From you:
Since he has "never heard a Democrat make such comments".
and
I was reffering to comments made by Tony earlier claiming he'd never heard Democrats make comments similar to the ones from Kennedy quoted above.

From me:
Since nothing the Dem leadership said even mentioned throwing in the towel.......

Did I say anything about democrats in general?
Did I post it before Kennedy made his speech?
(for that matter is Kennedy really democrat leadership anymore?)

Besides, it's quite obvius you only read the headlines, not the actual speech that Mary Anne linked to.
Read below. This is an extremist position? This is setting arbitrary dates without goals?
Not the way I'm reading it (BTW, nice ignore on the Rumsfeld "arbitrary date"...)

As Major General William Nash, who commanded the multinational force in Bosnia, said in November, a substantial reduction in our forces following the Iraqi election “would be a wise and judicious move” to demonstrate that we are leaving and “the absence of targets will go a long way in decreasing the violence."

America’s goal should be to complete our military withdrawal as early as possible in 2006.

President Bush cannot avoid this issue. The Security Council Resolution authorizing our military presence in Iraq can be reviewed at any time at the request of the Iraqi Government, and it calls for a review in June. The U.N. authorization for our military presence ends with the election of a permanent Iraqi government at the end of this year. The world will be our judge. We must have an exit plan in force by then. //

While American troops are drawing down, we must clearly be prepared to oppose any external intervention in Iraq or the large-scale revenge killing of any group. We should begin now to conduct serious regional diplomacy with the Arab League and Iraq’s neighbors to underscore this point, and we will need to maintain troops on bases outside Iraq but in the region.

The United Nations could send a stabilization force to Iraq if it is necessary and requested by the Iraqi government. But any stabilization force must be sought by the Iraqis and approved by the United Nations, with a clear and achievable mission and clear rules of engagement. Unlike the current force, it should not consist mostly of Americans or be led by Americans. All nations of the world have an interest in Iraq’s stability and territorial integrity.

Now I happen to disagree with him. I think 2006 is too soon and that the idea of the UN sending a stabilization force, however good an idea it is, is not facing up to current geo-political reality. The idea that we will withdraw completely (ever?) is fairly ludicrous also. Why we building the worlds biggest embassy if we dont plan on sticking around?
I'm of 2 minds on an exit plan.
One the one hand there is the argument that the insurgents cannot claim victory if you leave for no apparent reason. This is countered by the fact that if you have to stay longer than your plan, someone, somewhere will still be claiming victory.
Exit plans are now the dem's phrase of the month. As alcaray pointed out, kinda similar to those uttered by the Repubs over Bosnia and Kosovo. That's politics as usual.

Some kind of plan would be nice though. You dont even need dates, you just need goals.