John,

Why don't you go ask the relatives of the raped girl, or the relatives of the families slaughtered in Hadifa, or the families who have no home left because we destroyed their home.

We caused a can of worms to open. And we continue down the same destructive path, hoping to close it.

How many deaths, before you realize we can't just continue this way?

>Both parties suck, OK? They just suck differently. I just don't want to hear withdrawal dates without a plan. To do so takes away the sacrifices that have already been made...as well as abandons the Iraqis.
>
>>John: You rail against the Dems for "talking points and press releases that undercut the nation for political purposes", but the GOP stunt last week where they labelled anything that tries to deal with Iraq as "cut and run" is somehow apolitical? All the while General Casey is having meetings with the Administration to discuss his withdrawl plan, a plan that does have a timetable. A plan that is very similar to Levin's. You don't see the irony in your comments versus what transpired? When you start labelling General Casey as a "cut and runner", someone who wants to "undercut the nation", then i may detect some consistency in your arguement.
>>
>>
>>>>>Precisely. I'm no GOP fan as a devout libertarian but it sickens me to watch the Dems trot out talking points and press releases that undercut the nation for, I suppose, purely political purposes. And I don't think I'm alone in that viewpoint.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Let's not forget the complete absurdity to most Americans of hearing one Democrat after another this week saying "This is not cut and run" when everyone knows full well that it is exactly that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anything related to the withdrawal of troops without a clear mission, by definition, is cut and run.
>>>>
>>>>The hypocrisy is overwhelming. That, or i'm reading a post from the COMEDY forum. Did you read Levin's amendment? Or did you just jump to labelling it Cut & Run cuz he's a democrat?
>>>
>>>Without a clear mission...
>>>
>>>>The Iraqi guvmint wants/has a timetable:
>>>>
>>>>A top Iraqi government official told news agencies Friday that he expects only 100,000 U.S. soldiers and Marines to stay in Iraq by the end of 2006 and a complete withdrawal by 2008.
>>>
>>>And that's fine because it's up to the Iraqis to dictate when they can assume control of their own affairs. That's a different issue, clearly.
>>>
>>>Look, Chris, throw anything you want at me but my point is that a troop withdrawal should be tied to objectives and not a date. Period.
>>>
>>>
>>>>General "Cut and Run" Casey has a timetable (that's been kept a secret this last week while the GOPers labelled anything that resembled a plan as "cut and run"):
>>>>
>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1151208000&en=6477656e4067993d&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin
>>>>
>>>>U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts - WASHINGTON, June 24 — The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say. According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.
>>>>
>>>>Lets not forget that Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said that the large U.S. troop presence "fuels the insurgency" and "extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant." "The large U.S. presence also undermines popular support for the Iraqi government."
>>>>
>>>>And one of the Dem amendment's didnt have a fixed timetable at all, other than starting "phased redeployment this year", which jives with Casey's secret plan (a plan known to the administration of course during the Dem bashing):
>>>>
>>>>From the Levin amendment: http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2006/Iraqamdt.061906.pdf
>>>>
>>>>(ii) after consultation with the Government of Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq this year; and
>>>>
>>>>(iii) submit to Congress a plan by the end of 2006 with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise
>>>>
>>>>And then you have Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) weighing in with this gem:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/050306_souder.html
>>>>
>>>>The withdrawal of 20,000-40,000 U.S. troops from Iraq this fall would greatly help Republican chances in the November election, Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) said at a fundraiser Thursday at the National Rifle Association. Souder acknowledged in his remarks that the war in Iraq has dampened support for Republican candidates but added that withdrawing 30,000 troops could have a big impact, said Martin Green, Souder’s spokesman. The congressman said it would amount to an “‘October Surprise’ in its effect, although he dismissed the idea that a U.S. troop withdrawal would begin for domestic political reasons. (har har har)