Breaking: Senate approves Iraq withdrawal bill.
Breaking: Senate approves Iraq withdrawal bill.
“The Senate on Thursday narrowly passed legislation ordering U.S. troops to begin coming home from Iraq by Oct. 1. The vote was 51-46. The House on Wednesday passed the same war spending bill, and President Bush next week is expected to receive, and swiftly reject, the legislation. The veto could fall on the fourth anniversary of the president’s Iraq ‘victory’ speech, which is Tuesday.”
UPDATE: AMERICAblog has video of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) remarks HERE.
UPDATE II: A case of the pot calling the kettle black — the “White House warns of a ‘P.R. stunt.’” Dana Perino said, “If it is the case that they withheld money for the troops in order to try to play some ridiculous P.R. stunt, that is the height of cynicism.”
UPDATE III: A new ad from Americans United:
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
109 Responses to “Breaking: Senate approves Iraq withdrawal bill.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Now when he vetoes it, it will be his fault that the troops don’t have the funding they need.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:24 pmYeah! Now we get to watch Mr. Stubborn pants veto it cuz he has to “win” at all costs..and we’ll see, yet again, how much he loves them troops. hooah bush, hooah.
Now we just need the dem congress to keep the similitude of “balls” they are showing and NOT rewrite it. Be best if they just threw their hands up and said “NO MORE MONEY” at all! Pull that plug baby!
April 26th, 2007 at 1:25 pmAnd the Iraqi foreign minister has stated that the pull-out bill is “damaging to security” in the country.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:26 pmWe are finally turning a corner.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:27 pmNow the real question is WILL Bush actually veto it, or will he find some cowardly way to weasel his way out. Perhaps he can make a signing statement saying he doesn’t have to follow the bill and can selectively pick and chose what he does.
Bush is a coward or else he wouldn’t feel the need to constantly run to the media to make threats…he’d make them face to face with congress/senate. He needs those loud threats to feel manly without being questioned. He uses those loud threats to make others back down without ever challenging him.
I would be surprised if Bush flat out vetos this bill and even if he does find the balls to stand by his own convictions, then congress should just pass him an ever more strict bill. They need to show the idiot media that it is Bush being unreasonable and partisan. Something the media still hasn’t gotten yet.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:29 pmLets hope Iraq can pull together as a nation. Its time.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:30 pmA step in the right direction, but a lot can happen in the next 6 months that will “make” the war continue - and thus, the democrats will again claim they weren’t complicit in continuing the murder of innocents in Iraq.
Moving forward - when and IF this war ends - we need to focus on the root of the problem…..the power that the feds have used to wage aggressive wars and kill millions in the last 5-6 decades.
For more on this, read:
“Leaders Don’t Kill People… - click here”
April 26th, 2007 at 1:31 pmPretty overwhelming vote given the left’s beloved polls. Oh well, off to Ft. Bragg and a veto.
The war against Islamo Fascism continues. Reid, Pelosi and Murtha and their Al Qaeda allies are deeply saddened.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:31 pmBravo to the Democrats, but the fight has just begun. The GOPers in DC are all falling in line to defend the criminal Bush Regime, so this will now get nasty in the Congress. Georgia’s corrupt Senator Chambliss was on TV spewing baloney and the closeted hypocrite homosexual Senator Thune spewing nonsense too. (Note: Thune was listed as a client in Jeff Gannon’s contact ledger.)
April 26th, 2007 at 1:32 pmIf Bush vetoes this spending bill, congress should introduce legislation to shut down all Bush’s favorite money-wasting programs. Further, they should pass legislation stating that any presidential signing statement which conflicts with the intent of the legislation automatically invalidates it. Enough is enough. Time to play legislative hardball.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:33 pmComment by Michael Boldin
Rather shoot-from-the-hip-with-no-backing-proof, don’t you think? Or are you just chumming for blog hits?
April 26th, 2007 at 1:35 pmWhy doesn’t Bush use one of his “Signing Statements” on the Troop Withdrawal Part,and let the rest of the Bill go in to effect? Is that to hard for him to figure out?
April 26th, 2007 at 1:36 pm#5 - I’ve been wondering about the same thing. I think he’s used that tactic more than anyone, and it just shows his lack of respect for anything. He want things HIS way, at ALL costs.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:36 pmPatty pant go f$ck yourself
April 26th, 2007 at 1:37 pmIs that to hard for him to figure out?
Comment by Preacher Bill — April 26, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
So, you’re advocating more American soldiers lose their lives in this civil war?
April 26th, 2007 at 1:38 pmIs there any hope at all of coming up with the votes to overturn the veto if it is in the best interest of this nation and our soldiers? What would it take? How many letters and phone calls to Senators?
