White House, GOP: Troop withdrawal bill doomed

Why would Republics want to bring troops home when you can more killed in this worthless adventure,not to mention p-ing away 10 billion of our tax dollars per month.

GREAT POLICY.

When this bill is vetoed and if it is not overridden then another appropriation bill for the Iraq war should not be brought to the floor.
The Administration is responsible for the misguided adventure in Iraq and the Republicans in Congress are responsible for allowing the "status qou" to continue. Their cry for a "victory"(whatever that means in this civil war) ensures the continued killing of our soldiers and the drive towards bankruptcy of our country.

Silly! Didn't we go through this before? The Democrats talk tough then caves in. Show some courage. . .just keep sending him the same bill.

Iraq is not a national security but our U.S. border is a national security. Oh. . I forgot to mention OIL is a priority these days!

Why pass a bill that has no chance of even reaching a vote in the Senate, much less getting to the President? Political posturing? To whom? Who is naive enough to believe this soft resistant to Bush is any different than the last time a spending bill was up? If we know anything about Bush, it is that he has strong resolve, and when he believes he is right, he will not back down. If we know anything about the Democratic leadership in Congress, it is that they talk tough, but lack the courage of their convictions and will back down in the end. The only change between now and six months ago when the same argument was occurring is that the security situation is actually improving in Iraq. Since the Dems in Congress caved back then, I have no doubt they will do so again this time.

When are the Democrats going to stop playing politics with the lives of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? This type of political grandstanding by the Democrats in Washington is not only irresponsible, it's dangerous and demoralizing to the men and women in our Armed Forces who are defending each and every one of us.

Republican "VICTORY".

Let's see what will be our victory, according to the Republicans?

Let's assume all violence stops tomorrow. We can bring our troops home soon there after.

What has the US gotten for their trillions of dollars, and the loss of tens of thousands.

Al Qaeda is defeated? No.
Islamofacisim has ended? No.
Worldwide terrorism has ended or been lessened? No.
The Middle East is now a stable region? No.
The US now has a stable, cheap source of oil? No.
We've proven that we're the only invincible super power in the world? No.
Areas of Iraq have now been ethnically cleaned? Yes.

So what exactly is the Republican victory that we're on the verge of?

I am not a radical left person. I have often voted Republican in the past and consider myself a Centrist. I am all for removing the troops from Iraq as are many of my Republican friends. The Executive branch is in denial, not because they dont understand that majority of Americans want out of Iraq, but because the Iraq Occupation is so profitable for oil companies (price of oil has more than doubled because of it) and for crony contractors. It's time Republicans set aside their egos and accept that this president has taken advantage of our trust and wasted the lives and wealth of this great nation. Contact your leaders and demand a stop to the occupation of Iraq.

People to White House - Bush's legacy doomed.

Gregorich,

What an unbelievable hypocrite you are.

The Democrats are trying to take the troops out of harms way and you try to somehow try to turn that into the Democrats are "playing politics" with the lives of the troops.

So how is the Republican, intractable position of leaving the troops in harms way, NOT playing politics with the lives of the troops? If anything the REPUBLICANS are more to blame in this situation than the Democrats. It is the Republicans who put the troops there and it is the Republicans who refuse to bring them home.

Demoralizing the troops who are defending Americans. What a crock.

I served in the AF during Vietnam. Do you think that the troops don't know what is happening at home? Do you think that the troops don't realize that we went into this war on false pretenses? Do you think that the troops don't realize that they aren't protecting Americans, they're protecting Iraqis who for the most part don't want us in their country?

Please keep standing there waving the flag.

That's about all you're good for.

Not only should they send up the same bill but they should tack on a graduated surtax to start to fund a portion of these enormous "off the books" war expenses. If it also required hedge fund managers to pay at normal rates (not at the 15% capital gain rates), it might even allow removal of the unfair AMT debacle.

The Democrats and liberals, including those working with media, made a judgement long ago that the U.S. lost in Iraq. This bill with a rush to withdraw and all voices around are to support such a judgement because otherwise, with the war turning to victory, those Democrats and liberals would have been proven nuts and some of them lost their jobs. So, keep driving toward a defeat.

T. Ister, the price of oil has more to do with increased demand and supply not keeping up with demand, than us being in Iraq. Oil production is no lower today than it was in 2003. China and India are importaing and using more oil at record rates. Gas, and hence oil, consumption in the U.S. is up, not down, even with higher prices. Iraq has nothing to do with the price of oil, gas, etc.

The reality is huge strides are being made in Iraq. The Pentagon has said because of the recent successes, troops reduction already is occurring. So, what the Dems are demanding already is happening. The difference is that troop reductions are happening because of successful operations. Dems want troops reductions so successful operations and victory does not happen. Remember, the Demoncrats have invested everything into defeat. As many Dems have said, "Success in Iraq is bad for the Demoncrats."
Enough said.

The House of Representatives needs to say to the Senate and the president: This is the only funding bill we're going to pass. If you veto it, (or if the Senate Republicans filibuster it,) then it is you, not the Democrats, who have failed to support the troops you placed in harm's way.

No, FER, if Bush vetoes the bill they should NOT send him the same bill again. They shouldn't send him any bill.

If Bush wants the 50 Billion he can have one shot at it. If he vetoes it, tough.

John D.

"Dems want troops reductions so successful operations and victory does not happen."

