Senate committee approves Iraq redeployment plan.
By on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Senate committee approves Iraq redeployment plan.
The Senate Appropriations Committee “approved a $122 billion measure Thursday financing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but also calling on President Bush to pull combat troops out of Iraq by next spring. The bill, approved by a voice vote, is similar to one the House began debating Thursday. The White House has threatened to veto the House measure and issued a veto threat against an earlier, similar version of the Senate withdrawal language.”
UPDATE: Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), the only Iraq war veteran in Congress, explains why the House needs to approve the U.S. Troops Readiness, Veterans’ Health and Iraq Accountability Act tomorrow:
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
VETO!
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:55 pmWe’ll see…
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:57 pmI think Chimpy will end up having enough on his plate- too much to worry about a veto on this bill.
If the Prez vetos this bill be sure to see his numbers fall even more. No accountability in his administration and no accountability for Iraq. Just peachy. Some 30%ers have to see this for what it is. Bad management, bad decisions and bad for everyone.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:07 pmHow long does it take to sign a veto statement?
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:07 pmPlease veto. Can you imagine? Hey did you hear Bush doesn’t really support the troops; He vetoed funding for the troops. The Dems gave him all the money he asked for and he still said no!
Anyone with 1/2 a brain already knows that the current administration doesn’t really support the troops but maybe the ignorant 1/3 that still supports him will finally get it. They need a simple, easy to digest demonstration of the facts.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:08 pmAnd if he decides to issue a signing statement I woud think that would be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and those illegal actions. He has backed himself into this corner and he is going to piss himself.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:08 pmWhy dont you get off those old knees and find out, Jake?
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:12 pmMouth full?
Check Mr. President. Your move.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:13 pmOne more time proving the Dems are for the Iraq war. They could have ended and choose to support it. They are now throwing up bills that they know will never get a vote. Even if they get a vote, they know they will get vetoed. The fact they know before time these bills will never pass is goofy. Does this stuff really gain your support even though they already failed to stop the war when they had the chance. You folks really suprised me when you didn’t even raise your voice when they voted yes to extend this war a few days ago.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:14 pmM3Vega:
If the Dems gave him all the money he asked for and included a provision that anyone who posts under the name “M3Vega” should be shot on sight, I would be against that too.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:15 pmAre you crazy? Chimpy is crumbling like day-old white bread, even as we speak. His body language, flailing mannerisms and beedy eyes (even more beedy than usual, if that’s possible) say it all. He is a dirty monkey lost in a jungle of obscene shit.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:16 pmIt’s all about getting Bush, Roger_Roger.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:16 pm#9- Bush is being set up for a fall.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:17 pmHe’s an outgoing president who already thinks he’s right. Just why would he not veto this plan?
I hope he does veto it. Aside from the lost time, more republicans will desert him just for being such a d*ck. If the Dems tried to go for the 2/3 majority first, they might fail. Ironically, if Bush veto’s the plan, he’s increasing it’s chances of coming back WITH a 2/3 majority.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:17 pmThe BA thinks the People are dimwits, or that they’re so popular that the People will wink and look the other way.
Ain’t gonna’ happen.
I’ll bet that in 1942 Mussolini felt like Bush feels now. Il Duce, meet The Decider.
Y’all should Google up Mussolini. He and Chimpy have a lot in common. never noticed until now. Astounding similarities. Don’t forget to scroll down to Use of Propaganda.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:20 pmIt seems Bush has two options, both of which he can live with.
1) He vetoes and looks like a tough guy to the 30%. (Yes, Bush would honestly let money run out for troops in the field to look like a tough guy). And there is likely still enough support in Congress for a revised version of the funding bill after this is vetoed, because moderates can claim that they tried….
2) He signs it, and offloads blame for the war to the Democrats (in the eyes of the 30%). The surge was working until the Dems killed it, etc…
He’d go with 2) if he could see the reality that the war is lost, but since he doesn’t, I’m betting on 1).