April 26th, 2007 at 1:39 pmTime for a showdown at the chickhawk corral
April 26th, 2007 at 1:39 pmWell since only 51 voted to surrender I would say overriding the veto has as much chance as Bill Clinton defending America, zip.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:44 pmRosencrantz sez:
I think this may be exactly what he does, especially if Chimpy is still taking Turdblossom’s advice. Chimpy can appear on nation television, decrying the Democrats’ politicizing of the issue, and then declare he will be the one to ‘rise above the partisanship’, on behalf of the poor troops who would be left without food, water, and bullets if this bill doesn’t go through.
He will then make a huge show of signing the bill (like the anti-torture legislation), and then quietly write out a signing statement saying he’ll ignore the bits he doesn’t like if he feels it’s not in the country’s best interests (again, like the anti-torture legislation).
It’s difficult to draft laws to try to keep Chimpy & Co. in check when they’ve repeatedly demonstrated a complete and utter contempt for the rule of law.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:44 pmIf Chimpy vetoes this bill, the Dems should refuse to pass another supplemental.
That will force Chimpy to get out of Iraq by the end of this year, when he runs out of money.
Democrats…DON’T BACK DOWN!!
April 26th, 2007 at 1:45 pmPatrick the Troll is INSULTING OUR TROOPS.
He’s using the talking point word “Surrender”.
Our troops do NOT surrender if they leave Iraq.
So saying “surrender” is INSULTING OUR TROOPS.
Go back under your bridge, you stupid troll.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:47 pmand now it shall be vetoed.
It is truly sad that Reid and Pelosi are playing politics with this, truly, truly sad. The know they are sending a bill that the President will veto, so what is the point. ridiculous, completly and utterly ridiculous.
all the Democratic Party has done is signal to the terrorist that if they get into the White House, they will have an easier time and win major battles since the Democratic Party is unwilling to confront them.
I truly sad day for America and our troops. FDR must be wanting to get out of his grave, run and slap some sense into these two idiots, ,Reid and Pelosi.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:49 pmpublishes Joe Lieberman’s floor statement. Here’s a tidbit:
I have great respect for my friend from Nevada. I believe he has offered this proposal in good faith, and therefore want to take it up in good faith, and examine its arguments and ideas carefully and in depth, for this is a very serious discussion for our country.
In his speech Monday, the Majority Leader described the several steps that this new strategy for Iraq would entail. Its first step, he said, is to “transition the U.S. mission away from policing a civil war—to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counter-terror operations.â€
I ask my colleagues to take a step back for a moment and consider this plan.
When we say that U.S. troops shouldn’t be “policing a civil war,†that their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean?
To begin with, it means that our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them—no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.
In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians—men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.
This makes no moral sense at all.
It also makes no strategic or military sense either.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:49 pmDana Perino spewing her brainwashed, Bushbot, Stepford republican mantra again, I see.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:51 pmIn the best-case scenario for DUHbya he would sign the bill and loudly shout “The Democrats made me do it.” The war is ended, the troops are coming home, and KGtD saves face, avoids certain impeachment if he uses a “signing statement” to circumvent the bill, and probable impeachment if he vetoes the bill. Conversely, the best case for Congress and the troops would be a veto. Instead of reacting to the veto the Congress should just shrug their collective shoulders and say “Oh well, we tried but you said no. No more money so bring them home with what you got.”
April 26th, 2007 at 1:52 pmTom3,
Harry Reid said the United States lost the war in Iraq. Who is fighting the war in Iraq, our troops! so Reid is claiming that our troops in Iraq lost the war in Iraq. Reid is the one insulting our troops and just like the Democratic Party did in Vietnam, they are spitting at our soldiers.
there is a reason why American soldiers overwhelmingly vote Republican.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:52 pmLooks like another “signing statement” opportunity for the prezident!
April 26th, 2007 at 1:53 pmThis will backfire on Bush. We elected a Democratic congress for several reasons - one of which was to change direction in Iraq. When he vetos this bill the nation won’t blame congress - they will blame him.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:54 pmLOL Patrick1 > we all know that Lieberman is a lying sack of crap. That is why we call him Traitor Joe LIE-berman.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:54 pmIt also makes no strategic or military sense either.
Comment by Patrick1 — April 26, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
But invading and occupying a country that poses no threat does?
Launching a war of aggression with practically no planning for the aftermath does?
Neglecting to rebuild the country after it was bombed back to the stone age, depriving its citizens of basic services does?
What a joke…
April 26th, 2007 at 1:54 pmBut, but… Georgie doesn’t like to be held to measurable goals.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:54 pmSo what do you call leaving the fight, if not surrendering? Would ‘quitting’ be a better word? How about ’strategic retreat’?
April 26th, 2007 at 1:55 pmWho is fighting the war in Iraq, our troops!
