Bottom line though, their words do not match their actions and actions speak louder than words.
Lets compare.
From the speech the President made last night:
Because of this success, General Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces. He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 Marines scheduled to leave Anbar province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas. And he expects that by July, we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15.
General Petraeus also recommends that in December we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve. Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces.
I have consulted with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other members of my national security team, Iraqi officials, and leaders of both parties in Congress. I have benefited from their advice, and I have accepted General Petraeus's recommendations. I have directed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to update their joint campaign plan for Iraq, so we can adjust our military and civilian resources accordingly......
Following his speech, President Bush has the Pentagon working on plans for those withdrawals he spoke about last night.
Pentagon planners were beginning meetings Friday to determine which units will be leaving Iraq in the next 10 months.
The number of U.S. troops that President Bush has announced plans for withdrawal from Iraq totals about 21,500.
That's about the number of combat troops sent to Iraq as part of what the Bush administration calls the "surge" -- but not the approximately 8,000 combat support troops who also were sent as part of the 30,000 troop surge. It is unclear what will happen with them.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is expected to lay out publicly for the first time his views on the withdrawal and discuss the next steps at a press conference Friday, officials said.
The NYT shows us how the Democrats are working on "their" bills to supposedly "change the course" in Iraq.
Several proposals were being weighed, including one requiring the American military role to be shifted more to training and counterterrorism in order to reduce the force by more than President Bush is expected to promise on Thursday. Another would guarantee troops longer respites from the battlefield, effectively cutting the numbers available for combat.
The difference in their bill will be they will try to get more troops included in that, but as it goes on to state later, they know that they do not have the 60 votes needed.
Even if those proposals draw the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster — a level that has eluded Democrats this year — any real strictures on the president would face a veto, frustrating war critics and raising the prospect that roughly as many American troops might be in Iraq a year from now as were there a year ago.
Then we have the "spin" from the left claiming that the troops would have had to be removed anyway as part of their rotation, which General Petraeus showed to be a lie from left.
At a news conference on Wednesday, General Petraeus reiterated that he was unwilling to commit to troop cuts beyond a five-brigade reduction by mid-July, a level he described as prudent. There are 20 combat brigades in Iraq.
He also took issue with claims that such a reduction would not be significantly faster than what had already been scheduled. Combat forces in Iraq serve up to 15-month tours. Under that limit, part of the Pentagon’s broad effort to lessen the strains on the military, General Petraeus would not have had to pull out any combat units until April, instead of removing the first brigades in mid-December, he said.
“We are coming out quicker than we had to,” he said.
Then the "Democratic politicians plan", which, in reality, is Bush's plan that he stated last night.
Senator Reid would not provide details of the legislative proposals that Democrats will pursue. But Mr. Levin and Mr. Reed have been working with some Republicans on a measure that would focus the military mission on counterterrorism, training Iraqis and protecting forces already there — a switch intended to allow large numbers of combat troops to be withdrawn by next spring.
Now from the quote above from Bush's speech:
General Petraeus also recommends that in December we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve. Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces.
Compare the two for yourself.
Even better the NYT shows this:
They have been exploring the idea of making the withdrawal more of an objective than a requirement in order to attract Republican votes, but that approach could cause defections by Democrats.
Ultimately, once Iraqi forces can maintain security themselves, the objective has always been withdrawal.
This is a "new" idea? The "Democratic plan"?
One which they cannot even agree to within their own party!!!!!!
The struggle to settle on a party alternative illustrates the problems Democrats are having finding a way to take on the president that unites their party and avoids criticism that they are weak on national security.
As Democrats huddled Wednesday to prepare for the floor debate, a group of leading House Republicans arrived in Iraq to demonstrate their backing for the president. The lawmakers, led by Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, had been in Iraq less than five hours, but in a conference call with reporters they said their initial briefings had already confirmed improvements.
“Clearly what’s happened over the last three months has been real success,” said Mr. Boehner, who previously visited Iraq in July 2006.
They think by pretending that the President's plan is really their plan they can fool their supporters?
The fact is they never had a plan, they ran on a platform of "change strategy" and then they ignore that the strategy was changed and success is being seen. The slogan was used and they continue to try to use that slogan despite the fact that it doesn't apply anymore.
Groups like MoveOn will rip them to shreds for it and the moderates within the Democratic party will see right through the falsehoods.
The headline of the NYT article I have been quoting from is appropriate for a change. It is called "Disappointed Democrats Map Withdrawal Strategy".
How stupid do they think their supporters are?
Lets see how many of the Democratic supporters buy in to this and how many call them out for their obvious lies.
Remember the Democrats are so heavily invested in failure and defeat that they continue to try to surrender, despite even more good news coming from Iraq, via the Strata-Sphere .
.
