BETTER LATE THAN NEVER-- WELCOME ABOARD DICK DURBIN! AND FOR THOSE WHO STILL DON'T GET IT, BILL RICHARDSON EXPLAINS WHAT "NOW" MEANS

Last month 70 Democratic House members (+ Libertarian Ron Paul) co-signed a letter to Bush that said they would no longer vote for any Iraq expenditures that weren't for the express purpose of bringing the troops home in an orderly and safe fashion. It starts with a declaration so clear and precise that even Bush will be able to understand it by himself: "We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office."

Yesterday, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the Assistant Majority Leader, took a nice big step in that direction. Durbin, who has voted for almost all of Bush's requests for Iraq war and occupation funding, drew a line in the sand today. "This Congress can't give President Bush another blank check for Iraq... I can't support an open-ended appropriation which allows this president to continue this failed policy."

What Durbin and a growing number of senators are saying is that they will no longer vote for funding Bush's Iraq policies unless he agrees to restrictions that will begin winding down American involvement there. This morning's Washington Post has a column by Governor Bill Richardson, Why We Should Exit Iraq Now that goes considerably further than Durbin. Although a lot of it is typically self-serving-- approaching a Biden type approach to self aggrandizement-- Richardson is far more in tune with the American people on this than most of the senators and any of the presidential hopefuls.

Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage and professionalism, but they cannot win someone else's civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.

The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq.

Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a route out through Turkey.

...Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be "irresponsible." On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal-- not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process-- would be the most responsible and effective course of action.

Richardson is correct about the Inside-the-Beltway group-think that is keeping the Iraq occupation spinning out of control. I hope his column today will give some congressional Democrats pause for thought.