Comment by Valiantthehater — April 26, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
There is a chain of command. Whos at the top of that chain?
April 26th, 2007 at 1:55 pmCongratulations to the House of Representatives and the Senate for the stalwartness to heed the will of the majority of the American people.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pmWe have finally fully engaged the terrorism which the Bush/Chainee administration has foisted upon us.
No Fear, No More.
No more surrender to the threats, fear mongering, lies and insults which has been the sum total of the accomplishments of an illegal war, and an illegal administration.
#18: Again, you are really setting yourself up as the stooge. Bill Clinton defending America is your argument? But, your boy Bush allowed the worst terrorist attack ever to occur on American soil to happen right under his nose. Then he failed to catch the man responsible for it.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pmVth,
You’re so full of sh*t, your eyes must be very brown.
The troops were put in an unwinnable war. Even Cheney admited this prior to the invasion. Claiming Iraq is lost does NOT put blame on the soldiers, but rather those who initiated the conflict.
And, American soldiers ACTUALLY, overwhelmingly change the party affiliation to Democrat after service.
Now go change your depends.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pmThis morning saw Senator Feingold on CNN’s American Morning citing the US withdrawal from Somalia…
HOST: “[Your legislation] forces a redeployment of the troops because there’s a date certain that the funding will be cut off. … â€
Sen. Feingold (D-WI): “It’s just like Somalia. We had to get the troops out of there, it wasn’t working out. We didn’t take anything away from the troopsâ€.
Also citing the US withdrawal from Somalia…
OSAMA BIN LADEN: “After a few blows, [America] rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader… I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered…â€
And…
OSAMA BIN LADEN: “We believe that the defeat of America is possible … We experienced the Americans through our brothers who went into combat against them in Somalia, for example. We found they had no power worthy of mention. … America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing. America left faster than anyone expected. … [America] gathered up its army, and withdrew in defeat, thanks be to God.â€
Recalling hearing something about what happens when people forget the past
April 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pmThe Congress should announce that THIS is the last funding bill they are sending…take it or leave it.
End of war. Period.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pmso Reid is claiming that our troops in Iraq lost the war in Iraq.
Comment by Valiantthehater — April 26, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Wars are also lost due to poor planning by the leadership. It doesn’t matter how well the troops execute a plan, if said plan is basically flawed.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:57 pmPres. Bush is planning a veto of the funds. I gues Pres. bush loves war-with-no-end more than accountability and funding the troops.
al Quida loves the GOP and Pres. Bush for helping the recruiting efforts in Iraq where they’ve been increasing their ranks. Pres. Bush has been assisting al Quida ever since he took his eye off the “war on terra” in Afghanistan to go after the oil in Iraq.
Pres. Bush is the biggest supporter of al Quida!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 1:57 pmSuck it.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:58 pmComment by Valiantthehater — April 26, 2007 @ 1:52 pm”
Excuse me, good management never blames the employee, if something fails, it’s a management problem, nothing the troops did to cause the failure.
You’re just a stupid ignorant slut, you know all those years you we’re having fun binging and purging? They fvcked your brain up bitch.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:59 pm#32 - “How about ’strategic retreat’?” Comment by Dale — April 26, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
That’s a great description of the US leaving Afghanistan high & dry and going after the oil in Iraq!
You could also call that a “surrender” to the Taliban that is back in business after Pres. Bush helping them out by leaving before the job was done.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:59 pmIn a true representative democracy, when the leadership goes astray it is the responsibility and duty of the PEOPLE to right the course and then to expunge from office those who pursued a course counter to the interests and wishes of the people.
This is where we are at.
It must stop here.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:00 pmWould ‘quitting’ be a better word? How about ’strategic retreat’?
Comment by Dale — April 26, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
Im gonna go with f*cking up. Thats the best description of going into a country that posed no THREAT to US.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:03 pmthis goes way beyond a pot-and-kettle thing - 110% of gwb’s life is a p.r. stunt - the gop is a p.r. stunt.
the GWoT is a bloody p.r. stunt
the patriot act is a p.r. stunt
taking off your shoes in the airport is a p.r. stunt
the “dept. of homeland security” is a p.r. stunt
the dales and patricks of this world are PT Barnum’s wet dream come true - suckers, patsies, dupes, pigeons, rubes, jaspers - whatever ya wanna call’em
land of the lie, free of the truth
April 26th, 2007 at 2:03 pm>And the Iraqi foreign minister has stated
>that the pull-out bill is “damaging to securityâ€
> in the country.
And a majority of Iraqis (and Americans) want us gone. Don’t you support democracy? Or do you only support “will of the people” when its bending your way?
April 26th, 2007 at 2:04 pmTime to watch the POTUS veto a military spending bill that gives him MORE money for our soldiers than what he ask for.
