Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
...
Quote:

Matter Eater Man said:
And here is actually what she & Feingold put forth...
Here is the summary of Boxer's Senate Resolution 171 (what you & the RNC call surrender)...
Quote:------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supports the men and women of the Armed Forces in Iraq and deeply appreciates their admirable service.
Recognizes that stability and democracy in Iraq are in the U.S. national interest.
Expresses the sense of the Senate that: (1) the United States should remain committed to providing long-term diplomatic and political support to Iraq; (2) the United States should continue to pursue a robust and multi-faceted campaign against international terrorist networks in Iraq and around the world; and (3) not later than 30 days after the Senate agrees to this resolution, the President should report to Congress describing the Armed Forces' remaining mission in Iraq, and a time frame for the subsequent withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS




Note the bolded section of your post. I added no spin, all I did was give emphasis to the part that you refuse to acknowledge.


Yet you ignore the rest of the resolution that obviously isn't calling for an immeddiate pullout. Nor is the time frame somehow binding if conditions change in Iraq. You might remember Bush used a time frame on Iraq pulling together a government. When they couldn't meet a deadline it was extended. (How could a time frame be binding on the President anyway, as you guys seem to claim?) And there is a good arguement for having one. Much of the insurgent's power is being given to their claims that we're never going to leave. And it would also give Congress a better idea of what Bush is doing or not doing with the war.

Fair play!