Ah, but Hillary is in the same bind as Bush. It's tough to think about alternatives until you have admitted that you screwed up to begin with.
As long as you are twisting your mind around convoluted excuses to explain why an obviously disastrous decision was really right, you just can't think straight about alternatives.
This is true partly because you just can't admit that selecting from the only choices you have left amounts to picking a least bad option.
And, the longer you refuse to face the music, the worse the options become. Sadly, it is a reasonable test for someone with presidential aspirations.

Haven't we been already been spoon fed this long list of achievements? i.e. Usay is dead, Sadaam is captured, provisional government, real government, Zarquawi is dead? Why aren't they evidence that we can leave?

During one of the 2004 TV debates, Kerry talked about guaranteeing the Iraqis we don't have "designs" on their country, and pretty much nobody even mentioned it, even though it was an important difference between Bush's policy. We just got this MSM line that "Kerry says he'd do what Bush would do, only better."

Why not hold an Iraqi referendum on the continued presence of our troops? I can't see any disadvantages of a referendum versus the baseline "change nothing" policy we have now. In fact, it should be an obvious step: if we're in the business of promoting democracy, we're obligated to let Iraqis themselves decide whether our military should remain in their nation.

If the result was "yes," then our presence would have greater legitimacy. Of course, there would be complaints about a rigged vote, but I can't see how we could possibly become any less credible in the Arab world. If the result was "no," then we would have an immediate exit without all the negative connotations associated with "cutting and running" and "abandoning the Iraqis": after all, we'd be honoring the popular will. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's almost certainly the best we have now.

First we have to stop lying to ourselves. We lost Iraq years ago. The "democracy" is a sham. Women are less free than they were under Saddam. At best, we've created a good buddy for Iran (if you assume we leave) or using the Cheney definition of best we stay forever using Iraq as our colony and democracy be damned. That's the best case. WE LOST THE WAR. Deal with it.

The only way we change the course of this nation is to step outside the box of the neo-con Beinart delusion that we are exceptional and can forever "liberate" nations without kiling their civilians, our troops, or bankrupting our children's future.

I do not believe the Democratic Party is capable of getting outside the box. I predict yet another election of both parties lying to themselves and to the American people.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

The Democrats still haven't got the message yet, apparently.

Their Contract With America II - noticeably absent - the "I" word.  Send Rahm Emmanuel a messag like I did. If you received the DCCC "2006 New Directions Survey" fill it out. Tell him you aren't giving him a dime

 I-R-A-Q

 Looks like we have to spell it out for the Democrats whose leadership is once again frozen with Rovian fear.

Key Issue Battleground: Iraq and the Economy {Carville Greenberg}

The two dominant issues for voters who want change are Iraq and the economy. Wehave the opportunity to get both right and multiply the power of the change message.Iraq. The Iraq war remains the biggest doubt about Bush and the Republicans and thelargest contributor to the public’s mood for change. We know from another national surveyconducted for MoveOn.org that the more the war is debated, the weaker the standing is of theRepublican incumbent.3 The Democratic margin grows stronger after an extended debate onIraq.

3 Survey for MoveOn.org of 1,000 likely voters in 68 Congressional districts defined as swing, was conducted April11-19, 2006.

With 60 percent believing that it was not worth the cost and a strong majority feeling that it has actually made us less secure, the war is driving the desire for change and the frustration with Bush and the Republicans in Congress.4 Voters are actually divided on what are the next steps and whether troops should be withdrawn, but they are clearly angry at Bush for the choices he made and for America having such limited choices now.

The MoveOn.org survey shows that a challenger who is clear in his or her position runs better than one who is vague; the clear candidate gains on leadership qualities and seems like less of a politician. This challenger in the survey favored a re-deployment of U.S. forces within one year. We also found broad, though less intense support for a candidate who favored a redeployment by the end of 2007. (In the section below, we will note how to undercut the Republican attacks, including not supporting any precipitous withdrawal.)

It is important to note that voters supporting a Democratic candidate for Congress are mainly motivated by the Iraq war. It is an important issue impacting turnout in the 2006 elections.

Whatever policy position candidates choose to take, it is important that the candidates critique the choices Bush and the Republicans have made – including no-bid contracts for Halliburton instead of body armor for the troops – the strongest critique tested in this survey.

And not to guild the lily for the upcoming funeral (in a pig's eye!), here's another number from the latest NBC/WSJ poll

 54%

 

More likely to support candidate who proposes total withdrawal within the next 12 months from

I-R-A-Q

McCutchen

Our loopy president is now telling us that Iraq has its very own, independent, democratic government now.  One of the jobs of any country's government is to make decisions about accepting or refusing foreign troops on their soil.  So, it isn't the Iraq people who need to vote on our presence there, but the Iraqi government.  And, that government seems to have decided that insurgents who kill Americans deserve amnesty, so it is kinda obvious that they don't place much value on our presence there.

Of course, the problem is that Iraq really doesn't have an independent, democratic government.  They have an American backed, American approved government that looks to our "leaders" for instructions on what comes next.  And, of course those instructions haven't yet included our withdrawing our forces. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Those Democrats who try to have it both ways are morally wrong and politically stupid - Bob Shrum

 

One has to ask Hillary with Molly Ivins, What kind of courage does it take for goodness sake?

Iraq VP Asks Bush for Pullout Timeline

You beat me to it. The full quote is:

The time has come. The choice is clear. Either you
are for this war or you are against it. To try and have
it both ways is morally wrong and politically stupid.

Democratic Consultant, Bob Shrum

I wonder if there's a way to permanently  disable Bob Shrum's "Send" button.

"The fact is that try as we might, we are rather mediocre dirty warriors."

I'm not so sure. The School of the Americas was training torturers for years. The "advisors" we sent to El Salvador worked with the death squads - and these EXACT SAME ADVISORS were sent to Iraq a year or so ago to organize the Iraqi government counterinsurgency forces - which are now death squads engaged in sectarian warfare.

Justin Raimondo believes this was a deliberate policy decision - to terrorize the Iraqi population into submission to the occupation and the puppet government. I don't know how much evidence we have for that conclusion - except the results in Iraq.