Watching and waiting…
April 26th, 2007 at 2:06 pmValiantthehater
You said – “Harry Reid said the United States lost the war in Iraq. Who is fighting the war in Iraq, our troops! so Reid is claiming that our troops in Iraq lost the war in Iraq.â€
This is intellectual dishonesty. You know very well that not a single Dem has said anything close to blaming the troops. They have always laid blame where it belongs. With the civilian leaders of the effort. It is certainly the case that the administration was not prepared for what was to come after the fall of Baghdad. That is not the troop’s fault, that’s the President’s fault. He has lost!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 2:07 pmWhy isn’t the Iraq spending part of the regular budget? They are still funding it with off-the-book “emergency funding.”
Bush&Co knew they would need this, but they won’t budget for it - that would look bad.
Bush should be reminded that when he vetoes this it is HE who is denying the needed funds for the soldiers. The congress GAVE HIM THE MONEY he asked for and then some, HE is the one who is rejecting it.
Why doesn’t Bush support our troops?
April 26th, 2007 at 2:07 pmAnd don’t get caught up in the false framing of “victory” or “surrender”. The Iraq “war” is a situation of right and wrong. No one can claim that the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do, especially since each and every reason for the invasion has been debunked or exposed as the deception that it was.
So, the situation itself is wrong. The only way to right the situation is to stop it. To expect a victorious end to a situation that is wrong from the outset is akin to a rapist claiming that the fact that they were able to achieve climax then constitutes a victory that justifies the rape and eliminates the criminality of the event.
We are Americans. We need to be better than that.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:07 pm“So what do you call leaving the fight, if not surrendering?”
I call it fighting on the ground of your own choosing.
You seem awfully eager to lose in Afghanistan.
Did the Brits surrender when they evacuated Gallipoli? (Google it, or rent the movie. For now, just nod along and pretend you know what I’m talking about.) No, they decided to stop throwing good money after bad, and marshall their resources for an effort that made sense.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:09 pmThe problem is that this isn’t a clean bill. Reid and Pelosi knew that there isn’t enough congressmen that would vote to retreat so they had to buy them off. This was one of the most important votes they had in the last 10 years and they had to taint it. Bush should veto this and demand a clean bill. This country deserves a proper debate on this issue and a proper vote. Once he veto’s these bought votes, I truly hope congress will go back and put a clean vote in front of congress. We can then truly see where our congress men and women actually stand on this very important issue. Pelosi and Reid should be ashamed. How could they possibly feel it was ok to buy off congressmen on of vote of this magnitude. Besides, buying off enough congress men and women to get this through opened up a reason for Bush to veto it.
If they get their act together after this veto, put a clean yes/no vote to bring the troops home, and it actually pass, I will back it and will be against Bush vetoing it. Currently, this bill is unfair to all us Americans that actually care about this issue whether we feel we should retreat or continue to war effort. The Dems owe the voters a true vote, not a bought one. Besides, wasn’t it like a month or so ago that Pelosi announced she would allow zero dollars of pork this year? How could she say that and then break her promise within a few months? How could she blatently lie to America on an issue like this? I really want to like her and she has done some good so far, but she has also stumbled horribly on other issues.
It started when she allowed her corporate owners to decide that America Somoa didn’t deserve the minimum wage the rest of the country got. When both companies are bassed in her district and employ over 80% of the island, how could she possibly think we wouldn’t see this? She is a Dem afterall and raising the minimum wage is a very important issue for Dems. I too think the minimum wage should be increased. Instead of living up to the Dem standard of helping the poor, she instead got bought off by corporate fat cats and then withheld a fair wage from an entire population (very repug of her if I may say so). Now she takes the most important issue in over 10 years. Instead of letting congress have a fair debate (which American deserves), she goes out and buys congress men and women to get them to vote how she wants. We now have a completely tainted bill that is meaningless. Would congress vote the same way if they were not bought off? Who knows, but after the veto, we can only hope we finally get congress to have a real debate and a real vote. This is very important.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:14 pmBush will hold a Karl Rove contrived photo-op session showing him vetoing the bill, with all the ultra stupid GOPers from the House and Senate crowded around him. Sen. Trent Lott with his toupe will be there, goofy dumb Sen. Chambliss from Georgia, Sen. Thune the fem bottom boy in the GOP, Rep. Boehner who is a boner, and several other fools.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:16 pmRoger_Roger shouts more “Hey look over there!” before 9AM than most people shout all day.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:22 pmRoger,
Nice post. I disagree with you on many points, but you didn’t make any real vitriolic statements.
