Americans Support March 2008 Iraq Withdrawal Date

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:56:53 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I have stated that:

The March 31, 2008 nonbinding date contained in the Senate provision should become the announced date certain for NOT funding the Iraq Debacle. . . . [T]he INTENTION to NOT fund the war past the date certain is essential to a political strategy that will allow the Congress to do this. The American People must be forewarned of the date. They must internalize it. They must then internalize that if Bush does not withdraw troops past that date, then it is he who is abandoning the troops in harm's way - [it is] President Bush.

According to Newsweek, the American People will support this:

Do you support or oppose the legislation passed this week by the U.S. Senate calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by March 2008?
Support: 57%
Oppose: 36%
DK: 7%

< March Madness - Final Four: Let's Go Gators! Another Reason Why | An Unheeded Warning >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Americans Support March 2008 Iraq Withdrawal Date | 29 comments (29 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

According to Newsweek huh? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 12:45:01 PM EST

Not TIME? March 31, 2008 gives everyone something wonderful to look forward to! Human Beings always do 200% better at anything when they have a heart felt common good goal they are working towards. Even when it comes to finding real ways to help Iraq unite we have a reason to aim for and find success with a set date when America will no longer be part of the Iraq War!!!! War can sometimes protect the innocent but the Iraq War has never protected anyone and is only about violence, power, blood, death, and destruction. We can inspire success, nurture success, and grow success when our goal can be embraced by the whole world around us as being part of the common good. We can begin to uphold once again standards of decency that have been part and portion of all successes that the great experiment has enjoyed!

Not Time (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 01:00:45 PM EST

Heh.

Kevin Drum points out that the Iraq Supplemental was ALSO not covered by Time magazine.

One wonders why they even have reporters in Washington at all.


: TIME is pushing the meme (none / 0) (#4)
by annefrank on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 01:44:00 PM EST

that the Bible should be taught in public schools - rather than educating Americans about another war we're losing - Afghanistan.

Tracy (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 08:56:52 AM EST

Even when it comes to finding real ways to help Iraq unite we have a reason to aim for and find success with a set date when America will no longer be part of the Iraq War!!!!

Could you, or anyone here, explain how telling the terrorists that they will have an open hand to do what they please, in March 0f 2008 help the Iraqi people do anything??


it's a civil war ... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Sailor on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:02:59 AM EST

... between 2 factions. There were no terrorists there until the US attacked. There are still very few terrorists there, mostly they are insurgents fighting the US and each other in a civil war.


Sailor (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 04:57:53 PM EST

There were no terrorists there until the US attacked.

Those Iraquis killed and tortured by Saddam would argue the point.


: ppj says bush is a terrorist ... (none / 0) (#27)
by Sailor on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 08:52:48 AM EST

... and all Those Iraquis killed and tortured by bush would agree.

What terrorists? (none / 0) (#17)
by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:57:38 AM EST

: Do you watch any news???? (none / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 04:55:45 PM EST

Uh.... the ones blowing up car bombs in marketplaces???
Are you so biased that you think terrorists kill only Americans????

According to PPJ (none / 0) (#24)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 06:08:03 PM EST

Most Iraqi's are terrorists. If the definition of terrorist those who hate the US occupation and will fight with any means to get their country back.


Hopefully the March 2008 date (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by annefrank on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 01:40:28 PM EST

will be THE frame for leaving Iraq - rather than the conditions on the ground.

And... (none / 0) (#5)
by jarober on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 02:11:02 PM EST

And what will they say after we leave and:

Regional war breaks out
Killing that dwarfs what's happening now starts in earnest
The chaos in Iraq becomes a fertile ground for Afghanistan 2, the sequel?

Never mind whether we should or should not have gone in in 2003; we are there now, and we cannot go back to the status quo ante. When we leave, I hope TL is willing to accept the results.

and what will they say ... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Sailor on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 03:26:01 PM EST

... when unicorns overwhelm the land and trolls come out from bridges and dance with the devil's handmaidens?

BTW, afghanistan 1 is descending into chaos because rather than complete the mission of going after AQ and OBL bush pi$$ed the American military away in a war that had nothing to do with the WOT.


: Sailor (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 04:59:25 PM EST

Hmmm, somehow I think we still have a very srong military.
Have I missed something??

How do you know? Who do you believe? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Sanity Clause on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:54:46 PM EST

This argument buys into the Administration's basic premise that our presence there is actually doing some good NOW. To the contrary, our presence makes it worse. We are an ineffective, foreign, military occupation force. We are not peacekeepers. We are salt in the wound; we are fuel on the fire. People are dying because we are there; so we must leave. People will die when we leave, too, and that hurts, so we must find a way to save as many lives as possible.

