Skip to comments.Senate Democrats press to reduce troops in Iraq
Posted on 06/19/2006 5:48:16 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats presented two plans for winding down U.S. involvement in Iraq on Monday, one to pull out U.S. combat forces by July 2007 and another to begin withdrawing this year without a deadline for completion.
With an election looming in November, Republicans branded the two plans as defeatist and evidence of Democratic disarray. The Senate was to debate the amendments on Tuesday in the annual defense policies bill.
"Three and a half years into the conflict, we should tell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
The House of Representatives and Senate have debated Iraq in often harsh terms this month. Republicans sought to depict Democrats as weak on terrorism, and Democrats condemned President George W. Bush's policies that they said have caused chaos in Iraq, detracted from the fight against al Qaeda and drained U.S. resources.
Levin offered a nonbinding resolution saying Bush should start withdrawing an unspecified number of U.S. forces this year and give Congress a plan for the continued withdrawal.
Levin's measure had support from most Senate Democrats, who shied away from setting a deadline for a pullout out of fear of a full-scale Iraqi civil war.
There are about 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and the conflict has caused more than 2,500 U.S. military deaths.
Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, both eyeing presidential runs, pushed an amendment requiring that U.S. combat troops be out by July 2007. That was modified from Kerry's amendment calling for withdrawal by the end of 2006, which the Senate rejected last week when Republicans forced a vote.
In a statement, Kerry and Feingold said a deadline "gives Iraqis the best chance for stability and self-government" and "allows us to begin refocusing on the true threats that face our country."
Both Democratic plans provide that U.S. personnel training Iraqi forces, those conducting counter-terrorist operations and other specialized forces could remain in Iraq.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, blasted the Levin measure as a "cut and run" policy that "threatens our national security and poses unacceptable risks to Americans."
Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), a Virginia Republican who chairs the Armed Services Committee, said he did not support the Levin amendment "in this form," and was considering an alternative.
Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Jack Reed (news, bio, voting record), who crafted the resolution with Levin, said the White House has used the debate to attack Democrats. "This may be a way to divide the country, but it's not a strategy for success in Iraq," he said.
If these same 'Rat bastards had been around in the 40s, we'd all be speaking German and Japanese today.
I think the Democrats have "Minority-itus"... a condition where the party comes up with a strategy that is sure to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Most people, when push comes to shove, understand that we can not even TALK about pulling our troops out before the job is done.
This is like a S.W.A.T team is staked out on a shopping center where terrorists hold captives, and the people are screaming "Just leave them alone and nobody will get hurt!!!"
We all know that if the S.W.A.T team does that, the next morning there will be a bunch of bodies all over the floor.
A partial withdraw will only put the remaining troops in even more danger.The facts on the ground should dictate the troop levels.
"Three and a half years into the conflict, we should tell the
Iraqis British/French/Australians that the American security blanket is not permanent," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, top Democrat
I believe you're right. Putting aside the fact that the Democrats are just cynical opportunists who tailor their policy to whatever the polls said this morning, the practical result of an isolationist policy is to make over-reaction in the event of some new attack much more likely. If all the troops have to stay home in their barracks no matter what, there's no option between surrender and a nuke strike.
The Democratic Party, undermining America for decades.
Of course! They are on the side of our enemies. Naturally they want to reduce the troops fighting against their side.
As Arnold says, "Why should we listen to losers?"
And driving Japanese and German cars...oops..never mind.
The Senate just voted down Kerry's plan 93 to 6 so now the Dems come up with multiple plans because they feel they have some plan.
President Bush's plan is the right one, bring home the troops when the job is done.
Sen Devitto tells us how to fight???
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
First off, did you come up with that name because of the size of your "cajones"? Secondly, your use of foul language reflects a low intellect. Thirdly, I was a Marine infantryman (aka an 03"walk a lot")who served this country honorably. If you care to call me a coward, I would happily meet you in a dark alley somewhere and "discuss" it with you!
And lastly, the above posters are correct regarding the cut and run Democrats.
Dang. I just dunno if anyone ought to be this hammered this early on a Monday....
Been in teh sauce early?
I already served, thank you very much.
You want peace with terrorists so much, go and offer ryourself as a hostage.
Or as a human shield...LOL