Re: Explanation of Sen. Reed's "generalities"

This is a quick follow on to Marc’s last post. The President has made his case for progress in Iraq, including lots of specifics. Now, if there is to be a real debate, the Democrats have to answer. Here are a few questions the Democrats can answer to help clarify their position…

Do they agree with Congressman Jack Murtha that appeasing the Iraqi insurgency is the next logical step?

Do they have any facts of their own to back up Democratic party chairman Howard Dean's assertion that Iraq is unwinnable? Does Rhode Island Senate Candidate Matt Brown want a quick withdrawal from Iraq because he agrees with Dean that Iraq is unwinnable?

Does the non-defeatist, non-appeasing wing of the Democratic party have anything to add?

Actually, Senator Jack Reed may have answered “no” to that last one already. According to John E. Mulligan in the Projo…

Reed declined several times when asked what he or his party would offer by way of specific cash outlays, troop commitments or other resources that the United States should devote to the war.

Maybe it would help if the Democrats would be more specific about what they mean by specifics.