I tried to start a discussion about the future of Iraq with the war analysis types and the bloodbath prophets over at My Left Wing back in January. Now that potential withdrawal dates are being discussed in the virtual mainstream, people of influence may start discussing the next "Why didn't we think of that before?" step - the establishment of diplomatic relations both within and surrounding Iraq - during that timeframe. Perhaps one aspect of this fiasco could be planned. Peace through withdrawal or perpetual civil war, chaos, and anarchy?


shorter jarober (none / 0) (#8)
by Sailor on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 03:27:46 PM EST

'Never mind whether we started an illegal war, we have to continue to fight an illegal war.'


Regional war? (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:34:51 PM EST

Who's gonna go to war? Syria? Iran?

With who?


Well, we have a year (none / 0) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:03:25 AM EST

to pull out of the cities, pull back to the perimeter. Then if genocide breaks out we are right there and much better prepared with troops that have actually been to a "rear" and rested. We use our troops to end outbreaks of genocide and our intelligence to start really busting the groups responsible for the violence. In the mean time Iraq can begin to build the infrastructure it needs without American troops there because the troops won't be smack in the middle of everything anymore.


Congratulations (none / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 05:01:43 PM EST

We use our troops to end outbreaks of genocide and our intelligence to start really busting the groups responsible for the violence.

You actually understand what we are trying to do now.

Does this mean you will start supporting the troops??


: This is not what we are trying to do now (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:47:01 AM EST

You have never been in the military because you understand nothing of fighting tactics and armies. We are using triple the energy to stay in the cities. We have made ourselves targets and now must expend tons of money, lives, and energy to just stay alive while accomplishing very little in real world wins. Our intelligence suffers enormously, our resources suffer enormously, and our soldiers are sleeping on their feet from exhaustion while you sit on your fat ass stateside and blow hard that you did your 10 years. I learn military truths from my husband who is in the military, retiring out in a year and half and then will teach soldiers as a civilian contractor teacher. You are an idiot of the first degree.

The reason why they support that (none / 0) (#6)
by Stewieeeee on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 02:51:44 PM EST

legislation is precisely because Dems are NOT tying defunding to it.

Tie the defunding to it. Then run the poll. We'll agree to disagree at this point what the results of such a poll would be.

That makes no sense (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:34:07 PM EST

When you withdraw you defund.


i've heard it can be marketed differently (none / 0) (#14)
by Stewieeeee on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 04:42:20 AM EST

but in the end i think people will see a difference between defunding to force withdrawal, and defunding as a by product of withdrawal.


: Kucinich on timelines/defunding (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by dutchfox on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 06:24:44 AM EST

Our wonderful Edger has posted an interview with Kucinich, vis a vis this point:

Shank: And with the recent Senate vote that kept the timelines in the supplemental?
Kucinich: Let's look at timelines and let's look at the real budget. As we speak, the Senate said they want to create a timeline to end the war a year from now. The House advocated a timeline: by the end of August 2008. The budget that the House will pass this week contains $145 billion to keep the war going through the end of 2008 and another $50 billion to fund the war well into 2009.
Let's talk about timelines in the context of funding because it's funding that guides the timelines not the other way around. So now we've not only given the president the money to continue the war but we're planning to give him money to keep the war going through the end of his term and into the next president's term. What's that about? Either we want to end the war or we don't. If you're for peace then you vote for peace and you vote to end the war. If you're for peace then you can't be voting to keep the war going and say that you are a peace advocate.

poll results (none / 0) (#12)
by diogenes on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:21:32 PM EST

Senator Hillary Clinton said that as president in 2009 she would keep troops in Iraq indefinitely but pull them out of policing the streets or stopping ethnic cleansing. Does that mean that 57% of the people oppose her too? Does anyone really think that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic House would pass this bill calling for troops out by March 31 2009 if President Hillary Clinton were in charge?

: Sailor's Law (none / 0) (#13)
by Sailor on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:58:52 AM EST

Sailor's Law: The index of desperation of the wrongwingers is the square of the number of times they invoke clinton or kennedy.
But I'm thinking there must be a special case for when they invoke it for a clinton of the future.
BTW, got links to those troll points?

Counting troll points (none / 0) (#25)
by diogenes on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:25:20 PM EST

When someone responds to a question about Senator Hillary Clinton's position about the war in 2009 by invoking troll points, the index of desperation must indeed be high.

: you keep repeating that troll point ... (none / 0) (#28)
by Sailor on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 08:54:12 AM EST

... but you never have any proof of it. Put up or STFU.

But then what? (none / 0) (#26)
by Demi Moaned on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 06:01:41 AM EST

They must then internalize that if Bush does not withdraw troops past that date, then it is he who is abandoning the troops in harm's way

Suppose they do all that and Bush still doesn't de-escalate. The troops are still in place in March, 2008 (or whatever date we're talking about). What happens then? A big debate over whose fault it is?