The rationale, as I understand it is this, that by setting a date certain, you establish a context by which if bush decides not to honor that date, then it is bush who is defunding the war.

i have tried to offer some reasons why this rationale has not taken hold in a way that one would hope that it would.  those reasons consisted of an unwise analogy.

all i can say is it is clear that tester hasn't subscribed to this rationale.  and so there is the disconnect.  

that if the following were to take place.

1. tester supporting date certain defunding.
   
2. bush keeping the war going after that date.
   
3. defunding starts.
   
4. troops are impacted by this defunding.

I would like for him to outline exactly how the bill compromises the safety and security of our troops. - Militarytracy

Reid-Feingold sets a date certain 10 months from now to NOT fund the Iraq Debacle. It does not "compromise" the troops. It is the only way Congress can protect the troops from Bush. - Armando

Let me see if I can add the missing pieces to the two quotes above. But first let me say I'd would love to see R-F pass with some caveats. That said:

"How [does] the bill compromises the safety and security of our troops" and "It does not "compromise" the troops".

Well both of those statements do not take into consideration one important aspect of R-F that neither poster mentions. MT does not even attempt to mention any aspect of R-F and Armando is only mentioning one part of it in order to soften the bills impact in a way that fits the frame he wants to present. Both ignore that R-F calls for withdrawal of troops to begin in 120 days.

I'm sure that is what Tester is concerned with as was Webb. I'm not a military expert but certainly Webb could qualify. I'd submit that the following come into play:

• It could take more than 120 days just to decide exactly what troops to start moving out in 120 days.

• Which troops are not critical to Force Protection?

• What areas of Iraq are the safest for the troops to move out of without compromising the safety of other troops.

• When you start pulling troops do you also pull the equipment they are using and pull the support (non-combat) troops also.

• Do you pull active combat troops or do you start with Force Protection troops which would aid the AC troops that may come under duress and need additional troop strength?

And the above 'short list' does not even take into consideration of where you would send these troops or how many you leave behind for training Iraqi troops or for anti-foreign terrorist fighting. The above also does not address how many support troops and Force Protection troops should be left in Iraq to protect the trainers and anti-foreign terrorist troops, nor does it address the rotation of those troops.

The notion that the insurgents need encouragement from Congress to fight for their lives, and the Sunni especially know they are fighting for their lives, is simply preposterous.

I respect your son's service, but his analysis is childish at best.

How do you feel about your son basically fighting to protect a Shia dominated government beholden to Iran?

The Congressional Republicans decided instead to roll over and play dead. When the administration was plainly making very serious mistakes, their response was not to try to set things right, but to pretend that nothing was wrong. By declining to play their Constitutionally mandated role, they enabled this President to create a strategic catastrophe.

It's not resolutions that embolden the enemy; it's the fact that our invasion of Iraq has so obviously turned into a disaster. For the Republicans in Congress to accuse the Democrats of emboldening the enemy is like an arsonist who has set a house on fire, and then tries to convince people not to yell 'Fire!' lest they alarm the inhabitants. [Update: Or maybe it's like a spouse who has been cheating on his wife for years asking why she's allowing her inability to deal with his infidelity to jeopardize the marriage he values so highly. End update.] They placed the purely political need to fall in behind their President over the interests of the country. They were not prepared to do all they could to ensure that we were doing the best job we could do in Iraq; to make it as likely as possible that we would actually succeed. In so doing they forfeited the right to accuse anyone else of emboldening the enemy, or to lecture others about how very, very important it is that we win.

I love the internet.  It allows people to make completely unsubstantiated claims, speaking for wide populations, with the air of authority.  Although in that respect I guess it doesn't differ too much from the mainstream press sometimes </cynicism>

I call them childish because they seem so to me.

They are already as emboldened as much as anyone could possibly be, by fighting for their lives.

But somehow me sitting here with "antiwar sentiments" makes them "more" emboldened than anyone could possibly be.

"Reid-Feingold sets a date certain 10 months from now to NOT fund the Iraq Debacle. It does not "compromise" the troops. It is the only way Congress can protect the troops from Bush.

The American People have spoken Senator. Time for Senators like you to listen and stop pretending you can't end the Iraq Debacle, which is the biggest threat our troops face today. Political cowardice and dishonesty is not a substitute for leadership. And that is what Tester offered on Reid-Feingold. And for those wondering why I did not beat up on Baucus here, it is because I know that this is what Baucus has always been. Tester is a disappointment."

You never have written a word of substance that I have seen.

Doesn't that infuriate you?  Or do you simply deny the reality of it?  

I hope disagreement isn't construed as disrespect but while your son may not be witnessing a Civil War, the Shia and Sunni have decided otherwise.

If there was no civil unrest (better if we call it that?) there would be no competing loyalties amongst the ranks of the iraqi army.

There are zealots here that will stop at nothing," he says.