Democrats Drop Troop Pullout Dates From Iraq Bill

[Gan]

May 22, 2007

By CARL HULSE (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/carl_hulse/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

WASHINGTON, May 22 — Congressional Democrats relented today on their insistence that a war spending measure sought by President Bush also set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo). The decision to back down, described by senior lawmakers and aides, was a wrenching reversal for some Democrats, who saw their election triumph as a call to force an end to the war. A Democratic effort to include timelines prompted Mr. Bush’s veto of the original bill last month, producing a political impasse.

“We don’t have a veto-proof Congress,” said Senator Harry Reid (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/harry_reid/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Nevada, the majority leader.

Representative Steny H. Hoyer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/steny_h_hoyer/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Maryland, the House Democratic majority leader, said the new bill was still being assembled, but he acknowledged the political reality facing Democrats. “The president has made it very clear that he is not going to sign timelines,” said Mr. Hoyer. “We can’t pass timelines over his veto.”

The concession to the president was proving so difficult for the Democratic leadership that by this afternoon, the lawmakers had not yet publicly acknowledged that the timelines would disappear. House Democrats were preparing to advance two separate measures, to enable antiwar lawmakers to support popular domestic spending but not the money for the war. House Democrats were to review the proposal later this evening, but lawmakers were already predicting that many would not support the war spending.

Under the new plan approved by Democratic leaders, Congress would send Mr. Bush the money for the war and include a series of benchmarks that attracted 52 votes in the Senate last week. The Iraqi government could lose some foreign aid if it fails to show sufficient progress but the president would be given the authority to suspend any penalties.

The agreement with the White House and Republicans (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org) would be tied to approval of as much as $20 billion in domestic spending sought by Democrats, as well as an increase in the minimum wage. Republican leaders said that would be hard for some lawmakers in their party to accept, but that they would probably allow it in exchange for the war spending.

The Democratic leaders’ concession infuriated one of their own, Senator Russell D. Feingold (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/russell_d_feingold/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Wisconsin, who failed last week in his attempt to win passage of a measure that would have cut off money for the war next spring.

“I cannot support a bill that contains nothing more than toothless benchmarks and that allows the president to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation’s history,” he said. “There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action. Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course in Iraq.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/washington/22cnd-cong.html?ei=5065&en=2d27446ebbab5252&ex=1180497600&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1179925779-RuQTgWSuv4hI2pGWnApHEA
_____________________________________

Now we're getting somewhere.

[Ilvane]

I'm glad you think staying in Iraq for an indefinate amount of time is a good thing. Spending billions of dollars with no constraint..so much for fiscal conservatism.

Angela

[StrayRogue]

Yes I imagine they think it's good simply because the democrats haven't got their way.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Yes I imagine they think it's good simply because the democrats haven't got their way.

I think the obvious answer is that it would be idiotic to tell the insurgents "Just hold out until September 23rd, because that's when we are leaving!"

[StrayRogue]

And I think it's idiotic to think you'll ever get rid of them.

[Parkbandit]

And I think it's idiotic to think you'll ever get rid of them.


And I think it's idiotic to think if we left Iraq, things would just get better.

[Tolwynn]

Spending billions of dollars with no constraint..so much for fiscal conservatism.

It's the American way, when you get down to it. And we excel at finding far sillier ways to spend vast amounts of money as a country.

The amount spent thus far on the war would just about cover all the cancer sticks the country goes through on a year by year basis. Or it could pay for half the amount spent by kids readying for their high-school proms each year. Far better uses of vast sums of money than the support of democracy, no?

[Ilvane]

Stray, can't you see how much better we have made Iraq for the Iraqi people? (insert sarcasm here)

Getting ride of Saddam was great, but do you really think the Iraqi people are saying thank you to us for bringing in the insurgents and getting Iran all ready to come charging in..oh and suicide bombers..don't forget those.

I bet they are thrilled we'll be around with no end in sight.

Angela

[TheEschaton]

A) support of democracy is jingoism at its finest, Drew. We are supporting our own interests, financially and politically, we are not supporting democracy in Iraq.

B) those things are private dollars spent by private citizens, not the money of the government being spent on a pointless and fruitless war.

