What Iraq war?

[miss_elizabeth]

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
miss elizabeth - I hope your brother does well and is OK in Iraq.

That said, I think there’s never been a more important time to get and stay involved. Politics takes time, and the instant gratification demanded by so many just makes things harder. You can’t stop something as complex and difficult as the Iraq war overnight, just like you can’t shift a government from one side of the political aisle to another overnight. The Democrats won Congress, but not by such a majority as they could actively turn back the clock, as Republican Senatorial tactics and Presidential vetoes have proven. So they have to first preserve their power base and then expand it, so they can eventually do some active governing.

Also, I think (and you may differ wildly in this) that we can’t just leave Iraq either; a pullout tomorrow would result in only worse things to come for the Iraqi people and future problems for the United States and our allies down the road. We need a managed plan to get us out of there and not leave Iraq in utter chaos, not an immediate withdrawal, or else we’ll just wind up back there again some time soon.

Extremism won’t help matters, nor will bowing out of the process because it’s not moving fast enough to suit you.

My 2p, feel free to take it or leave it.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you for your kind words about my brother. I appreciate it.

I should have clarified a little better, I think. I have not given up, not at all. It would be more accurate to say I’m taking a break, I guess. I personally feel that little is going to change in the short term, and after several years of being angry every. single. day. I’ve reached a point where I just do not have it in me to fight anymore. I’m am angry about the way congress has rolled over, I am angry that the president of MY country feels he doesn’t have any responsibility to listen to me, or the American people, I am angry that Nancy Pelosi feels that war protesters, the people who elected her and gave her the majority in congress, and the position she holds today are a “nuisance” when they camp out and try to get her to enforce the change they elected her (and other Democratic congresspeople) to accomplish. I’m pissed off, and I’m tired, and I can’t fight anymore right now. I don’t know. Bah. Saying this makes me feel angry and guilty all over again. :mad:

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
miss elizabeth - I hope your brother does well and is OK in Iraq.

That said, I think there’s never been a more important time to get and stay involved. Politics takes time, and the instant gratification demanded by so many just makes things harder. You can’t stop something as complex and difficult as the Iraq war overnight, just like you can’t shift a government from one side of the political aisle to another overnight. The Democrats won Congress, but not by such a majority as they could actively turn back the clock, as Republican Senatorial tactics and Presidential vetoes have proven. So they have to first preserve their power base and then expand it, so they can eventually do some active governing.
[/quote]
For many of us, the deep malaise comes from the knowledge that - forget Dem or GOP - a solid and enduring majority of the people want us out of this war, and neither party seems to want to represent that majority in a meaningful sense.

At least in the short run, that does represent a breakdown of democracy. And in the long run…well, we don’t want to be in Iraq in the long run, that’s the whole point.

Also, I think (and you may differ wildly in this) that we can’t just leave Iraq either; a pullout tomorrow would result in only worse things to come for the Iraqi people and future problems for the United States and our allies down the road. We need a managed plan to get us out of there and not leave Iraq in utter chaos, not an immediate withdrawal, or else we’ll just wind up back there again some time soon.

Dorothy wants her strawman back.

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=miss elizabeth]
Thank you for your kind words about my brother. I appreciate it.
[/quote]
Been in the sandbox meself; not in Iraq (I spent my desert time in 1992-1993 in Turkey and Saudi, being Air Force and all) but I always wish a fellow traveller well.

@miss elizabeth

I should have clarified a little better, I think. I have not given up, not at all. It would be more accurate to say I’m taking a break, I guess. I personally feel that little is going to change in the short term, and after several years of being angry every. single. day. I’ve reached a point where I just do not have it in me to fight anymore. I’m am angry about the way congress has rolled over, I am angry that the president of MY country feels he doesn’t have any responsibility to listen to me, or the American people, I am angry that Nancy Pelosi feels that war protesters, the people who elected her and gave her the majority in congress, and the position she holds today are a “nuisance” when they camp out and try to get her to enforce the change they elected her (and other Democratic congresspeople) to accomplish. I’m pissed off, and I’m tired, and I can’t fight anymore right now. I don’t know. Bah. Saying this makes me feel angry and guilty all over again. :mad:

So take a break, get some rest, then come back and do it all again, is what I’m sayin’.

