Awesome!

[ProSense]

From Taylor Marsh:

Snip…

From Senators Jack Reed, Kennedy and Clinton to many faithful Democrats, we all let Senator Harry Reid know he'd said something that just wasn't going to fly. It's been corrected. Many likely want me to leave it at that but I simply cannot.

When Senators Kerry and Feingold put forth their plan in the Senate to get out of Iraq by July 2007, Reid scheduled the debate after sunset. He wanted no part of redeployment timelines and neither did many other Democrats. Now don't get me wrong, Reid is a smart, dedicated leader who knows what he's doing, but he's not been for a timeline at any point until his post yesterday. What Reid voted for was reports on progress: To clarify and recommend changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on certain matters relating to Iraq. That's very different, which is why so many people took Reid's statement on Sunday exactly as it was spoken.

When speaking about the Iraq war in the middle of Bush's mismanaged disaster it's important, even critical, to say exactly what you mean the first time. When people are dying at alarming rates that continue to escalate it's not too much to ask that everyone mean what they say and say what they mean. Of course, that doesn't always happen, but when you get it wrong a correction or clarification is warranted.

Senator Hillary Clinton recently made a very bold change in her rhetoric on the war.

Majority leader Reid says he now believes we should redeploy in 4-6 months. That's entirely different from the Levin-Reed plan he supported, which called for 2006 to be a time of “significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.”

The shifts we're hearing in Democratic leaders are real and noteworthy, especially since they are now noting timelines, along with their rejection of prior "yea" votes on authorization.

more…

This leaves no doubt where the clarity has been all along: Kerry-Feingold.

[blm]

1. Is it in GD? Man, do I love Taylor Marsh.

and YOU, of course.

[wisteria]

2. Exactly, and I am glad she is pointing that out. It appears that now that

it is "safe" to speak of timelines, other Democrats are on board now. Of course, if asked,they always supported them and they figure the public has a short attention span and won't remember what little weasels they were back in June, when Reid and many others tried to silence Kerry and Feingold and allowed them to be ridiculed by the Repubs and the press. I won't soon forget the "cut and run" accusations and no one having Kerry's back. My gosh, Senator Warner treated him with more respect than Reid did.

Now that I have had my rant, I will be nice and state that it is good more Dem's are coming around and now see the true state of things in Iraq and are embracing timelines.

[Mass]

4. And they will continue. Taylor Marsh could not be bothered to read

the specifics of what Reid was saying. We are going to start to withdraw in 6 months? When are we going to end withdrawing: in 2 years, 8 years, 10 years.

It bothers me terribly that some people seem to think that coopting an issue is enough.

[ProSense]

5. I agree it is a step in the right direction, and Taylor does get

credit for making the distinction:

...What Reid voted for was reports on progress: To clarify and recommend changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on certain matters relating to Iraq. That's very different, which is why so many people took Reid's statement on Sunday exactly as it was spoken.

Which is exactly the purpose of the amendment stated at the link!

[Mass]

3. But once again, people confuse two things:

- a date for starting to redeploy without any specifics on how many people should withdraw and how long it will take,
- a deadline for redeployment (even if some troops remain to finish the job).

These are two fairly different proposals. When I read Taylor Marsh's post today, I thought Reid had made a bold move and decided to support a deadline for troop withdrawal. Sure enough, he is proposing the same thing Levin proposed a few weeks ago. It is clearly a step ahead in the right direction, but the post is ambiguous.