I think that a “clean” vote would come down almost identically as this one, mainly because, this is vote that everyone will be running for office on in ‘08. I doubt they would change their vote. Regardless of whatever else is in the bill. However, the Republicans have used this same tactic over and over. THe most recent example would be at the end of the last session when they tied a vote on the minimum wage increase, to the cessation of the estate tax. The dems were forced to vote against it.
Further, much of that “pork”, (which let’s not forget, the Republican had total control of the government for 6 years and jacked up non-discretionary spending by 48%) goes to programs like Aid for Katrina victims. I’m not intimately aware of everything in there, but I doubt any of it could any worse than what the Republicans have tied to former supplemental appropriations.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:23 pmI meant discretionary spending
April 26th, 2007 at 2:24 pmNow R2 is action on cue to provide a diversion and attempt to lure you away with bright shiny things.
Don’t be fooled.
In November of 2006, Americans spoke with a loud and resounding voice that said we wanted an end to the Iraq invasion.
Now is the time for Americans to follow that voice with action. Call your reps and tell them. Put signs on your house, on your car, on a freeway overpasses. You know that the traditional media will not broadcast the message. We must get the message out loud and clear and without the “edits” that brown shirt reporters provide.
If you do not understand that this is a matter of life and death, then you aren’t paying attention.
It must stop now.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:24 pmI am hoping that this move signals a movement finally towards the end of such a economically crippling war. The war will ends in terms of money because it was framed around the basis of acquiring more money. The genocide in Sudan would have been addressed had the Sudanese been starving upon fields of oil. Economically speaking however with regard to the Iraq War; we have failed to make up the difference in lives and cash. As a nation, who now needs to make up for a vast debt and needs to bolster its image, we should vote to focus our efforts on world poverty. The world’s poor according to the Borgen Project are the newest and least exploited emerging market. If we could cultivate this market, we could make money and help people. Keep in mind I am only framing this in economic terms because it seems that is how we as Americans vote.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:25 pmShow me a clean bill and I’ll show you a showered duck
April 26th, 2007 at 2:25 pmI think he may try to the signing statement route….we will just have to wait and see if his royal petulance is going to have the balls to follow through on any royal edicts he issues in it.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:25 pm“The Senate on Thursday narrowly passed legislation ordering U.S. troops to begin coming home from Iraq by Oct. 1. The vote was 51-46. The House on Wednesday passed the same war spending bill…”
Mission Accomplished.
No one should ever endorse a war without end. Declare the &$%@ war over, and go back to fighting terrorism with the gloves off, under the radar. We’ll get better results all the way around.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:30 pm#54 I never said the pork Pelosi used to buy votes were badly spend money. I simply feel that it is important to have a clean vote. Currently, many of these votes were bought which taints to bill. Let our congress vote for the bill on its own merit. When you have to pay billions for things like cotton farmers so that particular congressmen will vote the way you want them to, the vote is tainted and worthless. If the Dems want more money for Katrina victims, fine, but make a bill with just that issue. Pelosi herself just said they would not have any pork this entire year and then went and spent many billions to buy off congress to vote the way she wanted them too. America deserves much better then that.
And BTW, I am in no way defending the Repugs spending habits. It was the biggest issue I had with them. They wasted an untold amount of tax payer money which upset me a great deal. The used more pork then any congress before them. This was completely wrong regardless of the bill. Pork is always bad as even Pelosi a few months ago said so. When you have a bill of this magnitude, using pork to buy congress is flat wrong as America deserves better.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:30 pmMaybe that is the trap they are hoping for.. Aren’t all these stupid signing statements illegal? He has done hundreds of them.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:33 pmWouldn’t it be wonderful to nail him on the one signing statement that would make all the difference for our troops and our country? I would love to see him impeached. Most of the country wouldn’t love to see him impeached. He has wrought more devastation to this country, our constitution, our military, our justice system, and on and on, than any president in history.
I would love to see him brought down with this in defense of our country and our soldiers.
http://impeachforpeace.org/ evidence/ pages/ signingstatements.html
So now it is Dubya flipping the bird at Americans and mistreating the troops. Always has been…Chimpy McFlightsuit has never understood the sacrifice of our soldiers.
This war is for the profits of the military industrial complex and oil companies. Chimpy and the cronies of Shooter Cheney.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:33 pmyou can always tell when a democrat does something that will help bring our troops home by the amount of troll spittle on your screen.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:35 pmLook over there, a blonde with big boobs!
Shouldn’t we all be discussing the inherent dangers of breast implants and the fact that the government should not be subsidizing the industry?
C’mon, you know you want to look…
April 26th, 2007 at 2:35 pmPatrick is a knuckle dragging troglodyte troll who knows nothing of the sacrifice of the military. He just wants to hit his knees and blow Dubya.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:36 pmI really want the Senate to over-ride his veto, but I have to just say that it is thrilling to watch our government working like it is supposed to - the balance of government, with checks and balances, with different EQUAL branches of government, working like it is supposed to.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:41 pmIt is a breath of fresh air even though the importance of this is enormous.