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:20 pmSeeing that Tom Delay Hardball clip made me realize that Joke..er…Jake is actually Tom Delay. The similarities are too striking to be a coincidence.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:21 pmIt’s all about getting Bush, Roger_Roger.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Glad you finally figured that out, Jake. You’re right. It is all about getting Bush. The less capable of actually doing anything in the next year and a half, the better. If we can take him completely out of office, so much the better, but I don’t really think that’s going to happen. Making it impossible for him to actually do anything is the next best thing. The less he does, the less he screws up.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:22 pmHey M3Vega! I saw that too, and thought the exact same thing.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:23 pmOur boy Jake, is RNC all the way.
Roger_Roger
Your numerous, thorough, and intelligent posts have finally convinced me.
Dictator Polosi does not want to end the war in Iraq.
/sarc off
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:30 pmHow can you still believe Pelosi wants to end this war after she not only voted yes to extend it but was the main person promoting others to vote yes? Please explain.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:44 pmHey M3Vega! I saw that too, and thought the exact same thing.
Our boy Jake, is RNC all the way.
Comment by alp3 — March 22, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
You give the boy too much credit (and no, I don’t care how old he is, he still sounds like a boy) It’s too silly to suspect the trolls as being spies, but suspecting he might be someone in the RNC is waaay too far to go based on similarities. Take it from me. I’ve spoken with any number of these kinds of people face to face. It IS possible for people to be that narrow minded, ignorant, completely blind to the point that you think they are smoking crack. I’m not going to let them off the hook by saying “Aw.. he’s just part of the loyal opposition so we’ll just ignore what he says.” I might ignore them because I’m tired of the conversation running in circles, but stupid is stupid. I would LOVE to go one on one with someone from the RNC (or the DNC for that matter) but only if I KNOW that’s what they are. If they’re skulking around here masquerading as something else, I’ll take them how I see them: If they say something that isn’t true, I’d rather go after what they say than go after them. Saves a LOT of time.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:49 pmSo essentially it really doesn’t mean too much because the whole senate will vote and it will be defeated by the repugs.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:53 pmAs usual the moonbats surrender as we are kicking their allies asses.
Killers Arrested and the Mahdi Army Splits
can’t get too much good news
Multi-National Force-Iraq reports the capture of the leaders of the raid that kidnapped and murdered five US soldiers in Karbala in January. [Memo to MNF-I: headlines are supposed to grab attention, not hide the contents of a story]
Over the past several days, Coalition forces in Basra and Hillah captured Qais Khazali, his brother Laith Khazali, and several other members of the Khazali network, an organization directly connected to the kidnapping and murder in January of five American soldiers in Karbala.
This is good news but there is bigger game afoot.
Read on.
Probably the key stumbling block in bringing a semblance of security to Iraq is the dismantling of the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades. While the Badr Brigades are fairly disciplined, the Mahdi Army is larger and much more amorphous in nature. Many of the killings in the past months have been attributed to the Mahdi Army killing Mahdi Army members who were freelancing and making al-Sadr look worse.
Since the security crackdown has been announced, Moqtada al-Sadr has made himself scarce. His absence and the increased pressure by the US and Iraqi governments has resulted in the Mahdi Army fracturing:
The violent Shiite militia known as the Mahdi Army is breaking into splinter groups, with up to 3,000 gunmen now financed directly by Iran and no longer loyal to the firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, adding a potentially even more deadly element to Iraq’s violent mix.
Two senior militia commanders told The Associated Press that hundreds of these fighters have crossed into Iran for training by the elite Quds force, a branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard thought to have trained Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and Muslim fighters in Bosnia and Afghanistan
The AP, of course, is unrelenting in its making of lemons from lemonade. A fractured Mahdi Army is much easier to coopt than a coherent force. Every split reduces its strength. And a straight up militia without political representation will be much easier for al-Maliki to crack down on. But those are different stories.
Qais Khazali used to be described as al-Sadr’s spokesman, but he is one of those who have split and affiliated with Iran.
Qais Khazali was known as a spokesman for Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s political movement in 2004 in Baghdad’s Sadr City, but it is not clear whether he is still involved with al-Sadr’s movement.