C) if the insurgents main goal is to keep American influence out of the Middle East, don't you think violence WOULD decline if American forces left? Oh, right, but then we would have "lost". Forget that Iraq could then actually have a stable government.

D) Congratulations, Democrats, for rending yourself right in two.

[Daniel]

Actually violence would go down for American troops, not so for the Iraqi people. It's a pretty significant distinction to make.

[TheEschaton]

You think the insurgents would be unhappy with an Iraqi government with no American influence?

Eh, I suppose you could make the argument that they would think an American installed government would still be American controlled.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Stray, can't you see how much better we have made Iraq for the Iraqi people? (insert sarcasm here)

Getting ride of Saddam was great, but do you really think the Iraqi people are saying thank you to us for bringing in the insurgents and getting Iran all ready to come charging in..oh and suicide bombers..don't forget those.

I bet they are thrilled we'll be around with no end in sight.

Angela

So, President Ilvane (God, that was hard to type... ew) you were just elected President today. Grats.

What's your plan?

[Gan]

I'm glad you think staying in Iraq for an indefinate amount of time is a good thing. Spending billions of dollars with no constraint..so much for fiscal conservatism.

Angela

I'm glad you think that providing a public timeline for the insurgents and terrorists to go by while under an armed conflict is the best thing for our troops and Iraq. I'm also glad you understand the costs of war so well, how about we just drop a few nukes for a fraction of the costs we're currently spending, would that make you feel better?

[Daniel]

You think the insurgents would be unhappy with an Iraqi government with no American influence?

Eh, I suppose you could make the argument that they would think an American installed government would still be American controlled.

-TheE-

You honestly think there would be a government with no American "influence" that wouldn't be bloody as shit?

Are you even paying attention to what is going on in Iraq right now?

[Gan]

A) support of democracy is jingoism at its finest, Drew. We are supporting our own interests, financially and politically, we are not supporting democracy in Iraq.
Actually we're supporting democracy because by that means our investment in the resources that Iraq can provide as well as the stability it can represent in that area will be beneficial to the US AND to the Iraqi people. Thinking the Iraqi people will gain no benefit from our efforts there is jingoism as well.


B) those things are private dollars spent by private citizens, not the money of the government being spent on a pointless and fruitless war.
Not sure what you're responding to here. :puzzled:


C) if the insurgents main goal is to keep American influence out of the Middle East, don't you think violence WOULD decline if American forces left? Oh, right, but then we would have "lost". Forget that Iraq could then actually have a stable government.
Actually, I'm betting you'll see an escalation of violence if the American forces left. The escalation being amongst the different factions within Iraq not to meniton involvement with Syria and Iran. You would however see an decrease in violence done to Americans (if any were left) in Iraq.


D) Congratulations, Democrats, for rending yourself right in two.
I thought the Democrats were going to shove the bill down GWB's throat??? :lol:
I congrat the Dems for finally recognizing the reality of the situation and understanding the futility of setting hard timelines for a conflict to end.

[Gan]

So, President Ilvane (God, that was hard to type... ew) you were just elected President today. Grats.

What's your plan?

This ought to be interesting... and I hope she doesnt fall back on the excuse "I wouldnt have gone in to Iraq to begin with, so there would be no solution needed!".

[Skirmisher]

And I think it's idiotic to think you'll ever get rid of them.

I wish Bush and co had not screwed this entire thing up as horribly as he has.

I wish I could be comfortable with just calling for the troops to be pulled out immediately.

I wish the US could spend some money on much needed domestic issues instead of this huge fubar.

I wish the international community would stop looking at us as some loathsome beast.

However,

I think our leaving quickly might only make things worse for the people of Iraq.

I think the US has a responsibility to try to help create some aspect of stability after having failed to stop the anarchy from growing to such levels.

I think that if we leave immediately those that love to criticize the US will forever rail on about how we came in, busted the place up and then left when the going got rough.

Thats a great set of choices we have as a country.

Please do not take my reticence regarding a rapid troop pullout as a show of support of our current President. He has messed things up to a degree I would not have thought possible and we, as a country, are paying for it. I will never forgive him for such myopia and arrogance.