@RTFirefly

For many of us, the deep malaise comes from the knowledge that - forget Dem or GOP - a solid and enduring majority of the people want us out of this war, and neither party seems to want to represent that majority in a meaningful sense.

At least in the short run, that does represent a breakdown of democracy. And in the long run…well, we don’t want to be in Iraq in the long run, that’s the whole point.

And as I said - now would be a good time to get a truly centrist 3rd party going. I agree completely - the people are not being truly represented. How many Democrats don’t agree with the DCC’s position on abortion? How many Republicans don’t agree with the RNC’s financial management track record? True centrists could come together and carve a comfortable spot out of the middle, if only they had a leader.

I do think it’s a tough row to how, but tough things to do are frequently also good things to do.

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Dorothy wants her strawman back.
[/QUOTE]
This disagreement is for another thread, me thinks.

[Triskadecamus]

“If you want to end war, and stuff, you have to sing loud.” Arlo Guthrie

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
This disagreement is for another thread, me thinks.
[/QUOTE]
No, one can call a strawman a strawman in GD.

And “Iraq war opponents want us to pull out right now” is a strawman.

Oh yeah - we’ve already got a “truly centrist 3rd party” going. It’s called the Democratic Party. What we need is a major party to represent the majority of Americans who are to the left of what the Dems are willing to actually stand for.

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
No, one can call a strawman a strawman in GD.
[/quote]

I didn’t mean it was pit worthy or something, just that it was off-topic for the discussion at hand.

And “Iraq war opponents want us to pull out right now” is a strawman.

Many do.

Oh yeah - we’ve already got a “truly centrist 3rd party” going. It’s called the Democratic Party.

I disagree with your characterisation. There are parts of the country that think the Democrats are far left and the Republicans are far right; there are even members of those parties and representatives in Congress that think that. I’m saying the majority of Americans are actually somewhere in the middle.

What we need is a major party to represent the majority of Americans who are to the left of what the Dems are willing to actually stand for.

The majority who favour an end to the Iraq war do not necessarily fall along partisan lines, and being anti-war does not automatically put someone to the left of the Democratic Party. If that was the case, people would be flocking to the Green Party in droves, which to my knowledge ain’t happening.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
I don’t really get the premise of the OP. The media is not talking about the war, so those opposed to the war must have lost interest? Perhaps because things are going so well??
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure how to rephrase it without just repeating myself, but let me try:

The Iraq war isn’t getting much play in the media as it was a few months ago. That doesn’t mean that those opposed to the war have changed their minds, but there are those, like us on this MB, who have strong views not dependent on any particular news source, and there is the rest of the country-- people who don’t really have strong views about much in politics and generally. Which group do you think is larger? (Hint: one group is much larger.)

Secondly, there has been a noticeable drop in violence pretty much across the board, but most importantly a drop in US casualties. If that is sustainable (a big if), I’m wondering if the country as a whole (not us political junkies on this MB) will lose interest in the war, and it will drop even lower on the radar screen. It definitely helps a candidate like Clinton, since she will almost certainly want to keep a rather large contingent of US forces in Iraq through her first term in office (assuming she wins). Not as large as we have now, but a lot larger than zero.

Does that make more sense?

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
I didn’t mean it was pit worthy or something, just that it was off-topic for the discussion at hand.
[/quote]
I don’t see how.

Many do.

‘Many’ whom? Polls, prominent antiwar politicians, who?

I disagree with your characterisation. There are parts of the country that think the Democrats are far left and the Republicans are far right; there are even members of those parties and representatives in Congress that think that.

Sure, there are people who think the Dems are far left. Given that Bush is polling at about 33% approval, I’d say about that many do. It’s just that an even larger number of people are unhappy with the Dems for failing to stand up to Bush.

I’m saying the majority of Americans are actually somewhere in the middle.

Of course they are. It’s just that the parties aren’t equally balanced around the middle of the population.

The majority who favour an end to the Iraq war do not necessarily fall along partisan lines, and being anti-war does not automatically put someone to the left of the Democratic Party. If that was the case, people would be flocking to the Green Party in droves, which to my knowledge ain’t happening.

