The distraction is part of the denial that

[ProSense]

Kerry's plan is the only realistic option! Every article mentions that the Bush admin is against a timetable, but never a mention of the only plan calling for a timetable.

November 29, 2006

No consensus yet on troop levels, commission says

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Members of an independent commission on Iraq policy could not reach a consensus Tuesday on how many or how long U.S. troops should remain in Iraq, forcing the group to return for a third day of debate, according to an official close to the panel’s negotiations.

Panel members mostly made no comment as they left the Woodrow Wilson Center on Tuesday afternoon. But Leon Panetta, former White House chief of staff to President Clinton, hinted at some struggles, telling reporters, “Trying, trying to find a ... trying to find consensus. ... It goes up and down.”

The Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel created to recommend changes in U.S. war policy, is having difficulties reaching agreement on what the appropriate level of U.S. troops should be in Iraq, whether there should be a phased withdrawal, and if so, under what time frame, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the panel’s deliberations are private.

A second official has said that the commission was unlikely to propose a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq but that some members seemed to favor setting a date for only an initial withdrawal, an idea that has been pushed by many congressional Democrats.

The first official said Tuesday that the group was still struggling over whether to set a hard deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces or if there should be any short-term increase in troops as the U.S. works to train and build up Iraq’s security forces. There are currently about 139,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

more...

Can't mention that it's Kerry's plan, syndication would give him too much coverage:

Army Times

Marine Times

Gates Warns Against Leaving Iraq 'in Chaos'

Defense Nominee Says He Opposes Speedy Pullout

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 29, 2006; Page A05

Robert M. Gates, President Bush's nominee to become the next secretary of defense, said he opposes a swift pullout from Iraq, arguing in written testimony submitted yesterday to Congress that "leaving Iraq in chaos would have dangerous consequences both in the region and globally for many years to come."

more...

[TayTay]

1. I believe this is true.

It may also be about silencing 'maverick' Democratic Senators about Iraq as much as it is about '08. There is still a large part of the Democratic Party that believes that Bush is self-immolating on Iraq and that Dems should just step aside and let him do so. They don't want any Democrats in front on this issue as they see it as taking needless risk and inviting conflict.

I think this is wrong. I want to see people with strong opinions on Iraq and I especially want to see and hear from people who are talking about Iraq, the conflict there and the US' role in it from a moral point of view. I want to hear from people who have been through a war and who understand the hopelessness of fighting someone else's civil war. Sen. Hagel's comments had some resonance this past weekend precisely because he was in Vietnam and saw the conflict up close.

I think the Dem leaders want Dems to shut up because they believe that standing for nothing works. It is a complete misunderstanding of what happened on Nov 7th.

[beachmom]

2. You're right. And it most definitely is not just about '08

That piece in the WP about Webb was Exhibit A of how this is not just a Kerry/'08 thing. Anyone willing to speak uncomfortable truths gets shot down. And even media outlets calling the Iraq war what it is -- a civil war -- are under fire. It seems the truth is the #1 enemy. Bush and Dem leaders don't want to face it, and this puts our country in peril. This is a historical moment for America, and we mustn't let the foolishness by the punditocracy distract us from how grave a situation we are in. Bush's performance on this trip has been astounding in the lengths he will go to avoid the truth. What is even worse is how the cautious wing of the Dem party is SO willing to go along.

[wisteria]

3. Sadly, I agree with you. Our party doesn't want to lead on Iraq

and they want to just hide behind the excuses and the Baker recommendations. My opinion is this has a much to do with DLC positioning as it does with appeasing the Southern Dem's. To hell with the progressive and NE states. They figure they can string us along with a carrot or two dangling in front of us. Re,Biden's hearings. From's op-ed indicates they really didn't get it this election. Or they just got the part they wanted to get. I see Reid is going to start to tackle corruption and ethics. While I agree with these steps, again it says nothing about taking on the administration on this war. In the meantime, soldiers and Iraqi's continue to die for a mistake.