so what is Duckworths position on the Iraq?

[LSK]

We all know Cegelis supports Murtha.

According to this tribune article:

Scott and Cegelis said they support setting a schedule for gradually withdrawing American troops.

"If we don't put the timetable on that, we cannot convince our allies or the Iraqis themselves that we intend to, in fact, leave their country," Cegelis said.

"From a military strategy point of view, timetables do not work," Duckworth responded. "You let the bad guys know when you're going to do what you're going to do."

She supports setting benchmarks such as removing American battalions when Iraqi battalions are trained to take over.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/northshore/chi-0601300121jan30,1,4581786.story?coll=chi-newslocalnorthshore-hed

That sounds a lot to me like the Republican line. Is that her official position?

[Inland]

1. Republican line is, no benchmarks.

IMO, there's the Bush admin line, which is trust us to know the time to leave when we see it, and the withdraw now line, and everything in between, which is to not withdraw now but set some sort of objective criteria to be met as a precondition to withdrawal.

She's no more republican than, say, Kerry. Calls for benchmarks from Congress have been explicity rejected.

[bluestateguy]

2. I'm very bothered that the party establishment just brushed Cegilis aside

I can't help but think that Duckworth is an astroturf candidate, recruited by the Georgetown coctail party wing of the Democratic Party.

Cegilis got 44% against an incumbent in a Republican leaning district in 2004. It should be her nomination.

[wndycty]

5. You can blame Emanuel all you want but. . .

. . .if you read today's Daily Herald it appears the Cegelis camp is having problems on its own. Lindy Scott has more cash on hand and that is not Rahm's fault, it will be spun as such but its not Rahm's fault.

[yurbud]

3. Iraq statement on her website and link

This sounds pretty good, but she was recruited by Rahm Immanuel to run against Cegalis, a progressive, so take it for what it's worth.

Iraq

First and foremost, I support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are performing heroically and deserve our gratitude and respect. We must jealously husband the use of our warriors. The most important currency that we expend in times of war is not dollars, but rather the lives of our sons and daughters. When the people of the United States allow us to send their loved ones in to harm's way to support the national interest, it is with the understanding that our policy makers will exercise good judgment, and not expend a single life needlessly.

I was proud to respond when my country called, and I have no regrets. But from a policy perspective, invading Iraq was a mistake. We should have focused our military resources instead on pursuing the terrorists who attacked our country and on capturing Osama Bin Laden. Not only did we misdirect our human and financial resources; we squandered an enormous amount of international goodwill that we acquired after 9/11.

The fact is we are in Iraq now and we can't simply pull up stakes and create a security vacuum. It wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and risk allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists.

Moving forward, we need to make it clear to the Iraqi people that we will leave, sooner rather than later. During my time in Iraq, whenever I had a chance, I talked with Iraqis. They told me that they were glad that Saddam Hussein was gone. Nevertheless, I came away from these conversations with the impression that while they often said what they thought we wanted to hear, they resented what they saw as the occupation of their country. We must understand that this resentment, fueled by insurgent propaganda, continues to grow and creates the conditions for insurgency, making U.S. troops and aid workers the targets.

To bring our troops home, we need a much more aggressive plan and timetable than the Bush Administration has offered for training the Iraqi police and armed forces, and transferring to the Iraqis the responsibility for securing their own country.

http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/community_issues.html

[yurbud]

4. I'd like to see candidates a little more honest: Bush went for oil and

Iraqis aren't stupid. He got our soldiers killed to make his rich friends richer.

We need to make any decisions about Iraq in light of those realities.

[dogman]

6. Sounds like the majority of elected Democrats to me.

As well as the majority of voters. If my memory serves me right even the unpopular Viet Nam War saw many "out now" candidates elected nationally. Nixon claimed to have a plan and it was years before he was finally forced to pull out. The majority of Americans want out, but don't agree on how to get there.