Just because people are to the left of the Dems, doesn’t mean they’d be flocking to the Greens. I’m to the left of the Dems, and I have no interest, thank you, in joining the Greens. The perverse incentives of our electoral system mean that a substantial number of votes to a third party on either wing strengthens the chances of the major party on the other wing.

But take Iraq. As of a few weeks ago, 55% of Americans think the Dems aren’t going far enough to oppose Bush on Iraq; only 35% think they’re going too far. That places a majority of the American people to the left of the Dems on Iraq.

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I don’t see how.
[/quote]

Fine, if you don’t think it’s off topic…

‘Many’ whom? Polls, prominent antiwar politicians, who?

Many on the anti-war side of the debate demand nothing less than an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The few temperates who say pull out with a plan are shouted down by the OUT NOW crowd. It’s a polarising debate, where both sides eat their own moderates.

Sure, there are people who think the Dems are far left. Given that Bush is polling at about 33% approval, I’d say about that many do. It’s just that an even larger number of people are unhappy with the Dems for failing to stand up to Bush. Of course they are. It’s just that the parties aren’t equally balanced around the middle of the population.

But that doesn’t mean they are further left than the Dems. I wouldn’t vote Dem now because I favour some spine with my politics. Doesn’t mean I am further left than the Dem party; actually, in some ways, I’m further right. Hence why I vote independent of party.

Just because people are to the left of the Dems, doesn’t mean they’d be flocking to the Greens. I’m to the left of the Dems, and I have no interest, thank you, in joining the Greens. The perverse incentives of our electoral system mean that a substantial number of votes to a third party on either wing strengthens the chances of the major party on the other wing.

Agreed - the system, and the two current parties, makes it hard for a viable third party.

But take Iraq. As of a few weeks ago, 55% of Americans think the Dems aren’t going far enough to oppose Bush on Iraq; only 35% think they’re going too far. That places a majority of the American people to the left of the Dems on Iraq.

Operative word is ‘on Iraq’. You’re looking at a single point issue and thinking that makes up a demographic, which it clearly doesn’t.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Fine, if you don’t think it’s off topic…
Many on the anti-war side of the debate demand nothing less than an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The few temperates who say pull out with a plan are shouted down by the OUT NOW crowd. It’s a polarising debate, where both sides eat their own moderates.
[/quote]
Again, ‘many’ WHOM?

Just repeating ‘many’ ain’t gonna cut it.

But that doesn’t mean they are further left than the Dems. I wouldn’t vote Dem now because I favour some spine with my politics. Doesn’t mean I am further left than the Dem party; actually, in some ways, I’m further right.

I would beg to differ.

Just because they, somewhere down in their hearts, purport to think left thoughts, doesn’t make them left. Thought without action is meaningless. If you desire them to stand up more to Bush in a way that would obtain more of a left result than we’d otherwise have, but they won’t do so, how is your desire not to the left of them? You want them to act more left than they want to act.

Agreed - the system, and the two current parties, makes it hard for a viable third party.

Actually, what really makes it hard to form a third party is the nonsensical technicality most states have that a candidate can’t be represented on more than one ballot line. So a hypothetical Moonbat Party couldn’t list the Democratic candidate as their own as well in close districts, while running their own candidates in districts where a Republican would be lucky to get 30% of the vote.

Operative word is ‘on Iraq’. You’re looking at a single point issue and thinking that makes up a demographic, which it clearly doesn’t.

OK, how about on universal health care?

"Which of these do you think is more important: providing health care coverage 
for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, OR, holding down taxes, even 
if it means some Americans do not have health care coverage?"  Options rotated
	Coverage      Holding
        For All    Down Taxes 	Unsure 		
		% 	% 	% 		
	10/03 	79 	17 	4 		
	12/99 	71 	26 	3 		
						

"Which would you prefer: the current health insurance system in the United
States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers,
but some people have no insurance, OR, a universal health insurance program, 
in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the
government and financed by taxpayers?" Options rotated
	Current    Universal
        System 	  Program 	Unsure 		
		% 	% 	% 		
	10/03 	33 	62 	6 		
						

Again, the American people four years ago (in this case) were to the left of what the Democratic Party is willing to propose now. Not to mention to the left of Edwards’, Clinton’s, and Obama’s health insurance plans, one of which is likely to become in time what the Dems will become willing to propose. But not yet.

