Dugger bin Lian, Al Qaeda super-poster.

The Levin-Reed amendment continues the progress made in last year’s “United States Policy in Iraq Act,” which passed the Senate by a vote of 79-19 as part of the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. In that Act, Congress called for 2006 to be a year of “significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.”

Specifically, the Levin-Reed amendment urges:

* Expediting the transition of U.S. forces to a limited mission of training and logistic support of Iraqi security forces, protection of U.S. personnel and facilities, and targeting counterterrorism activities.

* A phased redeployment of U.S. forces should begin in 2006.

* By the end of 2006, the administration should submit to Congress its plan for continued redeployment beyond 2006.

In addition, the Levin-Reed amendment highlights steps the Iraqis need to take to put their country on the path to success including:

* Achieving a broad-based and sustainable political settlement.

* Fairly sharing political power and economic resources to invest all Iraqi groups in the formation of their nation.

* Disarming the militias and purging Iraqi security forces of members not loyal to the national government.

Finally, the amendment calls for:

* Convening an international conference to assist Iraq in overcoming problems such as the potential threat of interference by neighboring countries and payment of pledges.

* Sustaining non-military support for reconstruction and governance.

The Levin-Reed amendment does not address the speed or pace of the redeployment, i.e., it doesn’t establish a timetable for redeployment and it does not call for a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. It urges that phased redeployment begin this year as a way of moving from an open-ended commitment and Iraqi dependency.

http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=257387

You tell me point by point what’s wrong with it.

There’s also no administration position on Iraq other than “Stay the…” uh “Adjust the volume…”, no…”Stand down there..” ah…”Bring ‘em on!”

articulating and enacting viable policy is hard

And apparently beyond the capabilities of the current crowd running the show.

Then by your own admission Bush has no position on Iraq.

OK.

I quoted Mr. Bush reciting his standard line about an exit from Iraq–and it’s not specific!

Now what was it that Dugger said? If you’re not specific, you don’t really have a position?

Are we there yet? Can you see where I’m headed? Or are you still puzzled?

Sigh.

1)Dugger says you don’t have a position if you don’t give specifics.

2)George Bush has repeated a well-recognized bromide, without specifics.

3) Ergo, my literalist friends, George Bush has no position on getting out of Iraq!

Can I go home now?

D: Unless you define those terms specifically, you have no position.

Q: I agree. “When they stand up, we’ll stand down,” lacks specificity.

Of course that’s the President’s position. He has repeated it endlessly. However, it would be generous to say that it’s skimpy on details.

Now, see what I did?

I took Dugger’s statement and helpfully copied and pasted it at the top of my own comment: “Unless you define those terms specifically, you have no position.”

Then I copied a well-known position of a Washington politician. But–surprise!–it wasn’t a Democrat, it was George Bush!!

Zow! How clever is that!

The Republican position is to stay in Iraq until practically forever, 10 years or more according to some sources. Democrats disagree on the specific timetable but we want them out. That’s the big difference. The most prominent Republican outside of the president says he wants MORE troops in Iraq. That’s quite outside of the consensus between the public and the Dems.

Nancy Pelosi has managed to severely scar her leadership even before taking up the gavel as the new speaker of the House. First, she played politics with the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee to settle an old score and a new debt. And then she put herself in a lose-lose position by trying to force a badly tarnished ally, Representative John Murtha, on the incoming Democratic Congress as majority leader. The party caucus put a decisive end to that gambit yesterday, giving the No. 2 job to Steny Hoyer, a longtime Pelosi rival.

Is that the Party position? Meaning when the Iraqis are ready, we leave? Funny if it is, for its Bush’s position.

I agree. “When they stand up, we’ll stand down,” lacks specificity.

By the way- Adam is right. The logic of your post screams “faulty.”

But I also agree that we should pull troops out of Iraq as soon as possible- within a strategy to stabilize the country and leave the government there able to fend for themselves, with no timetables that would encourage the enemy to plan around. I guess it’s for the Generals to decide that. (I’m no expert.)

The poll you cite seems only to be about Bush, and not the Democrats’ “position.”

And when you say “leaving Iraq” what method of leaving Iraq do you speak of?

Which Democratic “position” on Iraq do you think the “public” is supporting? The Murtha plan, or the Hoyer Plan, or the Kuchinich plan, or the Lieberman plan…?

Can you tell us without using bumper sticker logic?

Wrong.