next Dem to call for "withdrawal without conditions" ??

[welshTerrier2]

many prominent Democrats have offered ideas about what the US should do about Iraq ... Congressman Murtha said that the American people are "way ahead of the Congress" on this issue ...

Statements from Clark, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry and Warner all retain some flavor of "what we need to do to succeed" ... Kerry's plan, which specifically addresses withdrawal, makes withdrawal contingent on events in Iraq and the achievement of "benchmarks" that he stated bush should define ...

At this point, to the best of my knowledge, the ONLY plans that call for complete US withdrawal from Iraq WITHOUT CONTINGENCIES are the ones offered by Congressman Murtha and Congressman McGovern.

Which of the following prominent Democrats, if any, do you think will be the next person to offer a withdrawal plan WITHOUT CONTINGENCIES? i keep hearing speculation that some Democrats are "leaning" towards making this decision but i haven't seen any evidence to support these conclusions ...

please discuss your answer in terms of:
1. why you think this Democrat is leaning towards calling for an unconditional end to the war
2. what impact on the national dialog it would have if one of the above Democrats called to end the war without conditions
3. please discuss your thoughts about the political impact on their campaigns, should they decide to run in 2008, and on the Democratic Party's prospects in next year's midterms ... thanks ...

(selected Democrats are listed alphabetically)

[StopThief]

1. Cynthia McKinney

nfm

[blm]

2. You are misstating Murtha's plan. He said it COULD be 6mths to redeploy

near Iraq but only if safety conditions allowed.

I also think it's odd that you claim that Kerry wants Bush to determine the benchmarks when he said that the first benchmark would be Dec 15 election and then pull out 20,000 troops and then every time groups of troops are trained (by the many countries who offered) we could pull out more troops. Kerry also wants us to hand over the permanent bases, use Iraqi copanies for reconstruction instead of American corporations, and take American troops off the streets and let Iraqis police their streets and homes. Kerry thinks its important to use these stepped up political measures so we can draw down our troops more safely.

Both Murtha and Kerry have stated that military action will not succeed and only political success can be achieved at this point. No way would Bush ever offer that truth.

[welshTerrier2]

5. i think you're distorting Murtha's intent and Kerry's statement

first of all, Murtha used the term "immediate redeployment" ... he certainly didn't put his emphasis on the idea that we COULD have the troops out in 6 months ... he said that we SHOULD be able to have troop redeployment COMPLETED within in 6 months ... but he used the words "immediate redeployment" and said that the Iraqi government should be put on notice BEFORE the December elections that we intend to leave ... and yes, you're correct, troop safety is a condition ... but that is the ONLY contingency ... also, let's emphasize his point that he's talking about the safety of US forces; not a vaguer term of "safety conditions" ... safety of the Iraqi government or Iraqi troops or even Iraqi civilians is not a contingency in Murtha's plan ... let's be clear on this point ...

secondly, and let's look at Kerry's exact words, i don't agree that Kerry has determined the benchmarks to be used ... and i still don't think you've answered the question about whether Kerry's plan differs significantly, at least as it relates to withdrawal, from Murtha's plan ... as you stated, the ONLY contingency for withdrawal in Murtha's plan is the safety of the troops ... Kerry's plan starts with 20,000, (as i said: tied to events in Iraq) and is 100% CONTINGENT on the achievement of benchmarks ... if the benchmarks are not met, Kerry's plan is OPEN ENDED ... it might take the 12 - 15 months he hopes for and it might take much longer ... that's a huge difference ...

so, what, exactly did Kerry say about this issue (i.e. the issue of withdrawing troops from Iraq) ... again, the question we're discussing now is whether a. Kerry's plan is based on CONTINGENCIES (i.e. the occurrence of certain events) and b. whether Kerry's plan called on bush to define the benchmarks rather than having Kerry define them himself ... here's what Kerry said (bolding and size added to focus on the discussion at hand):

To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays.

The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn.

Kerry's "plan" is to have bush make the plan ... and Kerry's plan is based on yet-to-be-defined contingencies ...

and btw, i also have issues with Murtha's plan ... and if you want to hear me say that there are similarities to Kerry's plan, fine ... there are similarities ... but the differences on the withdrawal issue make the plans "vastly different" ...

[blm]

7. It is not. Kerry's plan was steps for Bush to follow just like Murtha's

plans were steps for Bush to follow. They KNOW Bush won't put up a plan for withdrawal immediately. The challenge to Bush is part of the process. Like Kucinich demanding the WH immediately send all documents regarding prewar intel. You know it's not going to happen but the process demands you ask for the cooperation.

But see what you want to see.

BTW...I heard Murtha with my own ears state that it's conceivable that it could be within 6months but he wasn't specific.

