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.

[Bassfan]

Remember what Lieberman said. He said he wouldn't rule out becoming a Republican if the Dems went off the deep end. Even when pressed, he said he wouldn't rule it out. He just said "I hope it doesn't come to that".

Unlike everyone else who ran on war issues, Lieberman ran on CONTINUING THE WAR, not on ending it.

[YdontUleaveLibs]

So Lieberman will be Republican by the end of January.

[Bassfan]

So Lieberman will be Republican by the end of January.

LOL!

[publana]

Thank you to those of you morons who either stayed home or voted democrat/independent. You are worse than any liberal in my book.

[Holicheese]

Why a phased withdrawl? I say just fly in the transports and get every last guy and piece of equipment out over the weekend.
Whats with this namby pamby stuff.

[TeleStraightShooter]

Yes it's obvious that despite shifting the conversation from current constitutional law to fictional future constitutional law you were advocating "the President can't command the armed forces without the funds to do so".

Constitutionally speaking the POTUS will always command the armed forces with or without a congressional blessing.

That said, I do believe you were advocating the legislative branch can restrict how the executive branch defends our Republic.

Was the Boland amendment ruled constitutional?, or was it, along with the Troung case on FISA powers, ruled to be legislative overreach of constitutional powers?

[juliej]

Major Dope Carl Levin said something this a.m. about removing the troops within four months. The jihadists are overjoyed!

[TampaDude]

CUT

RUN

REPEAT

[ErieGeno]

especially senators with a 49-49-2 slim majority.

As I read the rules, two parties are tied and one has only two seats!

WIKIPEDIA definition of United States Senate: The party with a majority of seats is known as the majority party; if two or more parties in opposition are tied, the Vice President's affiliation determines which party is the majority party. The next-largest party is known as the minority party. The President pro tempore, committee chairmen, and some other officials are generally from the majority party; they have counterparts (for instance, the "ranking members" of committees) in the minority party. Independents and members of third parties are not considered in determining the majority party.

Note that this definition does not say that caucus members are counted but 'party' members are counted and that 'independents' and 'members of third parties' are not considered? Does that not mean that the VP should determine the 'majority' with a 49-49-2 party make-up?

[qman]

It appears you are correct, that it looks that way presently, but things change. Governments Change. The Olmert government is not up to the job, it proved that with it's fleckles inept attack on Hamas last summer, and I believe that it can not stand much longer. Thier approval rating are in the tank and they will have new elections, i predict in the early spring.

Bush can no longer make a ligitimate arguement that the UN could work.
He lost the Congress because he either could not end the carnage in Iraq or he could not effectively explain it's ligitimate continueation.
Isreal has proven they are up to the chalenge when push come to shove, just not lately.
Let me only say I respect your opinion, and respectfully disagree, but if you are infact correct "May God Help Us All' for we are indeed headed for WWIII and it will be a nuclear conflagration that few will survive.

[JasonC]

The Israeli right thought Olmert would fall right after the war, but he didn't. Netanyahu gets it, but he is as powerless as I am. The Israeli people had a choice quite recently and picked make-believe. As for Israel in the past, you could say the same of the US in the past, but our electorate just picked make-believe as well. No one could ever make an argument that the UN is effective, without every sensible person laughing in their face, at any rate. The UN's last effective action was under Harry Truman.

Republicans lost this election because they were very dumb politically over the last 2 years, and because they had not already delivered victory and an end of Iraq. Since the objective costs and dangers in Iraq are trivial, this was not due to any real danger. It is simple politically effective to peddle unreality to democratic electorates.

We are not headed for what we are actually in, yes it is going to become nuclear before it is over, but plenty will survive it.