Pelosi: Ready for another vote to bring troops home

More time and money wasted by Pelosi and her Congressional Democrats on these non-starters, when needed budget legislation is months late.

Pelosi and her Dem buddies should be forced to refund their salaries, based on how little legislation they've actually passed this session.

This war has to end. Our troops must come home, there are too many young men dying for nothing! We need to start caring out the internal security of our country. Once we have accomplished that, we can expand our quest. Please start protecting the people in the US from our enemies within our own cities.

Brilliant strategy, Pelosi, that makes perfect sense... leave them right when we're making progress.

Especially after this story from the NYT today - Militant Group Is Out of Baghdad, U.S. Says -BAGHDAD, Nov. 7 — American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the “surge” to depart as planned. - this article happens to be buried on page 19.

To Kayla-

Protecting innocent people is dying for nothing? Just because someone lives in another country, does that make their life worth any less than ours.

And you say to bring the troops back to protect us from the enemies in our own cities. Do you really want military troops posted on street corners here? Do you really want the Army as the police?

Bruce, you are delusional.

Is it possible to rename a town, "Baghdad" in America? Then all the funding will go to that city. Hence, loopholes can be prove to be useful.

brad,
You do not commit US soldiers unless their is a direct threat to OUR national security. No American lives are not more important than others but if Iraqis want to kill each other, why should Americans stand in the middle?

Another distracting publicity stunt by the Supreme Loser, Nancy "I win when America loses" Pelosi.

Bruce,

The reason the Dems' bills have been "non-starters" is because your hero, our dreadful president, has vetoed them. And the "needed budget legislation" is late because, again, our dreadful president won't accept any increase in domestic spending (even though we're spending $225 million a day in Iraq). Your talking points seem curiously canned---is it because you tried to spice them up with the truth, and found that it wasn't a good mix?

Panic is setting in. If the U.S. wins the moonbat left looses.

Frank

I would hope that we would be making progress. It has only taken 4 years and over $1 trillion dollars of taxpayers money (Americans were told that the war would be paid for by oil revenue) for a general to say that we have expelled one militant group out of one city in Iraq. That leaves about 30 militant groups to go in Baghdad and hundreds throughout the rest of the country.
Get our boys home. I was in the National Guard and got out just in time. If I were still in the military I am sure I would have been sent to Iraq for at least two deployments so far. For those of you who say we need to get the job done over there why don't you think about all of those men and women who have to spend years away from their families in this war zone.
We need a Congress that cares about what America wants. Our politicians these days are nothing but crooks that will not step over any line because they are afraid of what might be said about them. I will only vote for the person in 2008 that say they will get us out of Iraq as soon as they are in the White House. Cheney (let's not act like Bush is making a single decision in this administration) has skrewed up American values so much in the past 7 years that it will take a long time to get back to where we were before this administration of crooked thieves.

I love how the Republicans are spouting their "we're winning in Iraq" slogan again, what a bunch of drooling idiots.

The so-called "surge" which can't be sustained, is supposed to be so that the Iraqi govt can reconcile, they can't and they won't, in fact they've told us to leave twice now.

So we are stuck with 160,000 troops over their occupying a country that doesn't want us there and a Iraqi govt that can't leave the "green zone" because they would be killed by the "freedom loving" Iraqi citizens.

Meanwhile back at the Crawford ranch, Afganistan continues to get worse, Turkey is poised to invade the Kurdish north of Iraq and we are propping up a wannabee dictator in Pakistan who is on shaky ground.....and remember this, the whole invade Iraq bright idea came from the same people who want to bomb Iran now....the Neocons, and Rudy Giuliani has hired all of them to work for his campaign.

800 billion dollars for this war, and 2millon people have left Iraq because of the war. We have lost money and made the situation worse. Enough is enough, get out now! People there are saying it was better under Saddam Hussein? go figure!

Stop wasting time. Impeach. Impeach. Impeach. What part of that don't you understand you dumb California airhead.

Frank:

Tell us - did they just disappear? Or did they do what they normally - moved to another part of the country to set up shop there??

And remember - this is Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, which is NOT connected with Osama's group.

By the way - how is that search coming along??? You know, the mastermind of 9/11??

This from the Washington Post article about Rudy Giuliani:

"The man who led New York City through the trauma of terrorist attacks has promised to keep Al Qaeda on the defensive, possibly even sending troops into Pakistan uninvited."

Question for Johnny D., Brucie, Jerry White, JD, Whatnow, etc: When Barack said basically the same thing, you all ridiculed him for thinking of doing that. So does that mean that now Rudy is in favor of it, it's OK??

