Is this true about the democratic strategies?http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2751.html?

Question

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.
The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.
As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2751.html

That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.
Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have decided that they must take the lead in pressuring not only Republicans but also cautious Senate Democrats to take steps more aggressive than nonbinding resolutions in challenging the Bush administration.
The House strategy is being crafted quietly, even as the chamber is immersed this week in an emotional, albeit mostly symbolic, debate over a resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to "surge" 21,500 more troops into Iraq.

NPR's Interview with Rep. Murtha

Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equip

Answer 1

This is a perfect example of the left right paradigm. Neither side wants out of Iraq, War is money and they are all bought on both sides.

Answer 2

Meteor Blades at The Next Hurrah has some well placed statements in support of Murtha and then joins the debate on the right course in Iraq.

Congressman John Murtha’s stunning remarks Thursday may have finally broken the logjam of posturing, triangulating, and hemming and hawing that has plagued certain Democrats ever since the Dubyanocchio Administration let it be publicly known that the United States was going into Iraq 41 months ago. That is, if those Dems can keep from being cowed by anti-American pissants like this one. For smacking down such creatures, all they need follow is Murtha’s superb roundhouse kick to the head of chickenhawk Cheney.

Not that we’ll necessarily see a complete withdrawal from Iraq in six months or even a year. George Walker Bush still has 758 days to serve. But Murtha, the decorated Marine, has left other far more liberal Democrats with no further excuse for continuing to shy away from discussing the inevitable: America will leave Iraq before that country is democratized, rebuilt or even stabilized because efforts to do so have failed. Even if the Administration was to yield in its obstinacy and change course along the lines suggested by, say, General Wesley Clark, it’s too late to turn the situation around.I don't see Murtha saying this at all. I see him supporting something close to the strategy laid out by Juan Cole last August. Cole called for a redeployment of US troops to a supporting role, the use of special forces advisors and air support in the model of Afghanistan. Presumably, the Iraqi government would need some time to build a coalition force amongst the various Shiite and Kurdish militias. This would very likely involve partitioning up parts of the country by assigning the militias geographically. Iraq would be left without an invasive force for the Sunni provinces, something will allow the Sunni's some breathing space to consider their political options. Naturally there would be an expectation that the US troops would be gradually drawn down, but not until the status quo is stabilized for some time. Contrary to what many Republicans are shrieking, there is no "cut and run" philosophy, it's simply a disengagement and repositioning of US troops to a position they could be called upon to defend the Iraqi government if necessary.

Meteor Blades then launches into a discussion comparing the positions of two generals who have been opponents of Bush's Iraqi strategies from two different points of view. He presents General Wesley Clark position and General William Odom both from August of 2005. Now that it's November, I suspect Clarke anyway is reconsidering his view in response to Murtha. Clarke seems to rule out disengagement but working on the training and support of Iraqi army, and political and diplomatic emphasis. Odorn, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, believes the war is lost and we should go home and give Iraq to the insurgents. I don't hear anyone else advocating this position which is truly a "cut and run" strategy. But he does suggest some good talking points for Democrats.

Answer 3

What is your point? Republicans did nothing for 12 years but flush our kids and money down the toilet in a war that should have never happened in the 1st place!

What is wrong with limiting their options?, and no one is going to abandon the troops! That is like Bush! Two Cuts for Veterans Hospitals; one in the current budget and one of $100 Billion in 2006. Ironic, the tax cuts for the rich are still in the budget! Guess we know what Bush thinks of those who have had their limbs blown off!

And the righties can accuse all they want, a change of mission does not mean anyone in the congress is going to Abandon the troops! What you are really saying, if Democrats don't go along with a lying president, they are abandoning the troops. Not so!

Anyone who puts our troops in harms way over NOTHING should be shot!

Answer 4

From BPnews: “As presently as 2 weeks in the past in an interview with Bloomberg information, Charlie Rangel grew to become into asked if there have been any of the Bush tax cuts he would save. And he mentioned he couldn’t think of of one. which could contain the youngster based tax credit, the alleviation interior the marriage penalty, and the recent lowest 10 p.c. tax fee for decrease earnings families. Your taxes are going to flow up.

Answer 5

Good idea, do not just yank them out but gradually limit the deployment possibilities. It is about time we had discussion of alternatives to Bush's ideas which so far have not worked. How many more tries does he get at how many lives per try???

Answer 6

The biggest concern for Democrats is that Bush/Cheney still want to attack Iran.

Answer 7

I, for the most part, have read the same thing you have. Democrats really do hate America and our military. That why the last letters in Democrats spells "rats".

Answer 8

No binding- so they fund the war- tell the soldiers they are doing a good job- but are wasting their lives (according to Obama) and told by congress that they are not supported at all- that the war is wrong etc- but "keep it up boys."

Answer 9

I don't have a source in the DNC, but it would not surprise me 1 bit if they are doing this.

Answer 10

seems to me that the republicans have been reduced to literally hiding behind the troops in some sort of horrid game of chicken with our troops.

hey republicans - stop hiding behind our troops...