Good goobers, yes. It's about damned time for the presumptive "leaders" of the party use their face-time with the media toi move this along. Dodd doesn't get air time; Edwards isn't getting much (or as much as he deserves). Obama and Clinton need to step up. We can argue about the pace of withdrawal, but there's got to be some form of meaningful timetable.

MichaelCaine, I understand your point, but what Edwards is saying (I think) is that the beginning and end should be very close together. I don't expect this view to carry the day, but it's a hell of a lot better to start there than from where Harry Reid is, announcing he is "ready to compromise" which can be translated "just tell us what you want, Mr. President".

This is plain political pandering. They all want to end the war, in some form of fashion, but pretending that one can do so is not only naive, but dangerous close to be reckless. Sure it SOUNDS like a good idea, until you realize that the Pentagon doesn't even have a PLAN to withdraw from Iraq. I like John, but his comments (and Dodd's) really only muddy the water further.

Sorry guys, I like Edwards, but this is just silly.

Attacking Obama for saying he wants to "begin to end the war" when he should just have said "end the war" is ridiculous since they are literally the same thing.

Bringing home troops today is a magical thought, but realistically even 30,000 a month is going to be tough.

By using the word "immediately," Edwards has confirmed he is absolutely 100% pandering here and it's not a serious position.

I tried to type this message without beginning to type it. I couldn't do it. No matter where I started, I had to start somewhere. We all know that Edwards is impatient to see the war and occupation that he cosponsored end, but suspending the temporal order of nature is beyond even Obama's capabilities.

Haven't really followed Obama much (not since he said he'd vote for the Scalito filibuster, but it was dumb and wouldn't work; that's when he lost me). Has he (or Hillary, for that matter) come out and said Congress needs "to use every tool available to them, including a filibuster, to force the president to change course. Congress must stand firm and say: No timetable, no funding. No excuses?"

Not that they need a filibuster, of course. All they need to do is let dubya keep vetoing appropriations bills with real timetables for withdrawal. That, of course, will require real spine.

I am not a military expert, but it seems to me it will take a certain amount of time to move all our troops and equipment out of Iraq. Obama is calling for an end to the war -- and actions to start that now. I don't know about this 1-2 brigades a month, but at least it is a realistic proposal to get us going and out of there.

What is Edwards saying? Our troops should drop everything and bolt for the Iraqi borders tomorrow?

Keith wrote: "This is plain political pandering. They all want to end the war, in some form of fashion, but pretending that one can do so is not only naive, but dangerous close to be reckless. Sure it SOUNDS like a good idea, until you realize that the Pentagon doesn't even have a PLAN to withdraw from Iraq. I like John, but his comments (and Dodd's) really only muddy the water further."

Keith, buddy, you just made Edwards' argument better than he could. The Pentagon doesn't even have a PLAN to withdraw. RIGHT! And they will never have a plan to withdraw under Bush's watch because BUSH never, ever, ever intends to withdraw. The only way to force the Pentagon to formulate such a PLAN is to declare the war OVER (by defunding it) and begin to withdraw troops. Anything else is a charade.

Brian wrote: What is Edwards saying? Our troops should drop everything and bolt for the Iraqi borders tomorrow?

You know, it's that kind of Fox-propaganda derived lack of thought that raises the hair on the back of my neck. OF COURSE no one expects the troops to turn on a dime and high-tail it. And that's NOT what Edwards is calling for. But if you don't call the war OVER there is no reason for them to EVER prepare to get ready to think about planning to maybe some day in the not too distant future of some far-off Presidency we can only see faintly through the mists of future time COME THE HELL HOME!

dAVID wrote on September 12, 2007 4:20 PM:
The haircut looks good. I'm convinced he's the right man for the job.

You are probably kidding about the haricut right? You must have been one of the Dubya voters who felt you could be comfortable havin' a beer with ole' George. Weren't you? I guess looking past the surface is just too tough an assignment for you.

jen

I confess to being the author of the Anonymous response to dAVID on getting past the surface. I would suggest you try tackling that tough assignment too. Or maybe you think only filthy rich Republicans are allowed to seek higher office.

It appears that people who are defending Obama on this thread haven't read his proposal for leaving Iraq. What he said is that "our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month". Currently, there are 20 combat brigades in Iraq. So at the Obama pace, 10 months from now--when Edwards is saying that we should have just a residual force--we could still have half our fighting force still in Iraq. Furthermore, Obama is parsing his proposal even finer by stipulating that he is just talking about "combat" troops. Last I looked, we have almost as many noncombat troops as we have combat troops in Iraq. People on this thread who are accusing Dodd and Edwards of "pandering" are not correct. Insisting on a firm deadline for most of our combat troops to be out of Iraq--which is I believe what most Democrats favor--is not pandering. It's taking a leadership position.

Jeff:

What good is a support brigade, if there are no combat brigades to support? Why assume that only 10 brigades come out? Why not assume that we are able to get all 20 out in 10 months? What if we get 15 out? What constitutes a residual force? How quickly do you get from total forces to this residual force without abandoning much needed equipment or endangering the lives of our soliders? How can you determine an appropriate withdrawal date without a corresponding plan?

I fully understand what Obama is proposing and how Dodd and Edwards' are trying to mischaracterize it. They don't have any substantive criticism, so they have to generate a false one.

Nice try Keith but I read just fine. Let me explain to you the point you seem to be missing. If you change the mission of the American troops from hanging on at more than 100,000 strong until such time as no insurgent fires a shot (because presumably they are all dead) and the ongoing civil war has concluded and everyone is living in peace and harmony, Sunni, Kurd, and Shiite alike (which might take, oh, what, maybe another 40 to 50 years? maybe 1,000?) to a mission of troop reduction and redeployment, that in fact ends the war. Mission change does not mean the troops stop firing their rifles to protect themselves, it means they have a different goal from command on down, which is to get out and leave the cuontry to the Iraqis in an orderly and self-protecting fashion. What is truly reckless is the self-defeating mantra that nothing can change because the mission can't change because the mission is to support the troops and we can't stop funding our own damn tropps now can we? Why that would be un-amurrican!
Got it?

Folks, one party full of people who believe you can simply wish a desired state of facts into being in this country is one too many. We most definitely do not need another.

I hate to sound like a broken record on this topic (oops, dated myself), but there are hard limitations on how fast we can get them out of there that's defined by both logistic and military realities. Logistically, we have to get all off the gear out with us. Its too dangerous to leave behind, especially there, too expensive to replace and some of it, like the tanks, is irreplacable. We do not have the transport capability to just move it all out at once and, even if we did, our port and airport options are limited.

The military reality is that retreating is inherently dangerous. The worst slaughters that inflicted on armies, from Cannae to Moscow to the Highway of Death have been during retreats. Do it too fast or with inadequate planning and a lot more people who should have made it home alive will come home in boxes.

Unlike Incurious George, Obama's read a history book or two in his time and actually learned something from them. He's not talking about a brigade or two at a time for no reason.

Obama's plan leaves troops in Iraq to fight "al Qaeda in Iraq" and possibly to train Iraqi forces. That means tens of thousands of US troops still in Iraq. This does not end the war, because as long as we're there, we're going to keep getting attacked, and we're going to keep fighting back.

http://soundbyte.barackobama.com/Fact%20Sheet%20Iraq%20Final.pdf

"Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region. These American troops will protect American military and diplomatic personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at Al Qaeda in Iraq. If Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we would also continue training other Iraqi Security Forces. In the event of an outbreak of genocide, we would reserve the right to intervene, with the international community, if that intervention was needed to provide civilians with a safe-haven."