Write or call your Senator - http://www.congress.org
#61 - If Congress voted strictly to draw down the forces and end the war, it would be laying out the permission for the war to continue - in decreasing amounts - until the deadline. That creates costs. The costs associated with the decreased conflict should be included in the bill.
Lo and behold, they are.
If you want a judgment vote on the war itself, check the 2006 election results.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:41 pmThe problem is that this isn’t a clean bill. Reid and Pelosi knew that there isn’t enough congressmen that would vote to retreat so they had to buy them off.
So what would you call it when Republicans ladled out pork in the 2005 and 2006 Iraq War Supplemental bills, and when President Bush added billions of non-war spending to his supplemental requests? Those weren’t “clean” bills either, and they received overwhelming support from both the GOP-controlled Congress and the President.
As for the rest, the “look at the shiny object” routine may work on many people, but we’re not gonna be fooled by that any more.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:42 pmRoger-Roger (61),
Please list some of the “clean” bills passed by the 109th congress of the type that Bushie insists upon.
Also, could you please explain why this spending has to be an “emergency”? Surely the war in Iraq isn’t much of a surprise anymore.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:43 pmIt started when she allowed her corporate owners to decide that America Somoa didn’t deserve the minimum wage the rest of the country got. When both companies are bassed in her district and employ over 80% of the island, how could she possibly think we wouldn’t see this? Comment by Roger_Roger — April 26, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Poor st*pid little Roger. It was Abramoff and the GOP that have prevented Samoa from having the minimum wage FOR YEARS. Or were you too mentally r*t*rded to know it.
Sorry Roger_Rube, I’m not seeing the issue here. You f*ckers don’t want any minimum wage at all, so why exactly are you upset that ALL AMERICANS are going to get it? Sore Loser!
April 26th, 2007 at 2:43 pmSo what do you call leaving the fight, if not surrendering? Would ‘quitting’ be a better word? How about ’strategic retreat’?
Comment by Dale — April 26, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
How about “minding your own business” and “leaving Iraq”. Let them determine their own future. The ONLY thing Iraq has is OIL. When and if they get their shit together, the only thing they have to offer the world is the oil (and tourism but that is a looooong way off). Create an economy based on other sources of energy - see the Europeans for examples of getting going on wind and sun energy - and mind your own business. Every year the US prolongs going hard after other sources of energy, the farther and farther behind the rest of the developed world they will be.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:46 pmFinally! The democrats get balls and send some BINDING legislation to the White House.
We’re doing nothing but standing - and dieing - in the middle of a civil war. No matter what we do we’ll lose. We’ll lose troops, we’ll lose lives, we’ll lose more hope, and we’ll lose billions more in money.
Get them out of there NOW
April 26th, 2007 at 3:03 pmYes, Tom, even 9/11 was a P/R stunt. /sarc
Wow, the cradle of civilization and all they have to offer is oil? Feeling a bit Euro-centric, are we?
April 26th, 2007 at 3:05 pmWow, the cradle of civilization and all they have to offer is oil? Feeling a bit Euro-centric, are we? Comment by Dale — April 26, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
Yeah, sure, the GOP went to Iraq, for *civilization*. Well, considered what a bunch of uncivilized, barbaric, militaristic and childish boors you are, at least you’re correct in that you need to *learn* to be civilized.
Hypocritical lying Jake*ss.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:10 pmPelosi herself just said they would not have any pork this entire year and then went and spent many billions to buy off congress to vote the way she wanted them too
And BTW, I am in no way defending the Repugs spending habits.
Comment by Roger_Roger — April 26, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Roger2Xbs
Bridges to nowhere like Republican pass for votes is pork. The other money is money that the Republicans failed to spend that was severely needed and other emergency funding.
You are a liar. You do support the Republicans and you make up false arguments as a diversion.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:11 pmYou obviously don’t even know where the money is being spent you are just “guessing” or lying about it being pork. Some of the money is for first responders to 9/11 that have terminal lung diseases that are losing all funding for care. Along with Iraqi veteran medical care. You think this is pork and then accuse others of not supporting troops.
Wow, the cradle of civilization and all they have to offer is oil?
Comment by Dale — April 26, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
Well, given the cries on the conservative side to “invade their countries and Christianize them” (along with the general Islamophobia oozing from the conservative ranks), I highly doubt the GOP and their supporters invaded Iraq in order to get better acquainted with their culture.
If what they wanted really was culture, they could have sent a cultural diplomatic mission -not war planes and troops.
