]

One of the reasons Rohlm and Hitler were able to build up their private militias and later armies so quickly was the feeling among the German veterans of WWI that they'd been stabbed in the back in the "peace process" following the war.

Since all these Dem politicians are students of history, they know that quite well. Makes me wonder why they are so ambitious to foster Bonapartism ~ do they think the Maximum Leader is going to kill them last perhaps?

[Fitzcarraldo]

We need to support Bush to keep these and more troops in Iraq at least until the end of his term.

[tob2]

"Elections have consequences. The RATS are determined to lose this war. Apparently, they will succeed."

I've been sick to my stomach over the Democrats winning both House and Senate, and for this very reason.

[italianquaker]

your 100 pct right thats why i dont want my children fighting under the 110th congress

[drsbb]

Hello, Everyone:

I agree with the points put forward in the first few responses on this thread. In essence one Senator may propose, but it will take more than that to dispose. It is going to be real interesting to watch how the Democrats handle themselves on Iraq. They now have their hands on a loaded gun, but they're in the dark about where it's pointing.

I don't dispute the worry and anger other people express in their responses. Things could get a lot worse.

[muawiyah]

Hopefully all the MSM will be present.

[Earthdweller]

The most interesting thing about all this is that the US planned to withdrawal from day one. We never planned on being a governing occupier of Iraq. The Dems voted for this war with the same knowledge that Bush and the rest of the world had. This is Dem spin to please their moonbat base.

My main concern is that our troops come home to a victory. If the Dems turn this into another Vietnam type abrupt withdrawal where massacres of thousands of Iraqis occur and AQ takes over in Iraq...they will not win in 2008.

But more importantly...an Islamofascist war will break out in the ME like we have never seen before with the terrorists emboldened.

[girlangler]

Before long we will be witnessing some horrible things on TV. The complete destruction of Iraq, and its takeover by a nuclear armed Iran.

Israel's many enemies will be emboldened to attack, and the USA will likely experience more attacks. The dims have given our enemies the go ahead to do what they want, and when they (dims) don't bow down to them, they'll come after us again here in the US, just like they did with the spineless leaders in Spain.

The bright spot in all this is that after all this happens the American people will NEVER again trust these spineless, appeasing dims with national security again.

[Kaslin]

They need 60 votes to make it a bill, and they won't get it. I bet they regret ever coming up with that stupid rule

[cookcounty]

"They have absolutely no vote on moving the military around or foreign policy.
Those are solely the duty of the CINC.
I don't know what they are thinking."

They're thinking that Bush-bashing worked for them in this cycle, so why not more of it for 2008?

[KJC1]

Great (and sad) tagline.

[EndWelfareToday]

Levin, on ABC's "This Week," said he hoped some Republicans would emerge to join Democrats and press the administration of President George W. Bush to surrender.

"We're hoping that Bush will implement Bill Clinton's Vietnam policies and cut and run like true cowards do." < /truthful sarcasm >

[Mr Rogers]

I hope and pray GWB will tell these lizards to go to hell!

They don't have the votes to override a veto.

[Doe Eyes]

My main concern is that our troops come home to a victory.

Can you define what a victory will be?

[Cedric]

This is heaven sent! This is a fight Bush should relish and would win. But, will he fight?

[RandallFlagg]

100% correct. Some people on FR needs to read the US Constitution and see who is the CIC of the armed forces and who has 90% of power on foreign policies issues.

But the fact that they have the ability to say such a thing will happen to the enemedia, who will then echo it in breathless joy to the enemy, will tell the enemy that they only need to withdrawl and regroup.
Then they will return with an invigoration and fury that we've never seen from them before.
Even mentioning this makes them stronger, encourages their morale, and increases their number.
President Bush can keep our heroes there for years, and completely disregard this democrat announcement. It won't matter to the enemy.
They'll just leave and wait now.

[ilgipper]

They can't cut off funding in 2007, that budget and appropriations are in place now.