Play the devil's advocate: I still say the timetable argument is totally illogical !

[Laura PourMeADrink]

Perle used this same, tired excuse on MTP today - we can not announce
to our enemies when we are leaving....

Simple Logic 101.

1. The ultimate day you are gone, whether by a deadline or by "surprise",
you will be gone. The insurgency can do whatever they chose on that
day, regardless of how you left.

2. You can not get 100k+ troops out by "surprise" anyway.

3. The argument that the insurgents can "make nice" if they know
we are leaving is invalid. They could "make nice" today if they
thought it would make us leave. They could "make nice" if it
was a results-oriented withdrawal based on number of attacks, as
well.

4. A timetabled withdrawal can be accomplished in as secret a manner
as a "surprise" withdrawal.

[libertypirate]

1. Before you know how long something will take you need to know what you are about to do.. /nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. sorry, duh, you lost me.

[Raven]

3. God, Laura, I don't know

how we would do it. I know we would want to get all Iraqis at risk out first, I think. I don't know that there is a way to do this quickly or quietly but I do think there must be a way to do it safely...the "make nice" way. The one thing that has haunted me while I have been working for an Out of Iraq Now result is the images of the Vietnamese trying to hold on to helicopter running boards when we left 'Nam. It was awful and I know, because I had people who we in Vietnam tell me, that many of those people were doomed. This is the price other innocent people pay for America's hubris.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. I agree

Bush has created an impossible paradox: You can
not stay and you can not leave !

[The Straight Story]

4. I don't think either party really wants us out

Though one may play pretend that they do.

To much oil and money tied up in it all. If we leave, the people with the money to give to candidates will not be happy.

So we will hear about 'time-lines' and all that, but I would be greatly surprised if we actually left before we control the government and oil there.

Call me a tin foil hat wearer, but I see our leaders in power making back room deals to rattle sabers while being paper tigers.

The dems will try to play it as control, show how they forced bush to listen to them and how good things have gotten.

Starting within 8 months I think we will start to hear the more 'positive' side of things. After we win the presidency, and the troops are still there, we will hear more and more about how good things are going.

Then there will be a role reversal. The right will start saying we need to pull out, been there too long, let them fight each other, etc, and dems in power will say we cannot leave and allow the region to fall into a civil war and we have a duty, based on human rights, to stay there and stop genocide.

Call me a cynic, but I have seen enough of politicians over the years to know that they can play the game and the people will side with em. Some on the left are already talking about how we cannot pull out because of the effects it would have on the people there, we created the mess, etc and so on.

Long story short: Either way it will suck. We pull out and more die, we are blamed (not the people doing the killing, they are innocent of course...). We stay, more die, we are still to blame - but the more US citizens die the more people will care back home (when it is the iraqi people dying it is no big deal to the voters back home you see).

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. god I hope you are wrong. the day I truly believe that the Dems

want the war to continue, without regard for human life, is the
day I pack up and move, for sure.

[The Straight Story]

7. I think SOME dems do, but

I think we have the moderates who are trying to please big business first and the people last.

And this war has been good for some big businesses.

If you or I could sit with some dem senators I know what we would tell them, but how much time do they have for us?

A PAC comes in, AIPAC for one, and talks to Hillary, Obama, Et al and tells them 'We need to keep a good number of people there' and I am betting they will listen to them in action, but play to us in words.

It politics. And they will make excuses. "Don't ask, Don't tell" was similar. And then there was Clinton on Iraq and while he did not invade, not much changed with the sanctions, etc. And Cuba? We had a dem president for 8 years and nothing changed there.

Some things DO change - but it seems the big, core, items only get shuffled about and confused.

Then we get the excuses 'we didn't have the votes to do X/Y/Z' - well, here is an ideal. If your in power as the president, go on national TV, talk to people, get them to call their congress folks. make it a priority, lay it out, and hammer on it.

Pelosi and others can, and should, start hammering it home. We can get the votes if we can compel people to get involved, and who better to do that than our leaders?