Handy War Withdrawal Chart

Hamdy War Withdrawal Chart

Via Kos, an all in one place list: how fast should we Get Out?

Hillary Clinton: Wants troops out before Bush leaves office in January 2009. 23 months.

Barack Obama: Issued plan for total withdrawal by March 31, 2008. 14 months.

John Edwards: Complete withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within 12-18 months. 18 months.

Bill Richardson: Total withdrawal by the end of 2007. 11 months.

Joe Biden: Withdraw most troops by the end of 2007, but 'maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force -- perhaps 20,000 troops' indefinitely. Kinda sorta 11 months, but not really.

Chris Dodd: No timetable that I could locate.

Wesley Clark. No timetable that I could locate.

Tom Vilsack: Immediate withdrawal. 'The war must end, and our troops must be brought home now, not eventually but immediately.' Immediate.

Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel: Immediate withdrawal. Immediate.

Interesting and forcing some thinking on my part; my own stance is somethink like "yesterday."

Also odd, despite the intense war opposition of party ativists, there's a near-inverse relationship between speed or withdrawal and poll numbers. American Research Group had these numbers over the weekend:

Democrats IA NH
Clinton 35% 39%
Edwards 18% 13%
Obama 14% 19%
Vilsack 12% 1%
Clark 2% 2%
Kucinich 2% 1%
Biden 2% 1%
Richardson 1% 2%
Dodd 1% 1%
Gravel - -
Undecided 13% 21%

Out Now is a real opportunity for an asterisk candidate, and having the slowest pace in the field is a vulnerability for HRC...

---

American Research Group also has GOP numbers that inxplicably show Romney climbing. I'm sticking to my analysis: he'll be killed on caucus night by doubts anout his conservatism and by theocratic hostility to his religion.



Speaking of the theocrats, a fascinating article from Bill Barnwell at the way-conservative Lew Rockwell site on how the religious right views the Middle East conflict:

Probably most conservative Protestants believe that humanity is certainly in the final generation of life on earth as we currently know it. Not that we "could be," but that "we must be." That’s a big distinction.

Dispensational preachers and lobbyists have the ear of the White House and are directly trying to influence foreign policy based on their very questionable theological views, which, by the way, are less than 200 years old. This is more than just a quirky theology that doesn’t affect those who do not hold it. Dispensationalists want to bring about world events that would have catastrophic implications for other Christians and for non-Christians.

If you aren’t on the side of war, then you aren’t on the side of God. Talk of peace now becomes irrelevant. It’s God’s will that we be militarists. The prevailing worldview of dispensationalism glorifies war, militarism, and the State.

If you buy into these interpretations, talks of peace in the Middle East are futile. Jews and Muslims must continue killing each other at high rates. And who will be the one bringing peace to the Middle East in this popular end-time paradigm? Not Jesus, but the Antichrist. Therefore, talk of Middle East peace during this current "dispensation" is not from Jesus, but the Antichrist. When dispensationalists hear talk of peace summits or treaties in the Middle East, they assume it must have evil origins. If that’s the cause, why bother trying to make the world a better place? All we need to do is be good Christians and wait for the Rapture and make way for the Antichrist.

Has Damien Thorne announced his candidacy yet?