Impeach & imprison.

Bush/Cheney.

Jethro-

So by your logic, if you saw your neighbor and his family being physically attacked, you would stand there and do nothing unless they came and attacked you? You would stand by while innocent people were being slaughtered?

As the most powerful nation in the world, we have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate than us, and that includes defending them against murderers.

brad:

The Iraqis are not our neighbors.

And if you use YOUR rationale for the war, why haven't we gone other places where innocent people are being slaughtered, like the Sudan or Myamar??

Oh, that's right - those places don't have oil!!

"As the most powerful nation in the world, we have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate than us, and that includes defending them against murderers."

You mean like we are doing in Pakistan?

How much of the $11 Billion we have given Pakistan has gone to fight terrorism and how much has gone towards oppression?

Face it, morality never plays into it. We didn't go into Iraq to save them from a bad man. We went in because we felt that a "Regime change" was in the political and economic interest of the U.S.

Sadly, we went in without a plan for getting out. 4 years and almost 4,000 U.S. lives later there still is no plan to get out. This is our DEADLIEST YEAR YET!

If all of these failed congressional attempts shorten this war by even one day then they are all worthwhile.

So, Kevin, since you will only vote for the candidate that promises to bring the troops home immediately, I presume you will be voting for no one in November 2008. The only candidates who are promising to bring them home immediately have no realistic shot at the nomination in either party. Or did you forget the Democratic debate in which all the leading candidates refused to commit to bringing all the troops home by 2013?

Don't you think that when you believe you have the dieu et mon droit to protect the little guy it becomes an uphill battle defending the little guy from yourself. When you get that big, there is no one left to save you from yourself.

brad:

The Iraqis are not our neighbors.

And if you use YOUR rationale for the war, why haven't we gone other places where innocent people are being slaughtered, like the Sudan or Myamar??

Oh, that's right - those places don't have oil!!

Posted by: BobinATL | November 8, 2007 3:02 PM

BobinATL your comment is dripping with sanctimony "Oh, that's right - those places don't have oil!!"
You say that like its a bad thing? Oil feeds us, houses us, and gets us to work... making stability in the mideast a valuable goal in and of itself.

And exactly how close does another country have to be before it begins to be our neighbor...?

Or did you forget the Democratic debate in which all the leading candidates refused to commit to bringing all the troops home by 2013?

Posted by: JB | November 8, 2007 3:05 PM

Nice try.....what, should we vote for a Republican who not only want's to stay in Iraq forever but expand it to Iran?

Here's the real reason we can't get out of Iraq:
http://s86.photobucket.com/albums/k88/Duke_S/?action=view¤t=GOP_House_400.jpg

Bring home our troops now!

"The only candidates who are promising to bring them home immediately have no realistic shot at the nomination in either party."

Both Richardson and Ron Paul have plenty of support, including most of the American people who want this Republic party war and occupation over ASAP.

Heartburn:

The price of a barrel of oil is now $100 - notice how much it has gone up since Georgie and Dickie started their sword rattling at Iran??? Seems like we were better off with Saddam.

And by using your logic, that means that we should only help countries that have resources we can use - you know, have them fill out a questionnaire asking how soon our oil companies can come in and take over.

And if the reason for this is not oil, why have we negotiated with North Korea for the same things that Iran has done? Because there is nothing in North Korea for us to use if we invaded it.

BobinATL:

Sudan DOES have oil, but regardless yes, A LOT of horrible things happen in other countries, and we don't send troops there. We do have only so many, we can't take care of everybody. To assume ALL military operations are about oil is naive. Did we help Korea because of oil? How about France? This is about fighting evil, whether it be the Communists, Nazis, or Islamic terrorists.

Learn on your own, instead of parroting what the far left tells you about Big-Oil and Halliburton.

brad,
Listen carefully. The United States military should not be used for charity. They should be used for our national security.

brad,
Listen carefully. The United States military should not be used for charity. They should be used for our national security.

Posted by: jethro | November 8, 2007 3:37 PM

Where's your heart?

Careful that kind of talk is going to get you labeled as a wingnut, or a "24% dead-ender" around here..

Jethro-

We have over 1 million active servicemen stationed in the United States. Are you really worried about national security? They offer plenty of protection.

Terrorist attacks are a different thing, and military cannot necessarily stop those.

It is our duty as human beings, to help others that are not as lucky as ourselves, and that includes stopping the "bad guys" in other countries.

By your logic, we never should have gone into Europe in WWII.

