In its September 6 editorial, the Aurora Daily Sun & Sentinel charged Democrats are “confused and disingenuous” regarding the American military effort in Iraq. The paper went on to claim that “most know we have no choice but to stay and hope it doesn't get any worse” and asserted “if Democrats have a better idea of how to get the United States out of a war most of them voted for, we've yet to hear it.” The editorial omits the fact that 12 senior congressional Democratic leaders recently reiterated their call to President Bush for phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq after 37 of 44 Senate Democrats voted for an amendment calling for such a phased withdrawal. Their proposal is similar to the redeployment plan proposed by the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., which The New York Times reported on in its June 25 edition.

Both proposals call for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces beginning this year, combined with steps to increase the authority and the popular acceptance of the Iraqi government. The Democrats' September 4 letter was signed by the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate as well as the ranking Democratic members on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Intelligence Committees, International and Foreign Relations Committees, and Defense Appropriation Subcommittees. It states:

Therefore, we urge you once again to consider changes to your Iraq policy. We propose a new direction, which would include: (1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection; (2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year; (3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort. These proposals were outlined in our July 30th letter and are consistent with the “U.S. Policy in Iraq Act” you signed into law last year.

As the New York Times article by Michael R. Gordon reported, the Casey plan “projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence [in Iraq] by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September.” The article further reported:

American officials emphasized that any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq's six central provinces. Even so, the projected troop withdrawals in 2007 are more significant than many experts had expected.

[...]

In the general's briefing, the future American role in Iraq is divided into three phases. The next 12 months was described as a period of stabilization. The period from the summer of 2007 through the summer of 2008 was described as a time when the emphasis would be on the restoration of the Iraqi government's authority. The period from the summer of 2008 though the summer of 2009 was cast as one in which the Iraqi government would be increasingly self-reliant.

Although the Democrats' letter appeared after reporting on the Casey plan, elements of the plan were contained in the “United States Policy in Iraq Act of 2006,” which Sen. Carl Levin proposed as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. On June 22, 37 of 44 Senate Democrats voted for Levin's amendment, while six Democrats voted against it. One Democrat, Jay Rockefeller (WV) did not vote. The amendment failed when all Republicans but one voted against the amendment.

From the editorial “Dems, GOP out of line with Iraq war rhetoric” in the September 6 edition of the Aurora Daily Sun & Sentinel:

More importantly, Bush misleads the public with his marketing scheme to refer to our troubles as the War on Terrorism. Rest assured, if it turns out the government of any nation organized a terrorist attack on the United States, we would be at war. But we're fighting a loose-knit group of brainwashed religious zealots from all over the world.

And while the bulk of our soldiers and money are in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's not where our so-called enemies plot from. Given Bush's definitions, we're fighting the wrong war.

Democrats are equally confused and disingenuous. Smelling political blood ready to be spilled in congressional elections, the party out of power is only too quick to exploit Americans' dissatisfaction with the Iraq campaign, even though most know we have no choice but to stay and hope it doesn't get any worse. And if Democrats have a better idea of how to get the United States out of a war most of them voted for, we've yet to hear it.

Both Democrats and Republicans need to campaign on issues and ideas, rather than seek to scare and impress voters with useless rhetoric, making them long to choose “none of the above.”