Bush has limited the military far more than any deadline. By killing or wounding a significant portion of its operational strength, for wearing out their equipment, for not allowing them rest between deployments.

Our military is more limited than it has ever been.... because of Bush.

These two, and you too...

More to the point.  You Israel-can-do-no-wrong Middle East bent offered up under various pretentious principles is just about as clever as Bush's.

Many of us find you offensive. 

Both of these statements are exagerations.

"...because the overwhelming majority of people..."

Even your own skewed polls show a miniscule majority depending on how you word it.

"...That's how and why the election was won...." Its not hard to remember 5 months ago, but every time anybody came forward to say anything definitive about a total and imminent pullout, the entire democratic party would dogpile on top of them to shut up until the election was over. On the other hand, talking about lobbyists in black hats and a gay congressman that sent messages to younger men, those talking points were encouraged constantly. It was the Seinfeld election based on a "campaign about nothing".

If the Democrats thought that as you say the "overwhelming" majority wanted a total and prompt pullout, congressmen would be over there and personally loading vehicles and packing bags with their personal photographers in tow. Since it is not, they are trying to straddle both sides which is the point of the article. Nobody on the left or right is buying it.

Its not hard to remember 5 months ago, but every time anybody came forward to say anything definitive about a total and imminent pullout, the entire democratic party would dogpile on top of them to shut up until the election was over.

Perhaps. But since the current bill puts forward nothing like a total and immediate pullout, and since the post by cscs you're responding to mentions nothing about a total and immediate pullout, I'm not sure what relevance this point has.

> >congressmen would be over there and personally loading vehicles and packing bags with their personal photographers in tow.

Obviously congressmen would only go if they had the same security St John of McCain had recently in his recent "Come On in The Water's Lovely Apart From The Sharks" walkabout.

Hmm, 435 Congressmen + 100 senators; 100 armed soldiers for each, 2 blackhawks and 2 apaches for each, 100+ Iraqi intelligence assets in the crowd every time....

Doable!!

TJKING has over and again proven nothing he says has relevance.

Best to ignore the comments.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

"...More so when the Chief Executive is an inadequate who just wants to continue As Is until he can offload responsibility onto whatever poor bastard (D) wins in 2008...."

Hmmm...mysterious how they picked March 2008 for the end of the timeline for pullout, right around the end of the primary season, I wonder why?

There's a joke involving natural birth control in there somewhere....

TJ, a few days ago in another thread, you jumped all over people for not being precise with language ("Words mean something," you wrote). But here you have injected the words "total and imminent pullout" into cscs's post and then accused her/him of exaggeration!

Many of us here are Democrats, and 5 months ago some of us were advocating totally and imminently pulling out, or drawing down, or otherwise ending the occupation. And no one dogpiled us. There were and are differences of opinion about how fast or precipitous the end of the occupation should be, but I don't see that as a problem, do you? Iraq is a complicated situation, and as a nation we are torn about it.

What do Democrats stand for? Different things, but with very few exceptions we are for ending the occupation. What do Republicans stand for? They are all over the map. Chuck Hegel stands for very different things than John McCain. If this is a problem for Democrats why isn't it also a problem for Republicans?

Oh, dry up!

It's also a year away. What timing would make you unsuspicious? Can't think of an answer? Didn't expect one.

Jan Knaus

Him. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Ned, my argument about precise language was that someone was comparing US troops to the worst genocidal atrocities of WWII. In this case I am refering to efforts to be intentionally vague by Democratic leaders. The Etzioni article was conveying the same about vague communication.

Addressing your point about my response to cscs:

"...Democrats in Congress are setting a timetable to get us out of Iraq because the overwhelming majority of people in our country want the Democrats in Congress to set a timetable to get us out of Iraq...."

When my response used the term "imminent and total", it was an attempt to characterize the truth behind the vagueness in many of these types of statements (not cscs in particular). Your point is well taken and you are right, He did not use those words and I will retract my use of those words.

I still contend as Etzioni does that the words "timetable" have meaning. Timetable is not a recommendation, it is the declaration of the actions that Democrats are initiating. The Chicago Sun referred to it as a line in the sand which means this is the beginning of a series of events that will escalate and eventually culminate in defunding if the President does not comply by the stated date.

Democrats tend to think that threats exist in a vacuum. A threat is a hostile action that is a subset of a conflict that will include escalation based on the actions of all parties. If the Democrats want to pretend that the timeline does not mean defund because they are counting on Bush giving in, that is insincere. He won't give in, so timetable means defund. Immediate and total? When someone says "get us out of Iraq" or "bring our troops home", they mean all troops. If not they should say bring "some" home.