Al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army, a Shiite militia, is suspected of heavy involvement in Iraq’s sectarian violence.
Two Mehdi Army commanders told The Associated Press that Khazali had split with al-Sadr and leads 3,000 fighters of his own with financing from Iran.
Breaking the Mahdi Army is a key to success and this is a sign that it may be happening.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:57 pmIf they say something that isn’t true, I’d rather go after what they say than go after them. Saves a LOT of time.
Comment by swordsbane — March 22, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
exactly.
how simple is that?!?
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:04 pm.
#18- Yes, that’s our mantra. Keep saying it.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:05 pmYes, Chimpy, we have no bananas. We have no bananas, today. Why me think about a DQ split? Speaking of split, how’s that ‘ole Repub Party coming along?
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:08 pmGot it, swordsbane. You and Katy have at it.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:11 pmI wish you both the best of luck.
If they say something that isn’t true, I’d rather go after what they say than go after them. Saves a LOT of time.
Comment by swordsbane — March 22, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
exactly.
how simple is that?!?
.
Comment by katy — March 22, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
It’s real simple unless you get caught up in the inanities. Tell them they’re wrong and tell them why. They’ll come back at you with a personal attack or some meaningless side issue that doesn’t make any sense. If they actually answer your challenge, then you might get them to debate you for a while. If they don’t, then follow up and ask them. It’s not perfect, and I’ve been drawn into my share of personal quips, but the whole point is that you’re not really debating THEM. You are challenging them and providing the real information to the other people around them. That’s really all you can do. You won’t change THEIR mind, but you can do what you can to keep them from muddying the waters and convincing other people who would otherwise have no ammunition to refute them.
The hardest part is that at some point, you have to just drop it. You get to the point where you’ve said what you wanted to say and if you keep going, you’ll just be reiterating what you said before.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:14 pmGO AHEAD AND VETO, CHIMPya—-DO YA EVEN KNOW HOW TO VETO? YA JUST PUCKER YA ANUS AND BLOW!!!!!! YA REPULSIVE PIECE OF MENDACIOUS SOCIOPATHIC NAZI-FASCIST SUM, YOU!!!!!
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 pm“redeployment plan” = “nutty libs are cowards and think they can somehow win political points of the US loses this war..”
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:49 pmGRRR – I meant “if the US…”
Also – Veto Veto Veto!!!
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:50 pm“redeployment plan†= “nutty libs are cowards and think they can somehow win political points of the US loses this war..†Comment by Stubain — March 22, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
How are we going to lose a *civil* war? “Nutty Righties” are the cowards, that can’t face reality, and think they can somehow win political point with st*pid slogans, nationalistic (eg., NAZI) rhetoric, and character assassinations against anyone that points out how st*pid their plans and *execution* is.
You’re a moron.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:07 amGRRR – I meant “if the US…â€
Also – Veto Veto Veto!!!
Comment by Stubain — March 22, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
Can you translate that from childish 12 year old nazi confused *girl-talk*, to adult English next time? Idiot!
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:07 am“Can you translate that from childish 12 year old nazi confused *girl-talk*, to adult English next time? Idiot!”
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — March 23, 2007 @ 2:07 am
Two different points, genius.
It’s not enough to learn to read, you must then comprehend what you read. Good luck with that.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:26 amTwo different points, genius. Comment by Stubain — March 23, 2007 @ 2:26 am
Is that a *question*, or a *statement* on your part, child?
It’s not enough to learn to read, you must then comprehend what you read. Good luck with that.Comment by Stubain — March 23, 2007 @ 2:26 am
You missed the third and fourth point. One must be able to critically assess what one is reading. One must learn to *reason* for themselves.
Good luck with that! Dum bass!
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:35 am“Good luck with that…”
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — March 23, 2007 @ 2:35 am
If you had the brains God gave a turnip you could find your own material to insult me instead of stealing mine. Not only do you have trouble reading you have a little trouble counting as well. You went to, put probably didn’t graduate from, a government school didn’t you?
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:55 am