Democrats hard at work blowing the 08 election Part II

Senate expected to pass troop exit bill

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 54 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Senate is expected to pass a bill today that would order the withdrawal of U.S. troops from
Iraq to begin this fall. Last night, the House voted 218-208 to pass the $124.2 billion supplemental spending measure containing the provision.

President Bush is expected to receive the bill next week, and swiftly veto it.

The legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to execute since they took control of both houses of Congress in January.

"The sacrifices borne by our troops and their families demand more than the blank checks the president is asking for, for a war without end," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said.

Democrats said the bill was on track to arrive on the president's desk on Tuesday, the anniversary of Bush's announcement aboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on," Bush said on May 1, 2003, in front of a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Bush since has acknowledged that the war campaign has not progressed as he had hoped. After the November elections in which Democrats swept up enough seats to take the majority, Bush announced a new strategy that involved sending additional forces to Iraq.

"Last November, the American people voted for a change in strategy in Iraq — and the president listened," White House spokesman Dana Perino said in a statement Wednesday. "Tonight, the House of Representatives voted for failure in Iraq — and the president will veto its bill."

Republicans labeled the timetable a "surrender date."

"Al-Qaida will view this as the day the House of Representatives threw in the towel," said Rep. Jerry Lewis (news, bio, voting record) of California, ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee.

The huge bill would fund the war, among other things, but demand troop withdrawals begin on Oct. 1 or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The bill sets a nonbinding goal of completing the troop pullout by April 1, 2008, allowing for forces conducting certain noncombat missions, such as attacking terrorist networks or training Iraqi forces, to remain.

Two Republicans — Reps. Wayne Gilchrest (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland and Walter Jones (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina — joined 216 Democrats in passing the bill. Voting no were 195 Republicans and 13 Democrats.

While Bush was confident the bill ultimately would fail because Democrats lacked the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto, he kept up pressure on lawmakers. On the same day as the House vote, the president dispatched his Iraq commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and other senior defense officials to Capitol Hill to make his case: Additional forces recently sent to Iraq were yielding mixed results and the strategy needed more time to work.

Petraeus told reporters that sectarian killings in Baghdad were only a third of what they were in January, before Bush began sending in additional U.S. forces. But "the ability of al-Qaida to conduct horrific, sensational attacks obviously has represented a setback and is an area in which we're focusing considerable attention," Petraeus said.

Republicans and Democrats alike emerged from a private briefing with Petraeus to say he had only confirmed their positions.

Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., said Democrats were still considering their next step. He said after Bush's veto, one option would be funding the war through September as Bush wants but setting benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet.

"I think everything that passes will have some sort of condition (placed) on it," he said. Ultimately, Murtha added, the 2008 military budget considered by Congress in June "is where you'll see the real battle," he said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has said the Army has enough bookkeeping flexibility to pay for operations in Iraq well into July. Lawmakers and Capitol Hill staff aides view mid- to late May as the deadline for completing the war spending bill to avoid hardships.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070426/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=A0WTcUfxmzBGuzIAshGs0NUE

As soon as Bush vetos this, the war begins to be defunded, and the Democrats can kiss 08 goodbye. We should start hearing the heart wrenching stories about soldiers without ammo in Iraq, by July or August, if not sooner.

LR, whats that you were saying about Crazy Eyes Pelosi knowing whats best? Too bad youre dead wrong:cry:
 
The proofs that you provided only links to small footnotes in history that people dont care about nor bother to have in mainstreem US History courses.

Then dont ask me for proof. You asked, I gave. If you want proof, stop making light of historical fact.

Sorry, but the proofs that you just provided, as stated above, are meaninglis footnotes in history that no one cares about. Perhaps if you are on Jepordy then you would care.

They are only meaningless to someone who has their head stuck in the sand refusing that refuses to learn from the past.

Once again, Dont talk down to me like some person who does not understand. GOD this makes you annoying! :rolleyes:

Once again, dont yammer and whine for proof, then poopoo it.

1. Dont care
2. Dont care
3. Dont care
4. Dont care

You should.

Your point on comparing the two wars from two different centuries? Nothing as the outcome of the Unjustified Iraq war is on it's spiraling downhill to being unscusseful.

My whole point to bringing it UP was because YOU asked for proof where we had WON a war vs insurgents. YOU WERE WRONG. AGAIN. AS USUAL.

I dont give a damn about what the Muslims think about us in the Arab world. If they think we are "weak" then so be it, no skin off my back.

You should. You most definitely should. Try to be less of an 'ugly american' for once.

Not my fault that you pull up insignificant pieces of history that no average Joe knows about.

History isnt insignificant. That little bit in particular sure wasnt insignificant. If you call a war that spanned over a decade and in which between 4 thousand and 5 thousand Americans lost their lives; then I humbly submit that the Iraq war today IS INSIGNIFICANT.

So which is it. If such history is insignificant, then the Iraq war is insignificant since Iraq hasnt had as much impact say, as such wars as the Phillipine war.

And sorry, I'm not going to stop asking for proofs. I dont care about what lessons history has, What happened in the past stays in the past.

Then dont ask for proofs. You just end up getting pwned anyway.

Are you saying that I am not a Christian. I'm sorry but I am indeed a Christian (specificaly a Roman Catholic). Christians are not a bunch of homogeneious group with a hive mindset where everyone thinks the same way.

I am saying that a christian should indeed care about people all over the world facing genocide. A christian should care if 1 to 2 million people would lose their lives. I most certainly know Jesus would care.

Its up to you to decide if you are a christian or not. I just comment on the fruit I see on the tree.

Enough with the scripture quotations, This is not a Bible debate. To be frank, I dont care what I am judged.

If you dont care, then dont be a christian. Because you are most certainly supposed to care if you are a christian. Its kind of the whole point in being a christian.

I can always convert to a different religion in my elder years to avoid that "judgement".

How christian of you.:rolleyes: Thats not how it works. At all. You may want to read your bible a bit more. Once the truth is known there is no turning back, and since you profess to be a christian you should know the truth, and if you forsake that truth like you say here....well, I wouldnt want to be you.
 
Let me add a something here, while the war is defenitely winnable in strictly military terms. This is the 21st century and we cannot win it politically which is what matters.
If we were willing to level towns used as bases by insurgents. Then I'm guessing we could crush the insurgency in a year or two, but we aren't we don't have the balls to fight dirty, no not even Bush has the balls to win it. When it's so obvious that we could win, but won't by our own choosing I see no reason why we should stay in a limbo between winning and losing. We should make up our damn minds because it's up to us, and I know that very few people have what it takes to properly fight an insurgency.

It won't be pretty, but it would work. For better or for worse though our government both (R), and (D) don't have the balls to do it. So we our bbest off just ending it now rather than fighting a war we refuse to win. Mobboss, you yourself used to have a quote in your sig that says "It's suicidal to fight a war without the will to win it" or something similar. That's the scenario here the Republicans are fighting, but don't have the will to win. The Democrats realize this so they want to end the war now.
 
Let me add a something here, while the war is defenitely winnable in strictly military terms. This is the 21st century and we cannot win it politically which is what matters.

Errr. Wait a minute, but isnt 'winning it politically' exactly what the Dems are saying to do?

If we were willing to level towns used as bases by insurgents. Then I'm guessing we could crush the insurgency in a year or two, but we aren't we don't have the balls to fight dirty, no not even Bush has the balls to win it.

Thats basically OBLs point exactly.

It won't be pretty, but it would work. For better or for worse though our government both (R), and (D) don't have the balls to do it. So we our bbest off just ending it now rather than fighting a war we refuse to win.

You suffer from political myopia. Thats all good now....what do we do in the years from now when the insurgents still want a piece of us? Are you truly so naive that if we pull out of Iraq, the insurgents will say 'its all good' and just leave us alone after they have beaten us? Hardly.

By ignoring the obvious future problem all you do here is cut your nose off to spite your face. We WILL have to address this sooner or later. If we pull out of Iraq it just postpones the inevitable. Isnt it better to try and solve it here and now while it is before us instead of putting it off for a few years?

Mobboss, you yourself used to have a quote in your sig that says "It's suicidal to fight a war without the will to win it" or something similar. That's the scenario here the Republicans are fighting, but don't have the will to win. The Democrats realize this so they want to end the war now.

The republicans have the will to win. The Dems dont. Just like the Phillipine war, we can win this, it just takes time, money and manpower because the insurgents cannot beat us militarily. The dems dont have the will to see it through.
 
Just like the Phillipine war, we can win this, it just takes time, money and manpower because the insurgents cannot beat us militarily. The dems dont have the will to see it through.

But your own link about the Phillipine war showed specifically that it takes much more than time, money and manpower. It took a willingness to use such tactics as razing whole villages, shooting surrendering enemies, taking no prisoners, and sequestering civilian populations in concentration camps to defeat that insurgency. Are you advocating that our forces take such measures in Iraq? Or do you feel that the situation in Iraq is different in such a way that these methods would not be necessary to win?
If you are advocating those tactics, are you certain that such methods would work to our advantage today in the same way they did back then? With modern communications technology, forces abroad can't operate in relative secrecy anymore. You've stated that withdrawing from Iraq would weaken us, and strengthen our enemies. I'm willing to believe that might be true, but I tend to think that worldwide media broadcasts of US troops razing Iraqi villages and rounding up civilians would do so to at least as great an extent.
I don't think it's a matter of America having lost its spine. I think its a matter of the world and technology having changed in such a way that tactics which were once effective against insurgents no longer are.
 
The republicans have the will to win. The Dems dont. Just like the Phillipine war, we can win this, it just takes time, money and manpower because the insurgents cannot beat us militarily. The dems dont have the will to see it through.
:lol: If the Republicans had the will to win they would have been using tactics designed to win. Looks like they didn't learn a thing from the past wars that we actually won.
 
The Spanish-American War was justified because the USS Maine exploded in the Cuban Harbor. End of Story. I dont care if anyone states that it's an unjustified war, it happened in the past.

OK, then I could argue that the Iraq war was justified by 911.


However, Iraq is an unjustified war because Iraq never has any desire to attack us. It all boils down to oil and attention that the Arab World wants.

When did the Filipinos or the Spanish have any desire to attack us?
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070426/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=A0WTcUfxmzBGuzIAshGs0NUE

As soon as Bush vetos this, the war begins to be defunded, and the Democrats can kiss 08 goodbye. We should start hearing the heart wrenching stories about soldiers without ammo in Iraq, by July or August, if not sooner.

LR, whats that you were saying about Crazy Eyes Pelosi knowing whats best? Too bad youre dead wrong:cry:

Chill out. First of all the Dems have provided funding for the war. If Bush vetos it then by his own reasoning he "does not support the troops". If you look at polling there is strong support for the Dem position. Now whether they can coherently defend that position and break through the right wing noise is another question. But if they want to win elections they better learn how. It is true the Pres. has a stronger hand in terms of the Bully Pulpit in controlling the news coverage but he also has 0 credibility on the war. The majority also strongly opposes his position. I am sick and tired of this constant retreat and defeatist attitude on the part of Dems. in the face of some supposed magical right wing spin machine that must always be capitulated to. If you want to run the country or one branch of government then stand up and make your case. If Bush vetos the $$ then sends troops on patrol w/o ammo or proper support it is on his head and Dems should be able to make this stick!
 
Then dont ask me for proof. You asked, I gave. If you want proof, stop making light of historical fact.

Once again, dont yammer and whine for proof, then poopoo it.

Then dont ask for proofs.
Sorry, but I will as for proofs to things I find suspicious.

They are only meaningless to someone who has their head stuck in the sand refusing that refuses to learn from the past.
I'm sorry but I don't have my head stuck in the sand.

My whole point to bringing it UP was because YOU asked for proof where we had WON a war vs insurgents. YOU WERE WRONG. AGAIN. AS USUAL.
Sorry, not wrong as usual. The only wars with insurgents that we have one are the ones we backed!

BTW, you should really do something about your capslock key.


You should. You most definitely should. Try to be less of an 'ugly american' for once.
No I shoulnt. I dont care what thoes radical muslims have to say to the US. Plus, I do not consider myself an American.

History isnt insignificant. That little bit in particular sure wasnt insignificant. If you call a war that spanned over a decade and in which between 4 thousand and 5 thousand Americans lost their lives; then I humbly submit that the Iraq war today IS INSIGNIFICANT.
BS, The lives lost in the Unjustified Meat grinder called Iraq is significant. You only look at the US troops where I look at both the Military & Civilian casualties.

Also Turn off your caps lock when typing:
222turn_off_caps_lock.jpg


So which is it. If such history is insignificant, then the Iraq war is insignificant since Iraq hasnt had as much impact say, as such wars as the Phillipine war.
The only impact the Iraq War has is causing us to be hated by most of the world and a Second Vietnam in the Middle East.

I am saying that a christian should indeed care about people all over the world facing genocide. A christian should care if 1 to 2 million people would lose their lives. I most certainly know Jesus would care.

Its up to you to decide if you are a christian or not. I just comment on the fruit I see on the tree.
How hypocritical of you. Telling me not to Judge when you yourself are the one judging.

If you dont care, then dont be a christian. Because you are most certainly supposed to care if you are a christian. Its kind of the whole point in being a christian.

How christian of you.:rolleyes: Thats not how it works. At all. You may want to read your bible a bit more. Once the truth is known there is no turning back, and since you profess to be a christian you should know the truth, and if you forsake that truth like you say here....well, I wouldnt want to be you.
I'm sorry but it does work like that. You assume that all Christians should have the exact mindset that you do. Well here is the real truth. Not every Christian agrees with your world. No Orthodox Christian, No Catholic Christian, Heck Not even every Protestant (including Anglicanism) Christian agrees with you.
 
We are only one signature away from being able to declare victory in Iraq. Why does the President want to push back the date of victory?
 
We are only one signature away from being able to declare victory in Iraq. Why does the President want to push back the date of victory?
Because he and his cronies believe that it is "Surrendering to the Terrorists" :rolleyes:.

He also wants to send more troops into the Iraqi Meat Grinder until the sands there turn to blood. :rolleyes:
 
Because he and his cronies believe that it is "Surrendering to the Terrorists" :rolleyes:.

Why does the President hate our troops? They ousted Saddam, verified that Iraq is not a WMD threat, and oversaw elections. That is victory, so now it is time to declare it so and move on. Calling those accomplishments "surrendering to the terrorists" is not something that any patriotic American should be doing.
 
itd be the most brilliant political move ever! what issue do democrats have where they are gaining favor over republicans? none!
how likely are republicans going to refuse to vote or vote another way based on this action? few!
the reward is that you deprive the opposition of any issue while losing a small group of voters and gaining more middle of the road types. republicans would rather have a rotten republican who goes aganst a core belief once in a while rather than a democrat period.
 
On the Anniversatry of the 2003 Mission Accomplished Speech, Bush should reboard the USS Lincoln, sign this bill into law and declare victory. Why he is so focused on labeling a victory as "surrender" is beyond me.
 
Why does the President hate our troops? They ousted Saddam, verified that Iraq is not a WMD threat, and oversaw elections. That is victory, so now it is time to declare it so and move on. Calling those accomplishments "surrendering to the terrorists" is not something that any patriotic American should be doing.
I wish you can tell that to the Bush Cronies who constantly tell people who want to pull out "Surendercrats" or saying that they are "surrendering to the terrorists".

Does this mean that Bush and his cronies iare not Patriots?! :mischief:
 
I wish you can tell that to the Bush Cronies who constantly tell people who want to pull out "Surendercrats" or saying that they are "surrendering to the terrorists".

Does this mean that Bush and his cronies iare not Patriots?! :mischief:
I think they are so convinced that the U.S. will have no choice except to eventually surrender to terrorists that they can't recognize a victory when they see it. They must not think it is possible that our military has already been victorious.
 
Actually, Bush should wait until the day before the first presidential debate before he does this.
 
Actually, Bush should wait until the day before the first presidential debate before he does this.
And leave a Democratic president clean up his messes?!
 
Back
Top Bottom