Democrats seek Iraq exit timetable

  1. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/22/news/cong.php


    House Democrats scrambled Thursday to find the 218 votes needed to pass a war-spending bill that would set a timetable to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, as the Bush administration and congressional Republicans worked aggressively to foil their effort.
    The $124 billion bill would require that U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by September 2008-possibly sooner if the Iraqi government falls short of benchmarks for political and security progress.
    The White House said the measure had "zero chance" to survive a presidential veto, and the Pentagon warned that it could do real harm to troops.


    Let the mud slinging begin!
    •  
  2. 93 Comments

  3. by   Simplepleasures
    This guy makes alot of sense
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi0uh4V_118

    One of the ones who didnt approve the war from the get go, along with my state Senator Russ Feingold.
  4. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Democrats are seeking no such thing. They are playing games to appease their base. They full well understand that they are in no position to demand a timetable, nor do they actually WANT a timetable.

    For 2 reasons.

    1. If the surge fails, they want to hang it on President Bush and the Republican Party. They want no part or share in being blamed in the loss by being responsible for pulling out, Viet Nam style. They want President BUSH to declare failure, not them. Democrat leaders, if not their base, well understand that THEY won the political battle over Viet Nam, but lost the political war in that their position - and their cutting off of funding - so weakened them on national security, that it kept them out of the White House for 12 of the next 16 yrs (1976-1992). They do not want, nor will they risk, a repeat.

    If you think the public opinion polls are different NOW than then, you are correct. More Americans NOW (73%) do not want to withdraw from Iraq with no contingency plan than the number of Americans that wanted to withdraw from Viet Nam. That leads Democrat leaders to fear an even GREATER national security backlash for their party over Iraq than Viet Nam.

    2. If the surge works, they want to claim a share of the victory. Democrat leaders will be telling every media outlet that will listen, and most will, that THEY authorized the war and THEY continued to fund it.

    This is about political posturing and not principled decisions. This is about Presidential politics and '08. They want to keep the base vested without potentially losing the independents. It's a fine line to walk.

    The key to understanding the Democrat leadership's position is this: a principled stand would involve voting against any further funding. Period. If such funding passes, and it eventually WILL pass, and pass clean (or with loopholes), then the argument that Democrats are actually 'seeking' an exit timetable is a fraud. THEY control the pursestrings now. Even though the President holds the power to VETO what they DO send him, he cannot veto what they don't. And if they DON'T send him a funding increase for the effort, in just a few months, the Administration will run out of wiggle room for funding.

    The ONLY way to continue the war effort past early summer is with the complete complicity of the Democrat Party. Every other version of this fact is simply posturing.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 23, '07
  5. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA

    The ONLY way to continue the war effort past early summer is with the complete complicity of the Democrat Party. Every other version of this fact is simply posturing.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.

    Thank you . . . I can't tell you how angry this makes me.

    steph
  6. by   Simplepleasures
    Barbara Boxer vs. Condi Rice
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6rlEEhOrRA

    What makes me very angry is the young lives that have been lost in this war and the lives that continue to be lost, and when we do get out of Iraq, be it on the Democrats timetable or be it on the Republicans timetable, the insurgents will take over ANYWAY the country of Iraq will become a mirror image of Iran and all our young soldiers lives were lost for what?This war is unwinable due to the generations of Sunnis and Shia's that have only been waiting to get rid of Saddam to get at each other's throats, its THEIR fight, not ours. We need to get our military home to protect our own borders, not borders of people who hate us.I dont want MY daughter who is in the military to go over there and die, nor do many other families. If there had been a REAL threat to US it would be a totally different story.I call on my party the Democrats to do the RIGHT thing, get our sons and daughters out of that he-- hole and do it soon by ANY means possible. My opinion only, now flame away.
    Last edit by Simplepleasures on Mar 23, '07
  7. by   Simplepleasures
    Obey Hits Back Against Washington Post's Smearing Of House Iraq Bill

    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/23/...use-iraq-bill/

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/hor...ep_obey_ri.php
    Last edit by Simplepleasures on Mar 23, '07
  8. by   bethin
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Democrats are seeking no such thing. They are playing games to appease their base. They full well understand that they are in no position to demand a timetable, nor do they actually WANT a timetable.

    Right......that's why it passed in the house where there are republicans.
  9. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from bethin
    Right......that's why it passed in the house where there are republicans.
    Yeah, but. The great Democrat revolution has yielded how many laws to date? It only passed in the house, barely (218-212), so that Democrats could pontificate over provisions they know full well would not survive in the Senate.

    THAT was my WHOLE point, that the exercise was symbolism that the Democrats dare not translate into fact.

    IF they TRULY wanted to translate it to fact, why send the President ANY re-authorization bill? In fact, ANY such bill will ultimately be Democrat complicity in the ongoing war in Iraq. If the HOUSE truly wanted to vindicate its point of view, it need not employ the devices of the SENATE or the Administration. It need only not act on this matter, at all. . .

