House OK's Timetable for Troops in Iraq..Bush will Veto

[Bodhi]

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......

[tim_m]

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.

[Bodhi]

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

[Booker Floyd]

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?

Isn't hard to believe that the only war we ever lost was one that liberals put us in??

Can you tell me when American involvement began in Vietnam?

[Bodhi]

 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....

[Bodhi]

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...

[-Jack-]

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.

[Booker Floyd]

I sure can it started in 1955

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.

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...

Nice and vague as usual.

[Bodhi]

I sure can it started in 1955

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.

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...

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....

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

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 !!! "

[25]

WE...WILL ...LEAVE...WHEN...THE ...JOB ...IS....DONE........not too vague if you ask me....

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.

[25]

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 !!! "

"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?

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

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 ... ?_?

[SLCPUNK]

 

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......

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.

[Bill 213]

"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.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

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.

[25]

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. 

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)?

[The Dog]

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...

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.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

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. 

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)?

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.

[25]

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.