Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

Watching C-SPAN… I've got to tell you, even as Levin and Reed debate against a date certain they're making a case for setting it. Reed just finished by saying that when we stand down the Iraqis will be forced to stand up. However, he won't go the extra mile. Kerry and Feingold have, but they're being punished for it. It's political theater of the absurd.

That said, consensus is gathering around the Levin-Reed Bill. It calls for Bush to
“begin” a phased withdrawal in Iraq by the end of 2006. Levin states
that it's time for us to set a date to begin redeployment from Iraq. Oh, but if the Iraqis have trouble, will fudge it a little. The political courage is breath taking, isn't it?

What does our amendment urge the President to do relative to our troops in Iraq? First, after consultation with the Government of Iraq, begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of this year; Second, submit to Congress a plan by the end of 2006 with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise; and Third, expedite the transition of U.S. forces in Iraq to a limited presence and mission of training, providing logistical support, protecting U.S. infrastructure and personnel, and participating in targeted counterterrorism activities. Finally, our amendment recognizes that during and after the phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq, the United States will need to sustain a non-military effort to actively support reconstruction, governance, and a durable political solution in Iraq. Our amendment doesn’t establish a fixed ending date for the redeployment. It doesn’t set out fixed milestones once the phased redeployment has begun. So while it does not establish a timetable, it does establish a fixed, but not precipitous, time for the beginning of a phased redeployment – by the end of this year. Beginning the phased redeployment of American troops

Beyond phased redeployment of our troops that starts by the end of 2006, Levin
also wants Bush to put forth a plan to Congress stating what will happen next. There is no set timetable, but a you better do this approach.

Kerry is being left out in the cold. He has no allies, but Feingold, Kennedy,
Boxer and Byrd behind him. It's up to him whether he chooses to compromise,
because it doesn't look like he's got any leverage at all.

Mr. Kerry has found his resolve. But it has not made his fellow Democrats any happier. They fear the latest evolution of Mr. Kerry's views on Iraq may now complicate their hopes of taking back a majority in Congress in 2006. As the Senate prepared for what promises to be a sharp debate starting on Wednesday about whether to begin pulling troops from Iraq, the Democratic leadership wants its members to rally behind a proposal that calls for some troops to move out by the end of this year but does not set a fixed date for complete withdrawal. Mr. Kerry has insisted on setting a date, for American combat troops to pull out in 12 months, saying anything less is too cautious. In drawing up a schedule for the Wednesday session, the Democratic leadership has arranged for its plan to be debated first, pushing Mr. Kerry and his proposal into the evening, too late for the nightly television news, to starve it of some attention. … On Iraq, Kerry Again Leaves Democrats Fuming

But, frankly, the above text in bold shows what's wrong with Democrats. There
is one proposal that is strong and unequivocal and whether you like it or not,
whether Harry Reid likes it or not, it's authored by John Kerry and Russ Feingold.

I'm sure Hillary Clinton is overjoyed and so are many others, thinking setting
a date certain is silly. But timidity hasn't worked for us before. It looks
like Kerry is the only one who learned the lesson deep enough to finally lead
on it.

Even as Senator Jack Reed was talking about the Levin-Reed resolution, he said that the majority of Americans favor a deadline for withdrawal in Iraq.
Unfortunately, that specific idea came from Senator John Kerry, wherein Senator Harry Reid decided to stick him with a political shiv, camoflaged in a debate that will come in the cloak of darkness. Children.

Let's just tell it like it is. Democrats in the Senate may not believe “cut and run,” but they're still afraid of the label. When you're afraid of anything you cannot lead. The debate continues on C-SPAN.