That being said unless a potent international force is volunteering to step in anjd provide some structure if the US leaves I think we have an obligation to try to improve things at least somewhat before we do so.

[Kefka]

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

" President . . . 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."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"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 clarified rules 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 over-extended 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"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

[Parkbandit]

My wall of text is bigger than yours.

[Ilvane]

I think that we should have got rid of Saddam as a coalition of forces(not the "so called" coalition we have now..and done in in a different manner.

Regardless of that, now that we are in, we do need to get out at some point soon. I'm not saying pull out now, I don't agree with that. My issue is that there is no cap on spending, he has basically a blank check to write on this war, and it doesn't seem as if we are getting anywhere with it. There needs to be some constraint, at some point. We are ignoring issues here in the United States and increasing our national debt, and the war funding is expanding at the expense of all else.

I think even the most staunch conservative can discern the difference between and intelligent war and one that has turned into one larger mess after the other. We have actually(if you can believe it) made it worse on the Iraqi civillians. They are the ones that need to deal with the idiocy of our president. (along with our troops, who are following orders)

Iraq needs to start getting involved in the insurgent problem, and police that themselves. We are not helping in this, and now that Iran is talking like they want to get involved with Al Queda, the mess is only going to get worse and worse. What needs to happen is a bigger group of people in the region assisting Iraq in keeping it's newly democratic government going, and working. What about Saudi Arabia and Jordan and other countries who have had this work, and somewhat well?

PB, how would you do things?

Angela

[Gan]

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

" President . . . 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."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"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 clarified rules 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 over-extended 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"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)


Amazing how DeLay gets instant credibility again when he actually says something those against the war agree with. ;)

[CrystalTears]

How have we made it worse for the Iraqi people?

[Kefka]

Amazing how DeLay gets instant credibility again when he actually says something those against the war agree with. ;)


http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2316200920070523


PODUJEVO, Serbia (Reuters) - Kosovo Albanians plan to honor their "savior" Bill Clinton by erecting a statue of the former United States president in the capital of Serbia's breakaway province.

The three-meter (10-foot) tall monument is still under construction in a studio in Podujevo north of Pristina.

"He is our savior. He saved us from extermination," sculptor Izeir Mustafa told Reuters. "I was thrilled by the work because I know what he did for us."


Actually, it wasn't credible back then. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the biggest advocates for this war.

[Gan]

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the biggest advocates for this war.

I'll let PB cast WoT on this statement since its his baby.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not at home yet... WoT coming up when I do.

[Latrinsorm]

What about Saudi Arabia and Jordan and other countries who have had this work, and somewhat well?Yeah guys, we just need to install a repressive monarchical system. It worked for Iran, right?

[Daniel]

Lol. I thought I was the only one who caught that.

[Sean of the Thread]

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/107363/The_Daily_Show_WTF.html

[Seran]

On the plus side, within the supplementary wartime spending bill was a two dollar an hour increase in the minimum wage. That should wreck havoc here soon enough when all of the WB's that're being granted amnesty decide to ply their hands at every unskilled job imaginable. I'm sure inflation won't be an issue at all!

[Parkbandit]

On the plus side, within the supplementary wartime spending bill was a two dollar an hour increase in the minimum wage. That should wreck havoc here soon enough when all of the WB's that're being granted amnesty decide to ply their hands at every unskilled job imaginable. I'm sure inflation won't be an issue at all!


I would never vote to grant Warriorbird any sort of amnesty. It would be nice for his unskilled ass to get a job though.

[sst]

You honestly think there would be a government with no American "influence" that wouldn't be bloody as shit?

Are you even paying attention to what is going on in Iraq right now?

Yesterday we responded to a LBIED (large buried improvised explosive device) that went off on a funeral procession. No Americans involved.
A week ago we responded to a SVBIED (suicide vehicle born improvised explosive device) that went off in front of a mosque near a market. No Americans involved.

I'm going to say that Daniel has a bit more of a grasp on whats going on in the country than most of the people on here.

[Warriorbird]

"I would never vote to grant Warriorbird any sort of amnesty. It would be nice for his unskilled ass to get a job though."

Aww. The hate's so intense.

;)

I've been and will be employed all the way till school starts.