If someone uses those phrases, they don't mean bring them home in 10 years they mean now. If they are specific about a final date at which the last helicopter exits Iraqi air space, and that date is March 2008, that means the pullout is "Immediate or imminent". That means troops that are still en route for the increasingly successful Surge must turn around and come home, today. Experts say heavy equipment would begin to ship in a month or two. The pullout would proceed over the next 8 or 9 months until all Americans would be out of Iraq. Then they are on their own. The current use of the term timetable is a catchphrase for "immediate and total pullout" beginning now or it is an intentional attempt to be vague. I will contend that it is an intentional attempt to be vague.

Nearly all of the Democrat leadership are quick to claim, "I am not for cutting off funds". All of the candidates (except Kucinich) quietly claim that they want a "limited presence in Iraq after the pullout. We all know that can mean anything...actually it can mean anything but a "total" pullout.

Sen Harry Reid (D-NV) :

“…I don’t think anyone can find a war that this country was engaged in where the funds were cut off. No one is talking about cutting off the funds.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) :

“I do not support cutting funding for American troops.”

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) :

“We’re not going to cut off funding to the troops … no one wants to do that.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) :

“I don’t know of any senator who would cut off funds for troops in the field.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) :

“I don’t think we should be pulling back any funds.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):

“Yes, the congress could cut off the funds. But the congress will not do that because our men and women are in harm’s way.”

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) :

“U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson ( D-FL ) today made clear his intention to oppose measures he sees as possibly undermining U.S. troops, like cutting funds… […] Nelson said today he’ll oppose efforts to cut off funding.”

My point is the Netroots are being played. Etzioni is saying the same thing and he gets hostility from the folks here. The Democrats are being intentionally wishy washy, because they fear more for their political viability than they do for the anti-war left that wants them to get started now and start the pullout ASAP.

Etzioni, is saying the left and right both see through this shell game. Every time Code Pink protests Hillary for not starting the pullout, the left imagines that the rest of us don't see it.

"...Many of us here are Democrats, and 5 months ago some of us were advocating totally and imminently pulling out, or drawing down, or otherwise ending the occupation. And no one dogpiled us...."

There isn't any mainstream middle of the road Americans here, so who would care? The fact that the Democratic candidates are all running to the right of the opinions voiced here is proof of that. Harold Ford came on yesterday for the DLC and he was beaten to a pulp.

"...There were and are differences of opinion about how fast or precipitous the end of the occupation should be, but I don't see that as a problem, do you?..."

Ned, I think you are fair and it is true both parties have divisions, but I oppose the pullout and I think it is a bad idea. I think it will have negative consequences that are being ignored. I do not fault anyone in either party for having differences. I just want clarity. If someone wants to bring "all" of the troops home and to start the pullout ASAP, then say it. If they refuse to address the potential negative consequences, then that is irresponsible.

If they are able to succeed in a pullout within the year and the whole region blows up, I intend to use their words against them. If Al Qaeda moves in and sets up a base in Iraq and starts planning 911s against America, I plan on saying I told you so. If our friends stop trusting our committments and alliances, I plan on holding Democrats responsible. If a Million people die in the next couple of years in the bloodbath that would follow, I expect the American people to remember who caused it, the Democrats. Hillary knows that and so does Obama. The left is demanding clarity from their leaders and the right is too. We have shown successes against Al-Qaeda and Iraq continues to limit their abilities.

The candidates have to live with the possibility that events beyond their control can put them in positions that will be hard to defend if they follow the total and immediate pullout route. Such as, heaven forbid, Victory.

"...What do Republicans stand for? They are all over the map. Chuck Hegel stands for very different things than John McCain..."

I wouldn't say they are all over the map, but yes, we have some nutjobs like Hegel whose dreams of the oval office have turned him into the Zell Miller of our party.

Ned, you are right, I should have been more clear in my use of those words. My point is both the left and right know that the "catchphrases" like "timetable" is just an attempt to be vague in the face of criticism from both sides. The left is just as loud as anybody in demanding clarity and they are right to do so.

"...it is based on general goals tied to benchmarks..."

I'm not sure what that means. What is a general goal tied to a benchmark? If what they did is so vague and innocuous and benign, why even vote on it? Why not just walk up to a microphone and say,

"Hey, it would great if an unspecified number of our soldiers were home by next March, No pressure, just when you get around to it"

This is a stepping stone tied to a line in the sand wrapped in a chip on the shoulder intended to ramp up a domino effect of a rapidfire series of steps to defund the troops.

So telling you to leave is the same as censoring you?

My, how faint-hearted and fragile you are.

Dissent Protects Democracy.