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Again, ‘many’ WHOM?
[/quote]
Many in the anti-war crowd; sorry, thought that was clear. Do you deny many in the anti-war community demand an immediate pull-out?

Just because they, somewhere down in their hearts, purport to think left thoughts, doesn’t make them left. Thought without action is meaningless. If you desire them to stand up more to Bush in a way that would obtain more of a left result than we’d otherwise have, but they won’t do so, how is your desire not to the left of them? You want them to act more left than they want to act.

I think you’re missing part of my point. Just because I join you in the cause of anti-war, DOES NOT mean I will join you in the rest of the Left’s agenda; I think abortion rights should be more tightly controlled, I believe in school vouchers as an alternative to failing public schools, and I think the size and power of the federal government should be curtailed. How does that jibe with those to the left of the Democratic Party? That’s what I am saying - just being ‘anti-war’ does not mean you’re automatically left of centre. I may hate Bush for reasons totally separate from you - I may hate him because of his wild fiscal irresponsibility. But just because I dislike him does not automatically make you my ally, if you see what I mean - we may have radically different agendas ourselves. That’s all I am sayin’.

Actually, what really makes it hard to form a third party is the nonsensical technicality most states have that a candidate can’t be represented on more than one ballot line. So a hypothetical Moonbat Party couldn’t list the Democratic candidate as their own as well in close districts, while running their own candidates in districts where a Republican would be lucky to get 30% of the vote.

So petition your state electoral commision and get it changed.

OK, how about on universal health care?

"Which of these do you think is more important: providing health care coverage 
for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, OR, holding down taxes, even 
if it means some Americans do not have health care coverage?"  Options rotated
	Coverage      Holding
        For All    Down Taxes 	Unsure 		
		% 	% 	% 		
	10/03 	79 	17 	4 		
	12/99 	71 	26 	3 		
						

"Which would you prefer: the current health insurance system in the United
States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers,
but some people have no insurance, OR, a universal health insurance program, 
in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the
government and financed by taxpayers?" Options rotated
	Current    Universal
        System 	  Program 	Unsure 		
		% 	% 	% 		
	10/03 	33 	62 	6 		
						

I fail to see how this bolsters your argument that anti-war = left of centre.

Again, the American people four years ago (in this case) were to the left of what the Democratic Party is willing to propose now. Not to mention to the left of Edwards’, Clinton’s, and Obama’s health insurance plans, one of which is likely to become in time what the Dems will become willing to propose. But not yet.

Not all of them. Tie your statistics above to the anti-war movement (as in prove that the same people who support universal health care, even at the cost of raising taxes, also support the end of the war) and you’ll have a point. As is, I see no correlation, and I dont’ see where you show a growing majority of Americans are to the left of the Democratic Party - sorry, just don’t see it.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Many in the anti-war crowd; sorry, thought that was clear. Do you deny many in the anti-war community demand an immediate pull-out?
[/quote]
No, I’m asking you to say who this ‘many’ is. I’m sure that there are at least 100,000 antiwar Americans who favor an immediate pullout. 100,000 is ‘many’ in many contexts. What’s your ‘many’ and who are they? Do they make a difference?

I think you’re missing part of my point. Just because I join you in the cause of anti-war, DOES NOT mean I will join you in the rest of the Left’s agenda; I think abortion rights should be more tightly controlled, I believe in school vouchers as an alternative to failing public schools, and I think the size and power of the federal government should be curtailed. How does that jibe with those to the left of the Democratic Party?

Easy there - I’m not saying the things you think I’m saying.

I’m saying that in terms of what it’s willing to go to the mats over, the Democratic Party is mildly to the right of the American center on many of the most significant issues of the day. This includes Iraq specifically.

I’m saying that being antiwar on Iraq puts you to the left of the Democratic Party on that issue. And that since America has an antiwar majority, that puts the Democratic Party to the right of center on that issue. Then I said that was true more generally, and I understood you to disagree with that, when you said “Operative word is ‘on Iraq’. You’re looking at a single point issue and thinking that makes up a demographic, which it clearly doesn’t.”