And you have yet to explain how redeploy to the borders within 6months helps prevent chaos better than Kerry's method. The Iraqi troop training by all those nations in Kerry's plan would require more than 6 months but is more likely to prevent chaos.

[welshTerrier2]

8. "But see what you want to see."

ok ... message received ...

[karynnj]

3. Murtha's actually does have a major contingency

He call for Redeploymant out of Iraq but in the area in case they need to go back in. Not sure this is a plus

[welshTerrier2]

6. it's not a plus ...

i don't like his "over the horizon" provision either ... but that is not a contingency on withdrawing all American troops from Iraq ... in fact, he emphasized that we should withdraw them not just for their safety but also because he believes it could put pressure on the Sunnis to join the political process ... his call for unconditional (i.e. beyond the obvious safety of the troops) withdrawal is an integral part of his plan ...

[Clarkie1]

4. Withdrawing completely from Iraq does not mean the war will end.

In fact, it is likely to become a regional conflagration unless this issue is approached in the right way.

[Donna Zen]

9. Prediction

bush, who in the middle of a hissy-fit will withdraw the troops. All of these ideas, and we should at least give credit to those who are trying to find a way out, will come to naught. Iraq will experience trouble, some of it unforeseen, and some of what is predicted to happen, will not. Nevertheless, bush will start to draw down troops sooner than later, and the MSM will call him a success beyond all measure.

Of course, just as with Murtha proposal, we will not be out of Iraq nor will the Gulf be stable. But that won't matter...the rug is large when there's plenty of money. The troops levels will be drawn down enough to satisfy America. Those 60,000 or so at our new police station will be out of mind.

This guy has some advice I found interesting.

Getting Out: Responsible Withdrawal

As a result, given the choice between “staying the course” and an immediate U.S. withdrawal, the latter is clearly the least bad option.

However, there may be other options for the anti-war movement to consider, such as calling on the U.S. government to: 1) immediately end offensive military operations by U.S. forces; 2) renounce any long-term military presence in Iraq; 3) enter into negotiations with the more moderate elements of the insurgency; 4) replace U.S. and British forces with peacekeeping forces from Arab and other Islamic countries; 5) fund a generous economic redevelopment package under United Nations supervision; and 6) support a mechanism for strict international human rights monitoring and other means to enhance the credibility of the Iraqi government and its ability to govern effectively.

snip...

Some in the anti-war movement have downplayed the seriousness of this scenario, citing the grossly exaggerated horror stories and supposed threats to U.S. national security and world peace that the U.S. government claimed would result from a victory by the Communist-led National Liberation Front in Vietnam if the United States did not continue prosecuting the war.

Unlike Vietnam, however, the Iraqi opposition is not unified. As a result, the toppling of the Baghdad regime will not likely bring peace, but continued violence and disorder. The insurgents also include some decidedly nasty elements that are genuinely fascistic in orientation. In the power struggle that would follow a hypothetical overthrow of the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad, it is quite possible that the new government would become dominated by militant jihadists, Saddam’s wing of the Ba’ath party, or other elements far worse than those currently in power or likely to be in power following next month’s election.

Note: We all want out. Some of us trust our personal opinions to a higher degree and have settled on fixed idea. Others of us, either because we believe that we don't know everything, or because we know that bush will do whatever he wants to do, continue to listen and read and try in everyway we can to apply pressure to end this damn war. None of this makes us bad people.

I cannot stomach those who got us into this war, I reserve my fire for them, not the people who are trying to get us out of this war.

[Mass]

10. If it happens, it will be in the House

Clark, Kerry, and Edwards are all on the same idea (with different variants) that the problem should be fixed diplomatically before ALL the troops are withdrawn. I am not going to do into the details. I prefer Kerry's plan, but its big problem is that it is contingent on Bush doing the right thing. This is not going to happen.

I like the idea of an unconditional plan, however, I have a big issue with Murtha (the same you do). Who will decide if the troops have to re intervene. Bush? If this is the case, we are not in a better position. This said, this is probably a plan that the military and particularly the marines will like because it preserves their role while helping the troops.

I don't know the details of McGovern's plan, but if it is an unconditional withdrawal plan without keeping the troops over there and with search for an international solution, I am all for it.

This said, the fact that most Democrats and a few Republicans are speaking out about bringing the troops home one way or another is a BIG PROGRESS compared to just a few months ago when many were not ready to speak about that at all. Given that the Democrats at this point are not in a condition to implement a solution, the best thing to do is to encourage anybody that will come out and understand that the troops should be withdrawn at relatively short term (even if we would not support it if it was implemented), so that the GOP understands that the movement is toward withdrawal and influence * to go in this direction.

[welshTerrier2]

11. McGovern's Plan: House Bill 4232

here's a link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4232: