Here Today... Gone To Hell!

House OKs Timetable for Troops in Iraq 
 
Mar 23 01:10 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer       
 
 


View larger image

  WASHINGTON (AP) - A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.
Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."

The vote, echoing clashes between lawmakers and the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago, pushed the Democratic-led Congress a step closer to a constitutional collision with the wartime commander in chief. Bush has insisted that lawmakers allow more time for his strategy of sending nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to work.

The roll call also marked a triumph for Pelosi., who labored in recent days to bring together a Democratic caucus deeply divided over the war. Some of the party's more liberal members voted against the bill because they said it would not end the war immediately, while more conservative Democrats said they were reluctant to take away flexibility from generals in the field.

Republicans were almost completely unified in their fight against the bill, which they said was tantamount to admitting failure in Iraq.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success," said Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

The bill marks the first time Congress has used its budget power to try to end the war, now in its fifth year, by attaching the withdrawal requirements to a bill providing $124 billion to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of this year.

Excluding the funds in the House-passed bill, Congress has so far provided more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including about $350 billion for Iraq alone, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. More than 3,200 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since war began in March 2003.

Across the Capitol, the Senate planned to debate as early as Monday legislation that also calls for a troop withdrawal?and has also drawn a Bush veto threat.

That $122 billion measure would require that Bush begin bringing home an unspecified number of troops within four months with the goal of getting all combat troops out by March 31, 2008. Unlike the House bill's 2008 date, the Senate deadline is not a firm requirement.

While Friday's House vote represented Democrats' latest ratcheting up of political pressure on Bush, they still face long odds of ultimately being able to force a troop withdrawal.

In the Senate, Democratic leaders will need 60 votes to prevail?a tall order because they will need about a dozen Republicans to join them.

And should lawmakers send Bush a compromise House-Senate measure, both chambers would need two-thirds majorities to override him?margins that neither seems likely to be able to muster.

In Friday's House debate, Democrats said it was time for them to begin influencing the war's path.

"The American public expects, the Congress of the United States, to do something," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "Not simply to say 'yes' to failed policies, but to on their behalf, speak out and try to take us in a new direction."

"What we're trying to do in this legislation is force the Iraqis to fight their own war," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had helped write the bill.

With Democrats holding 233 seats and Republicans with 201, Democrats were able to afford only 15 "no" votes. Accordingly, Pelosi, and her leadership team spent days trying to convince members that the bill was Congress' best chance of forcing Bush to change course?an argument that was aided when they added more than $20 billion in domestic spending in an effort to lure votes.

They got a breakthrough Thursday when four of the bill's most consistent critics said they would not stand in its way. California Democrats Lynn Woolsey, Diane Watson, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they would help round up support for the bill despite their intention to personally vote against it because it would not end the war immediately.

"Despite my steadfast opposition, I have told the speaker that I will work with her to obtain the needed votes to pass the supplemental, but that in the end I must vote my conscience," said Rep. Diane Watson, D- Calif.

The Iraq deadline created an unusual dynamic in the sharply partisan Congress. Bush loyalists teamed up with some anti-war liberals in opposing the measure. Conservatives said a firm deadline for the war would tie the hands of military commanders and embolden insurgents after the U.S. left Iraq, whereas many liberals said the bill would continue to bankroll an immoral war for more than a year.

"If you want peace, stop funding this war," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

"Approval of it means we vote to abandon Iraq at an arbitrary time no matter the situation, said Republican Rep. Ted Poe. It's also "loaded with squealing pork that has nothing to do with our troops or the war," added Poe, R-Texas, referring to the billions of dollars added to the bill to fund domestic programs and attract votes.

But members said Pelosi was able to convince liberal members of her caucus that the legislation was their best shot at challenging Bush on the war even if it fails to become law.
 




Isn't hard to believe that the only war we ever lost was one that liberals put us in??  oh wait...thats not hard to believe at all is it?  Why dont we just tell the insurgents to go on vacation till Fall 2008......

And Bush a republican is doing a terrible job with this illegal one. So what's your point? Democrat or Republican doesn't matter both are capable of screwing up and Bush has with this one.

my point is TELLING THE ENEMY WHEN WE ARE LEAVING IS A STUPID IDEA.....anyone can see that......this is no solution....

So how do we leave?  Do we sneak out and hope they dont notice?


Can you tell me when American involvement began in Vietnam?

 I sure can it started in 1955...but it didnt not turn into a full fledged war until LBJ got his hands on it.....please dont even try to tell me you are going to defend LBJ on this one.....and try to put the blame on Eisenhower...oh man...you are arent you? i can feel it....

no we dont sneak out when no one is looking....we leave when Iraq can take care of themselves and we are no longer needed...and we sure as hell dont give the enemy an idea of when that will be...

When you take out the emotion and political parties, what this really is turning into is a test of which branch has the most power. When this is looked back to in 20 years it won't be democrat V. republican but used as an example for branch power struggle.

Legislative, or Executive.

Personally, I would prefer the executive to hold more power. Especially with the firing and hiring stuff that's been in the news. I think the president should have that right. Congress is trying to emasculate the President's power...

So really, when you look past the surface it's not so much a Bush V. The Dems thing... but a Legislative V. Executive thing. It's your personal preference. Even if this was a democratic president and a republican congress I would rather have the President have his power.

It's an important part of American politics.

Really personal preference though.

So liberals didnt really "put us in," did they?  My interest isnt in defending any policies that came after; its in drawing attention to your false and dishonest claims.


Nice and vague as usual.

So you are going to play semantics with the term "got us in" Vietnam...not who actually "started the war" in Vietnam...If thats your defense it looks like you already lost that one...

and what is vague about my answer..WE...WILL ...LEAVE...WHEN...THE ...JOB ...IS....DONE........not too vague if you ask me....

why doesn't bush and his admnistration tell you anti-war guys that you CAN MAKE A LOT OF MONEY later by staying there :)

he should come straight and say " listen, we can secure a lot of oil there ! so what's 4000 soldiers when we can have FREE OOOOIIILlllllLLLLllll !!! "

:)

Which only leaves the question; What is the job, exactly? That's the vague part. If the job is "bringing stability to the region" then the troops will never, ever be leaving.


In reference to the bill though, I think people are jumping to conclusions. It calls for an end to "combat operations" by 09/2008, it says nothing about "peacekeeping troops" or "stability support forces" or whatever other euphemism you want to use to describe U.S. forces remaining in Iraq to bolster the Iraqi forces. If I were Bush I'd support the bill, and announce a vague outline for decreasing troop levels in 2008 "as and when new Iraqi troops become available to relieve them."

I think that America has done all it can in Iraq. Regardless of any objectives still outstanding, military or political, it is time to start inching towards the exit. While "staying the course" and hoping for a miracle might be the only way to save face, it's a long shot which could lead to a much bigger embarrassment as the military becomes increasingly less able to replenish troops and hardware abroad. Forget all of the partisan arguments for and against the war and focus on reversing the negative effects that this war, combined with Rumsfeld's "reforms," has had on U.S. military power.

Of course, politically, it would be a boon for both sides of the aisle if there's a mandated "exit strategy" (even a fake, "no more combat operations," one) in place before the end of the year; Iraq suddenly becomes a non-issue, at least for the duration of the election campaign.

"You guys get that, right? We elected a Texas oil man and now we're paying three dollars a gallon. We're fucking stupid." ~ Christopher Titus

Where's my free oil?

your free oil's in iraq ;) that's why you gotta wait .... well by the time he gets the *job done* we wont be needing oil anymore anyway ... ?_?

This is your liar Bush's war, nobody else. Led by hubris, arrogance, and ignorance about the make-up of that region. He created an impossible pickle for us right now. If you want our kids putting on the ref shirt for a civil war then be my guest, sign up and do your part to "protect" us all. Pull these troops out now, and let the chips falls where they may.

"Get the job done" has become the biggest joke phrase in quite some time.  It's nothing more than a supremely vague response to any naysayer to the President's fucked up agenda.  Bush doesn't know what the fuck is going on, he has absolutely no idea for anything to end this war other than "add more troops."  It's become a fucking disgrace to America and it's citizens...and the soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians that have died in this war. 
The fact that the Democrats are doing everything in their power to end it, yet still don't have the capabilities because of the narrow voting is also a disgrace.  We put them in power for a reason...to make a change.  Bush initially agreed he would try to work with Congress, but now that he understands that the Dems and the American people want no part of his bullshit agenda...he's doing everything to belittle them and prove them useless.  Sadly no one wins.  They can attempt to impeach Clinton for getting his dick sucked...yet Bush can fuck millions in the ass and go on with that smug fucking smirk on his face.  For the past 6 years, Iraq has been America's no. 1 agenda.  Instead of trying to make this country better, billions upon billions of dollars have been ripped from great programs (like the VA, various law enforcement (excluding Homeland Security), and many other programs for the elderly and such).  Change needs to happen and it needs to happen soon...I see the next year and a half as a mad dash for Bush to fuck as much more up as possible as he can before he leaves office.

When will the job be done? When will our mission be accomplished? When the Iraqi forces are strong enough to handle their own security the US will leave Iraq. 

Setting a timetable is pointless and it makes no sense for those who are interested in achieving something in Iraq.

You may disagree with the war or how we got there, but you cant go back in time.

The American presence in Iraq is a destabilizing factor in itself. If the objective is to stay until Iraq is stable and secure yet your presence destabilizes Iraq by attracting conflict you will never be able to leave - until you either kill every insurgent in Iraq and every middle-eastern terrorist, or until your military is defeated. Which do you think will happen first and how soon (to the nearest millennium)?

Did it ever occur to you that by setting a time table the iraqi government (if you want to call it that) will be forced to step up to the plate and take back control of their countries from the terrorists/insurgents/al queda/militias which means they would be taking care of themselves?  Right now they don't need to step up b/c our guys are there doing the job they should be doing.

are you still one of the hopelessly optimistic people that still believe that US military involvement is going to lead to a solution.  Staying the course, getting the job done, is not feasible.  we are creating more enemies of the US everyday we are still in iraq.  the damage from this war will haunt the US for decades.

The other option is to pull our troops out. 

Insurgents would topple the Iraq government and the whole region could become unstable. There would be a worse situation than it is now. 

Our choice is to be in a bad situation or a really really bad situation.

What difference does it make if the region is unstable (a possibility) or largely united against you (current reality). And who is to say that the Iraqi government won't fold the moment that foreign troops leave anyway? Regardless of whatever signs you're waiting for, the stability of Iraq under its current government won't actually be possible to evaluate until that government is actually left to run their country themselves. The options are; Admit the horrendous mistake and try to nip it in the bud (okay, the bloom at this point), or grind your military and political influence in the region into the ground by the stubborn refusal to know when to quit.

Brother I hate to tell you, but that whole region is on pins and needles as we speak and every second our presence is felt there...it's just going to become more volatile.  There is no feasible solution other than pulling out and monitoring the situation and trying to let it work itself out diplomaticly...in the sense of how Vietnam eventually wound up. 
Face it, no matter how many times you try to do this job, it's not possible.  The Iraqi government is weak and mainly because the US force fed those leaders onto the people.

The Republicans want to keep the "War on Terror" raging on for as long as possible...I dont see this really happening.

If the "War" ends, or Osama gets caught, people's pockets stop getting lined with cold hard cash up in Washington.

This war has become so politicized. The republicans are not putting american soldiers at risk for cash.The war is costing us not making us money.

The repubs have done nothing but put American soldiers in harms way for cash. While the war is putting us in the hole for the next generation, it still certainly is a cash cow for Cheney's corporate buddies at the same time.

I take issue with this attitude; if youre going to suggest that Republicans are supporting the war for monetary reasons, you have to offer some evidence.

Cheney's Halliburton has made record profits, and their stock has doubled since the invasion. The multi-million dollar "rebuilding" contracts are also more than enough evidence of a profit driven agenda.

That is before we even get to the future oil contracts that will be handed out, something we'll be first in line to get I'm sure.

Ya know, im kinda torn on this issue. I would love to see our troops come home.

But, leaving Iraq like this could have really detrimental factors. The country will fall apart, and probably could become much worse than it is now/was before

It already IS falling apart. and it's worse off now than it was before the US invaded.  Staying there isn't going to make it better. 

The troops leaving before Iraq can wipe its own ass certainly wont make a better situation either. We invaded, its our mess to clean up. 

Its one thing to single out Cheney; its another to accuse the party as a whole.  Do you have any evidence suggesting that the majority of Republicans that support this war have a financial interest in it?

he is not MY liar Bush....I dont have blind support for the guy..I just dont blame EVERYTHING that goes wrong in the world on him.....  But you are right..we should not have to "ref" a civil war...I think the job being "done" would mean handing the country back over to  the Iraqis where they can REASONABLY handle the situation...I like the "let the chips fall where they may" approach, because honestly that is what is going to happen eventually...I just dont think it is time just yet to leave there...I also read a good post I forgot who said it though about the how giving a deadline to get troops out would actually force the Iraqi goverment to get their asses in gear..I never really thought of it like that....very good points from all of you...

no, Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons invaded.  The rest of us were duped.  this is their war.  now that they are losing power and influence its time to get out of iraq.  let the sunnis and shiites fight each other and the other arab nations lend their support to whoever they want.  its virtually impossible to "win" - staying there only means more US deaths and more US dollars being wasted on a fruitless cause.

It already IS falling apart. A friend of mine's husband has been there and is currently there again. All he ever told her is how every time they did something to try to help they just did something to tear it down. Its never gonna be a stable situation with a stable government. We should never have been there period.

So because the republicans were in power when we went to war you want us to throw our hands up in the air and go home?

Would you have the same opinion if Bill Clinton were president?

People need to not look at this war in republican vs democrat terms.

What is the best decision for America?

But dude, it IS about Republican vs. Democrat now.  Haven't you been following the current battle in Congress?  The Democrats want the war to end, the Republicans don't.  It's as simple as that.  The very large majority of American people also want the war to end...however Bush just recently implied he doesn't care what the Democrats or the American people want.  Check the front page of Yahoo or CNN.  The Republicans are doing everything they can to rally behind Bush and try to keep this fuckshit in Iraq afloat.  Even some of them are starting to come around and see that it is impossible, however still not enough to sway the power balance.  The Dems are in power, but they have to have a 2/3's vote to secure anything and with the Republicans being douchebags, that isn't going to happen.  That's all this war has become on our side of the pond now...who has the bigger balls in Congress.

The war is being dictated by  politics, rather than strategy. Very sad. It is a bad situation.

The answer is simple. Iraqis need to be doing what our soldiers are doing- providing some level of security for the population. But we have to give them a chance to do it.

Explain how.


This reminds of something the president used to say - I dont think he does anymore: As the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down.  If this was true, would it be necessary for him to send over 21,000 more troops?  Or have zero Iraqis stood up?

Here is some good news from Iraq.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_on_re_mi_ea/fighting_back_in_anbar

Sunni sheiks join fight vs. insurgency

By TODD PITMAN, Associated Press Writer Sun Mar 25, 3:39 PM ET

RAMADI, Iraq - Not long ago it would have been unthinkable: a Sunni sheik allying himself publicly with American forces in a xenophobic city at the epicenter of
Iraq's Sunni insurgency.


Today, there is no mistaking whose side Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi is on. Outside his walled home, a U.S. tank is on permanent guard beside a clutch of towering date palms and a protective dirt berm.

The 36-year-old sheik is leading a growing movement of Sunni tribesmen who have turned against al-Qaida-linked insurgents in Anbar province. The dramatic shift in alliances may have done more in a few months to ease daily street battles and undercut the insurgency here than American forces have achieved in years with arms.

The American commander responsible for Ramadi, Col. John W. Charlton, said the newly friendly sheiks, combined with an aggressive counterinsurgency strategy and the presence of thousands of new Sunni police on the streets, have helped cut attacks in the city by half in recent months.

In November 2005, American commanders held a breakthrough meeting with top Sunni chiefs in Ramadi, hoping to lure them away from the insurgents' fold. The sheiks responded positively, promising cooperation and men for a police force that was then virtually nonexistent.

But in January 2006 a suicide bomber attacked a police recruiting drive, killing 70 people. Insurgents killed at least four sheiks for cooperating with the Americans, and many others fled.

The killings left the effort in limbo, until a turning point; insurgents killed a prominent sheik last year and refused to let family members bury the body for four days, enraging Sunni tribesmen, said U.S. Lt. Col. Miciotto Johnson, who heads the 1st Battalion, 77th Armored Regiment and visits al-Rishawi frequently in western Ramadi.

Al-Rishawi, whose father and three brothers were killed by al-Qaida assassins, said insurgents were "killing innocent people, anyone suspected of opposing them. They brought us nothing but destruction and we finally said, enough is enough."

Al-Rishawi founded the Anbar Salvation Council in September with dozens of Sunni tribes. Many of the new newly friendly leaders are believed to have at least tacitly supported the insurgency in the past, though al-Rishawi said he never did.

"I was always against these terrorists," al-Rishawi said in an interview inside his American-guarded compound, adjusting a pistol holstered around his waist. "They brainwashed people into thinking Americans were against them. They said foreigners wanted to occupy our land and destroy our mosques. They told us, 'We'll wage a jihad. We'll help you defeat them.'"

The difficult part was convincing others it wasn't true, and that "building an alliance with the Americans was the only solution," al-Rishawi said.

His movement, also known as the Anbar Awakening, now counts 41 tribes or sub-tribes from Anbar, though al-Rishawi acknowledges that some groups in the province have yet to join. It's unclear how many that is, or much support the movement really has.

And there is opposition. In November, a top Sunni leader who heads the Association of Muslim Scholars, Sheik Harith al-Dhari, described al-Rishawi's movement as "thieves and bandits." And for at least a year, U.S. forces have also witnessed sporadic firefights between Sunni militias and insurgents in Ramadi, reflecting the growing split among Sunnis. They used to describe such skirmishes as "red on red" fighting ? battles between enemies. Now they call it "red on green."

But violence in some districts of Ramadi previously hit by daily street battles has dwindled to a degree so low that American soldiers can walk on the streets in some areas and hand out soccer balls without provoking a firefight ? apparently a direct result of the sheik's influence.

U.S. Lt. Nathan Strickland, also of the 1-77th, said the sheiks were influenced by the realization that Shiite
Iran's regional influence was rising, and "the presence of (Sunni) foreign fighters here was disrupting the traditional local tribal structure."

Al-Rishawi and other sheiks urged their tribesmen to join the police force, and 4,500 Sunnis heeded the call in Ramadi alone ? a remarkable feat in a city that had almost no police a year ago.

Local Sunnis have deeply resented the overwhelmingly Shiite Iraqi army units the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad has deployed here. Sunni tribes have begun to realize that if anybody is going to secure the city, it might as well be the sons of Ramadi, Strickland said.

Also pouring through the streets in police trucks fixed with heavy machine-guns are 2,500 Sunni tribesmen who have joined newly created SWAT team-like paramilitary units. Paid by the Interior Ministry with the blessing of U.S. commanders, the so-called Emergency Response Units are clearly loyal to local sheiks. Some wear track suits and face-covering red-checkered headscarves ? looking startlingly like insurgent fighters. Others wear crisp green camouflage uniforms bought by al-Rishawi.

The ERU members were screened and sent either on 45-day police training courses in Jordan or seven-day courses at a military base in Ramadi ? part of an effort to capitalize on the Awakening movement and make use of them as quickly as possible.

"I'd say 20 percent of the credit for the change in Ramadi could be taken by U.S. forces," said Strickland. "The vast majority of the turnaround is due to the sheiks."

Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki made his first trip to Anbar province this month, meeting al-Rishawi and saying he applauded Sunni tribes and clans that had "risen up and countered terrorism."

Still, al-Rishawi complained the Interior Ministry had given police and ERU units "one-tenth" of the resources they needed ? from equipment to guns to food, despite promises to do more. Some of the fighters use automatic weapons they brought from home.

"If I had the tools, I could wipe al-Qaida from Anbar within five months," al-Rishawi said.

Strickland said the government was probably "hesitant to strengthen and supply something that might become a popular Sunni movement."

The message has taken longer to spread to eastern Ramadi, but it's getting through there, too, said Maj. Dave Christensen of the U.S. Army's 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment.

The base he works from used to be hit daily by mortar attacks, prompting outgoing barrages targeting launch sites that inadvertently damaged buildings, killed cattle, and alienated locals. The sheik responsible for the neighborhood where the attacks originated began cooperating with Americans a few months ago, prompting insurgents to attack and burn down his house.

"He fought back, then called and said, 'Hey, I've been helping you, now I could use your help,'" Christensen said.

U.S. forces moved into the now relatively quiet area, and Christensen's base has seen only a handful of mortar strikes since.

Don't worry, only the extreme left-wing 2% of our country actually believes what SLC tries to sell.  As has been repeatedly established, SLC has no support for his baseless allegations.

Unless you believe that Bush has waged this war and has knowlingly sacrified Iraqi civilans and american troops so that Cheney and Halliburton can make money, you are blind Bush supporter.  Come on, get with the program.

so unless I agree with this conspiracy theory of yours..I am a blind Bush supporter?? oh ok...thanks for clearing that up...by the way...can you give me some evidence to back up your claims...not more opinions...but some solid evidence?  anyone can just shoot their mouth off and not back it up...I do it on this board all the time : ok:  give me some proof....

As far as I am concerned, if you do not condemn the actions, then you support it. I don't remember seeing any on the right side of the aisle stand up and say all those corporate contracts being handed out were wrong and should stop.



Some nerve you guys have. This entire war was the result of "baseless allegations." All my shit "I'm trying to sell" has been right. I have been right about Iraq since day one, and you guys were all wrong, dead wrong. Keep saying the same crap about me and ignoring the facts, it's why you lost the last election and why you'll lose 08 too.

This still doesnt suggest that Republican congressmen have financial interest. 



This is true, and I wish you would back up your opinions, but BerkeleyRiot was being sarcastic.  Now maybe GnRFL can back up his for once.

wow BerkelyRiot was being sarcastic...just went back and re-read that...my bad....