That’s why I was bringing up universal health care: to buttress my point that the Dems are to the right of center, as defined by where the American people are, on multiple issues.

It may not be the same majority on each issue - you may be for a reasonably quick (i.e. over the next year or two) pullout from Iraq, but against government-funded universal health care. And someone else is vice versa.

So petition your state electoral commision and get it changed.

Why? I’m not advocating a third party. (In pretty much all states, fwiw, it would require a bill being passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, which is a lot of work if it’s low on your priority list.) I’m just noting that that’s probably the most significant obstacle, and that if one was in the business of trying to create a viable third party, this would be one of the first things you’d need to work on.

Tie your statistics above to the anti-war movement (as in prove that the same people who support universal health care, even at the cost of raising taxes, also support the end of the war) and you’ll have a point. As is, I see no correlation, and I dont’ see where you show a growing majority of Americans are to the left of the Democratic Party - sorry, just don’t see it.

Sorry, but I don’t see how it’s necessary to show a correlation to show that the Dems are to the right of the American center.

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
No, I’m asking you to say who this ‘many’ is. I’m sure that there are at least 100,000 antiwar Americans who favor an immediate pullout. 100,000 is ‘many’ in many contexts. What’s your ‘many’ and who are they? Do they make a difference?
[/quote]

The loudest voices I seem to be hearing in the anti-war camp are pull-out-now types, and seem to be loudest when damning the weakness of the leadship advocating a staged pull-out.

Easy there - I’m not saying the things you think I’m saying.

Quite possibly; but don’t worry, I am not in any way upset and hope that you’re not either.

I’m saying that in terms of what it’s willing to go to the mats over, the Democratic Party is mildly to the right of the American center on many of the most significant issues of the day. This includes Iraq specifically.

I disagree. The Dems are slightly left of Centre in American politics although I think I see what you’re saying - the Dems if they were magically transported to the UK would be to thr right of our Conservatives. But I think you’ll find a lot of Americans, especially those in rural areas, are a lot less liberal than I think you’re hoping for.

I’m saying that being antiwar on Iraq puts you to the left of the Democratic Party on that issue. And that since America has an antiwar majority, that puts the Democratic Party to the right of center on that issue. Then I said that was true more generally, and I understood you to disagree with that, when you said “Operative word is ‘on Iraq’. You’re looking at a single point issue and thinking that makes up a demographic, which it clearly doesn’t.”

Then we’re violently agreeing with each other; funny how often that seems to happen in written communications.

That’s why I was bringing up universal health care: to buttress my point that the Dems are to the right of center, as defined by where the American people are, on multiple issues.

Well, my point is that not all of those who support universal health care also support ending the Iraq war, but I’ll grant you that most likely support the other if they support one.

It may not be the same majority on each issue - you may be for a reasonably quick (i.e. over the next year or two) pullout from Iraq, but against government-funded universal health care. And someone else is vice versa.

That is EXACTLY my point. I know people (who are likely very much in the minorty) who are dyed in the wool Conservatives. THey hate Bush because he’s fiscally irresponsible with the Nation’s treasure, don’t like Iraq because it’s a poorly executed foreign adventure, but would never for a million bucks support universal health care because they feel it would be the Federal Government run amok and think all medical decisions should be left to Doctors (funnily enough, they are Doctors :)) alone.

Why? I’m not advocating a third party. (In pretty much all states, fwiw, it would require a bill being passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, which is a lot of work if it’s low on your priority list.) I’m just noting that that’s probably the most significant obstacle, and that if one was in the business of trying to create a viable third party, this would be one of the first things you’d need to work on.

Fair enough, I guess I misunderstood your goal.

Sorry, but I don’t see how it’s necessary to show a correlation to show that the Dems are to the right of the American center.

Then what are you basing your judgement that the majority of Americans are to the left of, and being abandoned by, the Democratic Party.

[Sal_Ammoniac]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Secondly, there has been a noticeable drop in violence pretty much across the board, but most importantly a drop in US casualties. If that is sustainable (a big if), I’m wondering if the country as a whole (not us political junkies on this MB) will lose interest in the war, and it will drop even lower on the radar screen. It definitely helps a candidate like Clinton, since she will almost certainly want to keep a rather large contingent of US forces in Iraq through her first term in office (assuming she wins). Not as large as we have now, but a lot larger than zero.

