Straight from the horse’s mouth (emphasis added):
Washington D.C. -Â U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.
“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation” Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”
“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end” Feingold said. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.”
Idiots. Don’t they know that 1) wars shouldn’t be started or stopped based on their popularity and 2) cutting and running from Iraq is what will undermine our national security, not us staying there until Iraq is stable and secure?
I know. Stupid questions.
What have top Democrats in the Senate said about setting a timeline in the past?
In May 2005, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said this: “As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that`s not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don`t want us there. It doesn`t work well to do that.”
In June 2005, Senator Joe Biden said, “A deadline for pulling out will only encourage our enemies to wait us out.”
Then in September of 2005, Hillary Clinton was emphatic: “I don`t believe it`s smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don`t think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you.”
Um, is it ok to question their patriotism yet?
More: Senate Minority Leader McConnell’s statement:
“Announcing a surrender date to al Qaeda is a dangerous military policy, cedes the initiative to the enemy, and directly contradicts the 96 Senators who just last month voted against funding cuts for troops in the field. The chosen date isn’t tied to circumstances on the ground or the needs of the military commanders. It’s completely arbitrary. It was pulled out of thin air. And the terrorists have already marked it on their calendars.”
And so have the Democrats. They don’t want to deal with the issue of Iraq should one of them get elected as CIC. In essence, they’re wanting to wash their hands of the war in Iraq because they don’t want the responsibility of having to make tough, unpopular decisions about what our course should be there – and they don’t want to deal with the backlash from the Nutroots, who would target any Democrat who didn’t kneel knee to knee with them on the issue of running from Iraq before the mission is completed. Get ready for the constituency payoffs, payoffs that will undermine our national security in a multitude of ways.