Pelosi schedules Iraq vote for ‘as early as Friday.’
Pelosi schedules Iraq vote for ‘as early as Friday.’
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) today said that the House will vote as early as Friday on legislation that would spend $50 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but require that President Bush start bringing troops home.” AP reports:
The bill would set the requirement that troop withdrawals begin immediately and that soldiers and Marines spend as much time at home as they do in combat.
The measure also sets a goal that combat end by December 2008. After that, troops left behind should be restricted to a narrow sets of missions, namely counterterrorism, training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. assets. [...]
Pelosi said the bill also would require that the government rely on an Army field manual when conducting interrogations. The field manual makes no mention of waterboarding, a harsh technique that simulates drowning and is believed to have been used by the CIA.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Oh my fu*king god I was right. Pelosi is going to give Bush another fu*king $50 billion. I made that prediction as a joke.
FU*K!
November 8th, 2007 at 1:33 pmyawn, heard that b4… just wait for bush to veto bush’s war…. again.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:34 pmGood luck with that.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:34 pmNo no no, you guys are missing it. This is the original form. By the time Bush sees it, it won’t have any of the important stuff in it and it will just be authorization for Bush to have $50 billion more for his fiasco.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:36 pmI will not hold my breath over this vote, since the Blue Dogs will most likely cast their votes with the Republicans.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:36 pm“The measure also sets a goal that combat end by December 2008. After that, troops left behind should be restricted to a narrow sets of missions, namely counterterrorism, training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. assets”
Gimme a break.
Isn’t the entire Iraq war considered to be just one part of the WAR ON TERROR? In other words, the troops being restricted to “counterterrorism” means that there would be no restrictions!!!!!!!
I won’t even get into the whole “protecting U.S. assets” issue…
November 8th, 2007 at 1:37 pmJay-you mean the POO Dogs?
November 8th, 2007 at 1:40 pmThat money would be better spent here, on things that matter to Americans, not pouring it down the money drain that is Iraq.
Bring the troops home, quit wasting money in that sink hole.
Buck Fush
November 8th, 2007 at 1:42 pmPlease, this is clearly a waste of time
November 8th, 2007 at 1:42 pmI think I actually hate the Blue Dogs more than Republicans at this point. This sucks.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:42 pmLOL – I must commend the liberal netrooters, who are emerging from years of “battered-wife” syndrome, and recognizing their abuse. Glad you aren’t falling for the Dems’ handwaving and blouse tearing, and recognizing that they are merely paying you lips service.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:44 pmNancy, go fcking find a table……
November 8th, 2007 at 1:44 pmIf Bush vetoes it, will Nancy just cave and remove the offending bits?
Or will the Congress do the job we elected them to do and say NO MORE FUNDING!
November 8th, 2007 at 1:45 pmHow ’bout $50 billion for us? … since it IS our money. I can think of a shitload of things to spend it on!
November 8th, 2007 at 1:45 pmLemme guess…the Dems are finally learning something from the Republicans…unfotunately it is going to be to use the Friday News Dump to keep their lasted cave from getting the press it deserves.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:50 pmI meant “latest cave”
November 8th, 2007 at 1:51 pmIf Bush vetoes it, will Nancy just cave and remove the offending bits?
Comment by RUCerious — November 8, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Of course she will. Pelosi put her ethics in the same closet she put the Impeachment Table.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:51 pmGood thing the secure Iraqi oil is paying for the war. I can’t imagine what it’d be costing us (I mean our kids and grandkids) if the oil weren’t offseting the price of freedom.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pmit’s like a mom buying beer for her kid and saying, ‘ok, this is the last time. and promise me you won’t drive, and you’ll be back by midnight.’
bush isn’t the problem, congress is. grow up (adults). no money, no war. to borrow a phrase from another great republican, it’s time to “just say no.”
November 8th, 2007 at 1:54 pmThe Republican controlled congress in 1999, I think it was, stopped the funding of Clintons military jaunt with an exit date. Why wont the Republicans do that today? Bush has said you cant have a victory without an exit strategy, where is it?
November 8th, 2007 at 1:58 pmComment by Bob — November 8, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
I hope your being sarcastic here. =)
November 8th, 2007 at 1:59 pmNancy Pelosi has never explained why she never disciplines the Blue Dogs? She slaps the snot out of progressive Democrats, but does nothing to the Blue Dogs. If I was in her position, then I would inform the Blue Dogs to vote the party line or get their asses kicked to Mars.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:03 pmTCDon the generals have already stated AQI has been defeated in Iraq. They have some 325,000 trained Iraq security. This is not about the war on terror but on getting out of Iraq. It was a freedom plan remember?
I also recall Bush repeatedly saying as they stand up we will stand down. Its time we stand down and make the Iraqi forces stand up.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:04 pm#21 How about a time table for the Iraqi government to step up? All children need to leave home sometime. Letting our troops swelter in 120 degree heat while the Iraqi government take a vacation, how crappy is that ?
I am sure the Iraqi government can pay Blackwater from their oil receipts for protection and train their military. Our men and women have done enough !
November 8th, 2007 at 2:09 pm:)
November 8th, 2007 at 2:09 pmGood point Xisithrus. If AQI has been defeated then who is the “enemy”? The Iraqi people? But we’re there to help them and set them free, right? So, again, who is the enemy?
November 8th, 2007 at 2:10 pmCould Congress pass a balanced budget amendment then require all war funding in the budget?
November 8th, 2007 at 2:11 pmIf Bush vetoes it, will Nancy just cave and remove the offending bits?
Or will the Congress do the job we elected them to do and say NO MORE FUNDING!
Comment by RUCerious — November 8, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Nancy and the rest of the Democrats will cave.
No More Funding? If the Dems said that, it would mean that they have a spine.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:12 pmThey don’t.
Ring…Ring…..
Hello! Likud Party headquarters, AIPAC division
Hi, Howard, this is Nancy Pelosi
Howard Friedman:Nancy dear, how are you?
Nancy:Fine Howard, and you?
Howard:Couldn’t be better.
Nancy: we are going to give George $50 billion more
Howard: Good, good, you, Harry, and Joe are doing such good work for God, Israel, and the apocalypse.
Nancy: Thank you Howard. Iran next, then Syria, and then Russia. Think of all that oil for you to power your military and ours.
Howard: Yes, and would you get George to eat Bagels instead of those deadly pretzels.
Nancy:Sure thing, and Larry Franklin has been pushed into the background as per your request
November 8th, 2007 at 2:14 pmbob, post 28: Iraq spending is completely borrowed money, so if it was put into budget then the occupation of Iraq would end immediately. Iraq fiasco has supposedly cost about one trillion, so far, but Bush has added five trillion to the national debt since his election in 2000. Hence Congress needs to explain where that other four trillion vanished to?
November 8th, 2007 at 2:18 pmTCDon: “Give the enemy a time-table. Brilliant, just brilliant.”
“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
November 8th, 2007 at 2:19 pm Â
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush
Fritz: “No More Funding? If the Dems said that, it would mean that they have a spine.
They don’t.”
That may or may not be true, but what is a given is that if they said that, repubs would accuse them of getting troops killed for lack of bullets and the mainstream media would play along and pump it like crazy.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:22 pmYo, TCDon – um, *which* enemy would that be…?
The all-purpose bogeyman Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda WorldWideâ„¢, Al Qaeda In Iraqâ„¢, or the Sunni insurgents, or maybe the Shi’ia Death Squads, or maybe just the Pissed Off Iraqisâ„¢ …?
I’m just a little confused here. Perhaps you – in all your considerable wisdom – could enlighten me…?
November 8th, 2007 at 2:25 pmSure. All the troops will be headed home in December, 2008.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:25 pmGive the enemy a time-table. Brilliant, just brilliant.
Comment by TCDon
I figured you would go there. Your daily order of talking points must have arrived, huh?
We have no enemy in Iraq. They all dislike us – it’s universal. Everytime President Cheney makes a phone call, we get more people disliking us around the globe. It’s almost like it is part of the administrations plan.
At present, our timetable (the one you are scared of) has exceeded 6 years, 1/2 trillion dollars, and more than 3800 American lives. Countless others have also perished due to our insane invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Seems like our timetable has been on display the whole time – it’s 2009 when W can declare victory and move to Paraguay. Makes you proud to have a chickensh@t as our ‘commander guy’. I know I am :(
November 8th, 2007 at 2:25 pmOT – I wish you all could’ve just heard the interview Ed Schultz just conducted with congressperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz. It basically ended in a shouting match with Ed telling her that’s she’s completely out of touch with Americans regarding impeachment.
She asked what “end” would impeachment lead to!! Ed rammed down her throat that it’d be a first step in restoring the Constitution and perhaps stop a war with Iran.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz MUST be voted out of office. She offered every DLC talking point.
I was NOT a big Ed Schultz fan when he came on radio two years ago. But in the last six months he’s absolutely been on fire.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:26 pmRHF, remember the immortal words of Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican convention: “You know, facts are stupid things…”
November 8th, 2007 at 2:26 pmFacts have a liberal bias.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:28 pmI won’t even get into the whole “protecting U.S. assets†issue…
Comment by mary
This is the part that makes me crazy. WE HAVE NO LEGITIMATE ASSETS IN IRAQ. The only assets we have are assets we took from the Iraqi’s like land to build bases and the Embassy. We are acting like we have a legitimate right to take from Iraq. We don’t. We are trespassers and occupiers and we have no rights to anything in that country.
I have been hearing Democrats talking about our “assets” in Iraq and that’s what scares me the most. This just tells me that they are not really any different than the Cons.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:30 pmI like Ed Schultz, but sometimes I feel he suffers from lapses in logic. Latest example: he believes the mainstream media and conservatives WANT Hillary Clinton to be the nominee because they’re sure they can beat her. Why would Jack Welch’s three storebought whores, Russert, Williams and Matthews be slamming and challenging Clinton endlessly and inviting other candidates to tee off on her if they wanted her to be the nominee? Why would the media slam Hillary for a position on drivers licences for illegal immigrants, but conveniently forget to mention that Obama has the same position? Hillary-hating lefties – I welcome your opinions on this anomoly.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:32 pm“President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be
away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
November 8th, 2007 at 2:34 pmThere’s NO deadline in this bill!
The only timeframe mentioned is the end of combat by December 2008 but the troops would still be able to do whatever they deemed necessary under the byline of counterterrorism! And they’d still be able to stick around to “train Iraqi security forces”.
How would that be different than what they’re doing now?
November 8th, 2007 at 2:35 pm“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
 Â
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
November 8th, 2007 at 2:37 pm Â
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
As a conservative, I do want Hillary to win, Ripper, but I want her to barely win and to be weakened substantially in the process of having the other leading candidates in her own party turn against her.
Comment by TCDon
That sounds good for America. /snark off
November 8th, 2007 at 2:39 pmTCDon: “As a conservative, I do want Hillary to win, Ripper, but I want her to barely win and to be weakened substantially in the process of having the other leading candidates in her own party turn against her.”
Yes, of course you do. And, coincidentally, Russert, Williams and Matthews are doing their best to help you out. Another coincidence: they were all hired and work for billionaire republican Jack Welch.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:40 pmTC DON: “The mainstream media’s spin on the facts have a liberal bias.”
So you’re saying that the mainstream media’s unquestioning acceptance of Bush’s attack on Iraq is a liberal thing???!!! Yikes, man. That’s simply crazy.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:42 pmWhy would the media accuse Hillary of changing positions on licences for illegal immigrants while somehow not noticing that John Edwards and Chris Dodd have also changed their opinions? Why would Chris Matthews be slamming Clinton for lack of honesty while praising Rudy for being a “straight talker?”
November 8th, 2007 at 2:45 pmTC Don: “Ah, Jack Welch, a good Irish Catholic. One heck of a good businessman too.”
Yes, and by some set of strange coincidence, Russert, Mattews and Williams are also Irish Catholics and millionaires.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:47 pmYupe, there is no hope. Just read this:
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/2007/11/christians_musl.shtml
We should leave the Iraqi’s to defend themselves since there is obviously no chance they can work together.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:52 pmTC Don, please take a look at the link you provided. It doesn’t provide a breakdown of liberal vs. conservative. It breaks down democrats vs republicans. Matthews and Russert are technically democrats. The CEO of Viacom is a lifelong democrat and a vocal supporter of the current republican agenda because it calls for the deregulation of media.
A 1999 poll of publishers and editors by Editor and Publisher Magazine found that they favored Bush by a 66-33% margin.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:52 pmDon, you can look all you want for various polling data, but you’re going to have to explain to me why this supposedly liberal media pounded Al Gore into sand based on phony stories and hoaxes while presenting Bush to us as a “plain-spoken guy” who you’d like to go to a barbecue with. Sorry, but we’ve got some history here. Also, you might want to explain the series of phony “scandals” amounting to nothing that the media perpetrated during the 90’s on Clinton while treating Bush as some kind of untouchable paragon of virtue during his terms. How has the media’s behavior over the last 15 years proven in any way to be liberal?
November 8th, 2007 at 3:00 pmCare to explain who the enemy is TCDon? And why does the strongest military in the history of the world fear telling the people they serve when they are returning home?
November 8th, 2007 at 3:02 pmTCDon – How about no announcement but slowly bring our military back to the border and slowly bring plane load after plane load home. Now would that appease your senses. Again, let them hire Blackwater if we stop paying them Blackwater will be needing the revenue for Erik and his wife, Jeb’s sister in law.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:05 pmFascist Pelosi wants to get the USA out of I-rack by the year 2028, no foolin’…
November 8th, 2007 at 3:09 pmMoney and connections has bought media behaviour toward Bush. When money and connections aren’t enough bring in the loss of career fear. Who will speak out?
November 8th, 2007 at 3:16 pmActual facts have a conservative bias. The mainstream media’s spin on the facts have a liberal bias.
Comment by TCDon
Care to offer some examples TCD? I doubt it.
If not why not explain why Jack welsh is such a good irish catholic when he cheated on his wife with WJS hosebag reporter?
And why mention his heritage and religion at all TCD? If he’s like the good irish catholic priests, he’s a pedaphile and a hypocrite.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:18 pmTCDon had a double scoop of dumb this morning.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:19 pmPelosi, stop talking and start bringing these guys home.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:26 pmAnyone else see this as a way for Nancy to TRY and APPEASE the oh-so-very pissed off Dems?
Hey Nancy: How about if you actually LISTEN to what we want (IMPEACHMENT) and stop telling us what’s “off the table” or playing these shell games. What did you do, return to the 2006 post-election “Plan” (one-year later) and say “Hey! Here’s another thing we haven’t done. Since everyone is pissed today about us FAILING to impeach – by me and the rest of the dem “leadership” (cough cough) stifling the measure in committee and then threatening Conyers so he suppresses the measure – let’s bring the war “debate” (cough cough) to the front burner… before we cave (again) to King George and give him the carte blanche funding he wants (and we’re preparing to give him).”
November 8th, 2007 at 4:03 pmTCDon: “You have something against Irish Catholics? You aren’t prejudiced, are you?”
In 2004, a number of important Catholic bishops told their congregations that they would not be allowed to take communion if they voted for Kerry. What will they say about Rudy Guiliani this year. If they remain silent, will catholics just sit there and pretend that nothing happened. I’m guessing most catholics won’t notice the double-standard.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pmhow much of this 50 billion is going to blackwater? – does bush ever specify how this money is divided up?
November 8th, 2007 at 7:20 pm