Does that make more sense?
[/QUOTE]

My sense is that all parties involved are taking something of a breather. Bush is a lame duck, and everyone knows that until he goes, there will be no major change in overall policy. The Democrats have given up for now, and are just waiting for Clinton to be elected. Even in Iraq, I feel like everyone is just waiting for the other shoe to drop. One way or another, the American military presence will be reduced at some point – either because we seem to be succeeding, or seem to be failing. And once we begin to pull back, the situation there will either stabilize further, or get worse – but even if the latter happens, I don’t see us scaling up our forces again.

In another words, the American pullout will be irreversible. And until that happens, we’re just waiting. We’ve entered the period of the Sitzkrieg.

[RTFirefly]

@GomiBoy

Then we’re violently agreeing with each other; funny how often that seems to happen in written communications.

Doesn’t it, though?

Skipping over the parts where we seem to agree intensely, let’s see if I can sum up the points on which we disagree:

1. Is attributing a “withdraw immediately” stance to war opponents a strawman?

2. If, on most major issues, a majority of the public wants more in the way of a left-of-center response than the Dems are willing to go to bat for, does that mean the Dems are, as a whole, slightly to the right of center?

Do we agree that’s what’s still on the table?

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Skipping over the parts where we seem to agree intensely, let’s see if I can sum up the points on which we disagree:
[/quote]

OK.

1. Is attributing a “withdraw immediately” stance to war opponents a strawman?

Not IMO. I think many, possibly not a majority but many, on the anti-war side are pull-out-now supporters as well.

2. If, on most major issues, a majority of the public wants more in the way of a left-of-center response than the Dems are willing to go to bat for, does that mean the Dems are, as a whole, slightly to the right of center?

Again, I don’t agree. Some do, some don’t. I will agree that the Dems are not representing their base, if that helps any?

Do we agree that’s what’s still on the table?

I guess not

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
OK.

Not IMO. I think many, possibly not a majority but many, on the anti-war side are pull-out-now supporters as well.

Again, I don’t agree. Some do, some don’t. I will agree that the Dems are not representing their base, if that helps any?

I guess not
[/QUOTE]
Ummm, let’s take another step back here. I wasn’t asking whether we agree on these two questions. I was asking whether these two questions sum up what we disagree on at the moment.

With my arguing the affirmative and your arguing the negative on both questions, but I didn’t think that needed to be said.

So: we disagree on those two. Do we stridently agree on everything else, or is there something I’ve missed?

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Ummm, let’s take another step back here. I wasn’t asking whether we agree on these two questions. I was asking whether these two questions sum up what we disagree on at the moment.

With my arguing the affirmative and your arguing the negative on both questions, but I didn’t think that needed to be said.

So: we disagree on those two. Do we stridently agree on everything else, or is there something I’ve missed?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, sorry - I agree that those two points are the only points of disagreement that remain.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Yes, sorry - I agree that those two points are the only points of disagreement that remain.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent - as our exchanges thus far have amply demonstrated, it’s never a bad idea to make sure you know what the debate’s really about.

Now that we’ve done that, back to the debate, starting with issue 1 above:

@GomiBoy

The loudest voices I seem to be hearing in the anti-war camp are pull-out-now types, and seem to be loudest when damning the weakness of the leadship advocating a staged pull-out.

My problem here is I still don’t know which voices you’re hearing, or why you’re hearing them. Maybe different voices are louder in London than in the greater D.C. area.

I don’t see any influential Democrats arguing for an immediate pullout. No Presidential candidates (except possibly Kucinich; I haven’t checked him, but he’s not exactly influential), no Senators or Representatives that I’ve heard of, no major non-officeholding Dems (e.g. Gore).

In the lefty blogosphere, I don’t know of any major voices who are agitating for an immediate pullout. Not Markos, not Atrios, not Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake, not Digby of Hullabaloo, not Chris Bowers or Matt Stoller of OpenLeft, not anyone that I’m familiar with.

I’m sure there’s people in the Greens or International ANSWER who are for an immediate pullout. But hardly anyone listens to them.