I am sure Iraq has a lot more to offer than oil, but access to natural resources is one of the reason why Pres Bush invaded that country.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:18 pmIf you want a name for this action, I humbly propose S.M.A.R.T. (Situationally Motivated And Responsive Tactic).
April 26th, 2007 at 3:38 pmDale,
Priceless relics which were directly connected to the history of the region were looted and destroyed. No protection of any of the “civilization” which used to be there. It was about the oil, not the civilization.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:42 pmDid Ringo just post something?
April 26th, 2007 at 3:43 pmJaun C,
I guess you couldn’t answer my question eh?
Coward.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:52 pmGood for the senate… but Bush will veto this. And the wording of the bill was not strong enough, not defined enough about the pullout of troops.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:56 pmDid Ringo just post something?
Comment by Juan C
________________________________
No. Sorry, Juan, it must have been my fault. I had The Beatles “Sgt Pepper” playing in the background while I was reading the thread. Must have been a data shift in the computer.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:05 pmGo ahead, put my comment back.
Let’s hear what the deep thinkers here at Thinkprogress have to say…What are you afraid of?
April 26th, 2007 at 4:10 pmThis is the BIG OPPORTUNITY for the Democrats to end the war. NOW. I hope they do it.
All they have to do is let Bush veto the current bill and then NEVER SEND ANOTHER FUNDING BILL FOR IRAQ.
No money. War over.
And our surviving soldiers come home with all their limbs.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:17 pmUh, yeah. Right now, all Iraq has to sell is oil, and their damned lucky they have it. Wait, what?
April 26th, 2007 at 4:28 pmIraq might be the go-to place in the future for customer service call centers. All they have is oil? Please.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:30 pmI’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The Mission WAS accomplished in 2003. We won. Yay for us. The war ended in 2003. What we’ve had since then is an occupation. You don’t win those. There is no victory to be had. There is also no surrender and no retreat. You either prolong the occupation or you end it.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:37 pmAlright, I’ll ask again…
What will President Obama do when Iraq falls into the hands of militant Islamists and is used as a launching pad for terrorism throughout the region?
Any answers?
April 26th, 2007 at 4:39 pmThose supporting this illegal occupation we have with Iraq are from one or more of the following:
1. complete idiot “Look what they did to us with 9/11″
2. racist: “we need to kill all the rag heads”
3. those waiting for their rapture
4. sociopath - loves all the torture, rapes, killings, bombings, murders
5. the war profiteers who are making millions
6. those exploiting the hype for political gain
Which group do the trolls, we see here, belong to?
Isn’t it time we ALL saw this for what it really is and joined the rest of the world in disapproval?
April 26th, 2007 at 4:42 pm#89 - First step would be to arrest Bush and Cheney for giving material support to terrorists.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:45 pmAlejandro,
Alright….Then what?
April 26th, 2007 at 4:50 pmNot Voting - 3
Graham (R-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
McCain (R-AZ)
YEAs —51
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs —46
April 26th, 2007 at 4:53 pmAlexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Alejandro,
Alright….Then what?
Comment by Ringo
Arrest those that helped Bush and Cheney give material support to terrorists.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:53 pmhttp://www.nydailynews.com/ opinions/ 2007/ 04/ 25/ 2007-04-25_put_bushs_puppy_dog_terror_theory_to_sle.html
Good op-ed today from Richard Clarke, entitled the “puppy dog tale”
April 26th, 2007 at 4:54 pmAny answers?
Comment by Ringo
Bomb them?
April 26th, 2007 at 4:55 pmWhat will President Bush do when Osama Bin Laden offers him $1M and invites him to lunch to thank him for the chaos Bush helped create in the Middle East?
Any answers?
(Gee, this hypothetical baiting sure is fun!)
April 26th, 2007 at 4:55 pm“What will President Obama do when Iraq falls into the hands of militant Islamists and is used as a launching pad for terrorism throughout the region? Any answers?”
This really is a stupid question. Bush and Cheney have done more for putting Iraq into the hands of Islamist extremists by starting this illegal war. There weren’t Islamist extremists in Iraq until we decidmated the country, knocked out their infrastructure and opened the door wide ope for them with this insane failed policy and incompetent leaders.
ANYONE could do a better job. It will take real skill to fix this. Yes, I believe Obama and just about any of the other candidates have what it takes to start us moving in a better direction.
Stupid question.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:13 pmWhat will President Obama do when Iraq falls into the hands of militant Islamists and is used as a launching pad for terrorism throughout the region?
Any answers?