    Within short order, without that re-authorization, the President would run out of discretionary spending to continue to fund the war.

    Incidentally, that time frame would only JUST include the amount of time necessary to gauge the success of the surge. IF successful, the House could always send an authorization bill later. If the surge is unsuccessful, then the first 'timetable' for withdrawal in this bill would be fully expressed, with no additional effort on the part of the House, at all.

    But then, there wouldn't be those wonderful headlines. THAT is what THIS is about. Politics.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 24, '07
  10. by   bethin
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Yeah, but. The great Democrat revolution has yielded how many laws to date? It only passed in the house, barely
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but a law is not a law until the President signs it into law. Republican president with a Democrat controlled congress. How many laws do you expect?

    It doesn't matter the vote, it passed.

    Bush was quoted at the beginning of the war that this will be "our children's children's war." Not the way I want to see my kids and grandkids grow up. And I imagine others with kids don't want to see their grandkids fighting this war. I don't want them to be fighting a 50 year old war with no end in sight. I don't think a timetable is bad whether it is next year or 3 years. I just want a plan. We cannot continue to have a huge force in Iraq. They will eventually have to stand on their own two feet. Besides, who is going to protect us when a large number of soldiers are in the Middle East and Korea? Who's going to protect us if God forbid there's another attack on the US? The Marines are experiencing a great decrease in the number of recruits - Time I think, sorry I read too many magazines and political newspapers. Also, the army is experiencing a decrease in the number of recruits. If this continues, where do you suggest we get these soldiers? The British have started pulling back, I believe Italy is out as well as France. Soon, this will not be a world problem, this will be America's problem.
  11. by   bethin
    Also, the Marines in particular are signing men and women who have records. Not little misdemeanors, but assault. I guess we're heading to the point where a warm body will do. Hey, as long as you can shoot straight send 'em.
    Last edit by bethin on Mar 24, '07 : Reason: spelling
  12. by   bluesky
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Yeah, but. The great Democrat revolution has yielded how many laws to date? It only passed in the house, barely (218-212), so that Democrats could pontificate over provisions they know full well would not survive in the Senate.

    THAT was my WHOLE point, that the exercise was symbolism that the Democrats dare not translate into fact.

    IF they TRULY wanted to translate it to fact, why send the President ANY re-authorization bill? In fact, ANY such bill will ultimately be Democrat complicity in the ongoing war in Iraq. If the HOUSE truly wanted to vindicate its point of view, it need not employ the devices of the SENATE or the Administration. It need only not act on this matter, at all. . .

    Within short order, without that re-authorization, the President would run out of discretionary spending to continue to fund the war.

    Incidentally, that time frame would only JUST include the amount of time necessary to gauge the success of the surge. IF successful, the House could always send an authorization bill later. If the surge is unsuccessful, then the first 'timetable' for withdrawal in this bill would be fully expressed, with no additional effort on the part of the House, at all.

    But then, there wouldn't be those wonderful headlines. THAT is what THIS is about. Politics.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.

    And if the democrats cut funding completely they get branded as anti-patriots who let our children in uniform down, abandoned the Iraqi people and "lost" the war. So, in the end, it's a win-win situation for the republicans, eh? Pass the funding and you're complicit, don't pass it and you're a loser.

    Um, not quite.

    The congressional democrats are now like the 3rd hand on the titanic's helm trying to steer after the boat was completely submerged. If you think that history will view any action on their part as significant in any way, let me be the first to invite you back to planet reality. This iceberg was not a natural manifestation of bad luck. This iceberg was created by the ignorant and destructive pathos of this administration. They created the iceberg and they tragically failed to captain the ship. The End. That is how the story will be told, because that is how it is.
    Last edit by bluesky on Mar 24, '07
  13. by   Simplepleasures
    Right on point,Bluesky.
  14. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from bethin
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but a law is not a law until the President signs it into law. Republican president with a Democrat controlled congress. How many laws do you expect?
    OK, let me alter my comment just a tad: how many bills have even been sent to the President's desk?

    The HOUSE is DESIGNED to purely express partisan viewpoints. He with the most votes, wins.

    The SENATE is DESIGNED to filter those viewpoints. He with the most votes does not necessarily win. You need, in fact 60 votes in the Senate, a super majority, to push legislation through.

    Even the most popular Democrat reform, mimimum wage, which the President has said he would sign, has not yet reached his desk. Some Republicans in the Senate have agreed to vote for this as well, under the right conditions.

    But the SENATE deals with creating those "right" conditions whereas the House just deals with brute force of majority mob. That's not a Democrat accusation, the SAME rules applied when the Republicans were in control.

    Don't confuse the mob rule of the House with legislative clarity. There are plenty of other checks purposely designed in the process. My POINT is that the Democrats in the House fully understand this concept. They passed this bill knowing full well it would not survive in its present form to even reach the President's desk for a VETO.

    The bill was designed as it is, in short, to make news, not policy.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.

close