Bobin, I did not hear or see a report on Guiliani saying something about maybe invading Pakistan uninvited. If he did, I would disagree, as they are still an ally.

BUT, if they should become a loony Islamic state with kookie leaders, then that does change things. But as long as Pakistan remains an ally (whether a great ally or a weak one, still an ally) then I am not in favor of invading them to hunt down terrorists without an invite, ask for help, etc.

brad,
Germany declared war on us and was taking over Europe. They had to be stopped FOR OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. Why do you think we didn't get involved until we were attacked?

The Republicans have to love Nancy Pelosi. Could she be a Karl Rove plant? Just before the primaries, get the Democrats on record as wanting to short-change the troops fighting for Americans' safety. Talk about a winning issue. Thanks, Nancy, from all the people at the RNC.

Jethro, we were "involved" against Germany long before any declaration of war. If you want to argue that we should stay out of things until we are actually attacked, the Nazis are a terrible analogy. If Hitler had been stopped when he was merely violating treaties and not yet attacking, WWII may have been averted.

As for complete troop withdrawal, that is a pipe dream of the far left. There will be troops in Iraq through 2013 and beyond, as we still have troops in Japan, Germany and Korea from conflicts over 50 years ago. I only hope the mission can evolve in Iraq as it has in Germany and Japan - from invaders, to occupiers, to protectors, to allies with strategic bases.

No Presidential candidate that has a prayer of winning, and therefore may be accountable for their rhetoric, will commit to the Reid/Pelosi plan of withdrawal. I can't believe the naive left still swallows up this crap from Reid and Pelosi; they know this "soft" demand for troop withdrawal has no prayer, letting them have their cake and eat it too. They can pander to a naive base while never having to be accountable for the consequences of a withdrawal because their idea is dead before it starts.

Well, the longer it takes to bring our troops home the more likely this thing could escalate. The incident where 6 or so nuclear weapons were transported to Louisiana or wherever, by mistake from the Dakota's is bullshit. There is no way that these weapons were 'accidentally' put on a plane. The incident was exposed when someone who wasn't supposed to know found out and questioned why they were being transorted. WHO ORDERED THEM LOADED ON THE PLANE AND WERE THEY HEADED FOR ISRAEL. WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO LOAD AND TRANSPORT NUCLEAR WEAPONRY??? Impeach them fools in Washington and get our troops the hell out of there.

Hmmm, Jethro says the U.S. military should not be used for charity. Then I suppose that means that Jethro thought the U.S. military shouldn't have been used to help the folks from the aftermath of the tsunami? Or the U.S. military shouldn't have been used to help the folks from the aftermath of Katrina? Or that the U.S. military shouldn't have been used to help the folks from the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch back in late 1990s? Or helped the Pakistani victims of the earthquake a year or so ago?

BUT, if they should become a loony Islamic state with kookie leaders, then that does change things. But as long as Pakistan remains an ally (whether a great ally or a weak one, still an ally) then I am not in favor of invading them to hunt down terrorists without an invite, ask for help, etc.

Posted by: John D | November 8, 2007 4:35 PM

Alert the media, John D has decided to let Pakistan slide, I'm sure thier dictator will sleep better tonight knowing that he has your full confidence!

Kingpin No 1:
The chief kingpin to all of our strife is campaign financing. Of the
many threats to our civilization the present method of supporting
candidates for office, is the worst. It is commonly recognized to be
bad, but what seems to be missed is that what has become the pathway to
what we now have; a "tyrannical plutocracy", has spelled the end to
what little democracy remains. For those who don't know what a
plutocracy is, it is the rich and powerful in absolute control of the
non-rich. We now have what has been described as "Yawn America". It is
inevitable that with the majority poorly educated, our vaunted freedoms
get abused by the greedy. Momentarily, we are lulled by dead-end
falsely secure jobs, inundeluting media, essentially propagandistic and
trivial news, and scare stories about terrorists. (who, if we really
think about it, are a threat only against businesses).

Ideally, campaign financing should be free to qualified candidates.
This removes the devilish bribery now prevalent which puts the rich in
control. Fatalistically, it probably can't happen, but with citizens
really owning the electronic conduits, they need to insist that the
licensees arrange cost-free means for the candidates to vie with each
other to become true representatives for the public.

Unfortunately, we all prefer and aspire to becoming rich. This becomes the
carrot that forestalls efforts for reform and when we miss the brass ring,
we then lie subject to an unequal society squeezing the un-rich with
ever rising living costs leading to an ungracious old age. Don W Baird