Comment by Ringo
The first part has already happened. I think Turkey will step in - if we continue to ignore their warnings - and invade the Kurdish north. President Obama will have to sit imptently by (as would a hypothetical republican pres.) and watch as it happens. The Turks will be using the same rationale for invading the Kurdish areas that Bush used to invade and occupy Iraq: imminent threat. Before you start with the “but they never said those exact words,” I would remind you that when asked this question by reporters using the words “imminent threat”, Dan Bartlett agreed with the assertion. So, what is your solution to this very possible eventuality? “Stay the course” isn’t an option any longer.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:13 pmDemocrats’ Timetable Allows U.S. War in Sunni Region to Go On
The language on a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq voted out of the House-Senate conference committee this week contains large loopholes that would apparently allow U.S. troops to continue carrying out military operations in Iraq’s Sunni heartland indefinitely.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:33 pmif harry Reid is correct and the war is lost. Who won?
April 26th, 2007 at 6:27 pm“What will President Obama do when Iraq falls into the hands of militant Islamists and is used as a launching pad for terrorism throughout the region?
Any answers?
Comment by Ringo — April 26, 2007 @ 4:39 pm”
The “militant Islamists” are going to be mouldering in their graves once the Iraqi Sunnis stop having a reason - ie, our occupation - to give them aid and shelter against the Shiite-dominated government.
But let’s say the Sunni part of Iraq becomes a “failed state”-type area, and Al Qaeda sets up camps there. President Obama will proceed to bomb the living bejeebers our of them, while American special forces, Kurdish peshmerga, and forces from our allied Anbar clans clean up what’s left.
But the goal has to be to try to keep that from happening, and that means a political solution. We need to use the announcement of our withdrawal, our foresaking of permanent bases and oil concessions, and our actual withdrawal to create that political solution, so the Sunni Iraqi nationalists and Shiite moderates can put and end to the civil war and sit on, respectively, the Al Qaedists and Sadrists (for lack of better terms). This solution cannot happen absent of policy of redeployment.
I’ll say it again - you Bushies pay lip service to the need for a political solution, but you don’t have the foggiest idea how to make that happen.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:54 pmBut what do I know? We liberals don’t bother to think about a way forward, doncha know.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:56 pmSteve,
Al Qaeda in Iraq won. They got the civil war they wanted, the scaling down of the effort to defeat the Taliban/al Qaeda in south-central Asia, and the extensive urban and rural areas in which to operate freely.
Thanks for that. Bushie, you’re doing a heckuva job.
Looks like the Democrats get to clean up your mess. Again.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:59 pm#51-
Are you sure you are the real Roger Roger? You didn’t smear attack anyone really in that post. You usually post some pretty stupid sick stuff, but that was a well thought out post…very unusual for you.
I am not even gonna call you scum on that one, I disagree on it, but other wise it was an ok post.
Hating the Repuke Mafia daily
April 26th, 2007 at 7:20 pmif harry Reid is correct and the war is lost. Who won?
Comment by Steve
No one won. Everyone lost.
1) America looks stupid just like after Vietnam.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:25 pm2) Iraqis… well hell on earth is not winning for sure…
3) Al Qeada failed in bogging us down and breaking us like they did to Russia.
4) Iran will find an America rebuilding their military and having frank public debate about the real threat from Iran.
Ringo
First thing: If, not when. Sorry it is not absolutely guaranteed that Osama would get his hands on Iraq’s oil.
But anyway, five things off the top of my head which he could do very easily:
First: Arrest and charge the GOP’s leaders who lied America into that war, with fraud, various abuses of power, and of course, war crimes. Torture is a war crime. This will serve to boost America’s standing as a bastion of civil rights. The loss of that prestige caused by the Bush administration is part of what is costing you in world politics.
Second: Massive funding into alternative fuels, and finding the alternative to the internal combustion engine. The basic funding for terrorism, is off of oil, get rid of the need for oil, and the guys who fund terrorism are kind of stuffed seen as unlike Israel, most of them have not invested in a highly educated, productive workforce.
Instead the Middle East mostly invested in keeping its poorer population stupid and religious. (Note: As an atheist I do have certain prejudices here.)
Third: Spies, spies, and more spies. A major programme to recruit and train guys who can speak the language of the enemy, without an accent, in order to infiltrate and destroy them. High end listening devices will be used in conjunction with a strong core of specialists who will understand what those listening devices pick up. This has historically been the weakest point of the Republican strategy - Republicans have been very keen on the toys and not terribly keen on hiring people who can get anything useful out of them.
Fourth: Utilise the instability of the region to America’s advantage by talking, yes, TALKING, to places like Syria, to groups like Hamas, and at least finding out what they want and whether they can be talked out of it. Talking does not cost much, and it does frequently help.
Fifth: A major, real effort to capture Osama Bin Laden, while simultaneously, using every single resource possible to destroy his credibility. Osama is as powerful as he is now because he is a symbol, kill him and the movement remains, but if you can make him the symbol of something filthy, you can seriously wreck the movement.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:07 pm