IF this is so true, please tell me if Iraq is totally stable and we pull out (victory) what have we been victorious over? How is the United States in a better position than it was six years ago?

Dogjudg, the whole world is better off without Hussein in charge of Iraq. Just like the whole world would be better off if Kim Job Il was not in charge of North Korea.
Is the world, and U.S., better off without Milosevic out of power?

I think the House should just keep sending the exact same bill over and over and over. They're not being allowed to get any work done, it needs to be made obvious who isn't allowing it.

As many Dems have said, "Success in Iraq is bad for the Demoncrats.

Posted by: John D | November 15, 2007 11:22 AM"

HOW many, exactly, of the Dems have said that, John D? I'm finding some REPUBLICANS who say that, but so far no Democrats. Perhaps you could name the Democrats you've quoted.

Dogjudg, the whole world is better off without Hussein in charge of Iraq. Just like the whole world would be better off if Kim Job Il was not in charge of North Korea.
Is the world, and U.S., better off without Milosevic out of power?

Posted by: John D | November 15, 2007 12:32 PM

So JohnD, when are we invading NK? Oh also, now that Saddam has met his maker, can we not pull up and go home and let the duly elected Iraqi Gov't use the Iraqi constitution and put their own house in order?

But of course I don't expect you to answer simple questions like that - I've been here long enough to know that real facts (not the made up kind you usually espouse) and you don't agree with each other.

John D.

"The whole world . . ."

Really. Do you care to give any sources for your opinion?

More to the point, I didn't ask about the whole world, I asked about the United States.

We supposedly started this war because the United States was in jeopardy. There are a lot of tyrants around the world. It would be better off if they were all gone, but it isn't the responsibility of the United States to decide who they don't like and get rid of them. There are a lot of people in the world who consider Bush a tyrant. Would you object to them saying that he should be taken out.

So again, what does your victory give us?

Maybe a group of Republicans, Democrats and a group from the white house should go to Iraq and negotiate while sitting in a tent in the Green Zone.

When it is their own arses on the line I bet they would be willing to settle it.

Democrats in Washington is not only irresponsible, it's dangerous and demoralizing to the men and women in our Armed Forces who are defending each and every one of us.

Posted by: Gregorich | November 15, 2007 10:21 AM

What is demoralizing our men and women in the Armed Forces is this farce of a war for so-called democracy in a country that is in the midst of a civil war. And another thing - IRAQ DIDN'T ATTACK US!!! TERRORISM IN iRAQ IS THE RESULT OF US ATTACKING THEM!!!! If this administration really wanted to defend our high ideals and way of life, they should have gone after the perpetrators of 9/11, but of course, Bush/Cheney and his buddies had a better idea -billions dollars of oil and contracts for themselves and their buddies by invading Iraq instead of going after Bin Laden.

Are some of you people brain dead???

"BUSH SPEAKS"

Money = Success = Money = Success = Money!

BECAUSE THIS IS WHY THEY CALL HIM BIG POPPY, SO THROW YO MONEY IN THE AIR AND THROW IT LIKE YOU JUST DON'T CARE!

HOW MANY EMERGENCY SPENDING BILLS CAN ONE PRESIDENT PRESENT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS PRESIDENT GET TO REACH INTO THE MORGAN STANLEY, CITIBANK IN YOUR WALLET? HOW MANY TIMES CAN ONE PRESIDENT GO TO THIS CONGRESS, THAT CONGRESS AND NOW THIS CONGRESS FOR THE SAME APPROPRIATIONS THAT RENDER AMERICA UNTO HIM?

THE BOY WHO CRIED WOLF WITH A VISA, MASTERCARD, AND A AMERICAN EXPRESS CARD WITH YOUR NAME ON IT, MY NAME ON IT, AND ALL OF AMERICA'S NAME ON IT.

ONE FOR YOU, ONE FOR CHINA, ONE FOR YOU TWO FOR CHINA, ONE FOR YOU THREE FOR CHINA, ONE FOR YOU FOUR FOR CHINA.

7 YEARS LATER IT'S 1 MILLION FOR CHINA, 1 FOR YOU!

Johnny D, the world would be better off without Bush job 2.

What success in Iraq? The Generals don't see it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21781092/

Or is success defined by Republicans now as Iraq completely controlled by Iran leaning Shia politicians? Is that what we have sacrificed over 3,800 american for?

This spending bill restriction is necessary, otherwise there will not be any results for this military action, just a perpetuation of the same. The Pentagon received a 11% increase in non-combat operating revenue in the approved budget. They should use those funds for these combat operations until they run out, not ask for more funding. Then they should use the rest of the $450B of their budget to continue operations until they have proven results. If peace comes to Iraq soon as is being alluded, then funding should be approved to complete operations. We end government programs when they don't produce results, why should this action be any different. The Pentagon, not Congress, should prioritize their existing funding to guarantee this military action is properly funded. Maybe future weapons systems need to be postponed if it denies body armor for the troops?
Additionally, the Democrats folded the last time, if they fold this time, they will illustrate their self-purposed intents and the sham that they are trying to pull on the electorate with these attachments to spending bills.
Lastly, all of this talk of progress is bunk. Saddam has been deposed for 5 years and there is not an identified target for military action any longer. Yet we are still running combat operations. Against who? Who is the enemy? Who is going to stabilize the region without Serbian style reprisals? When our brave leader walks down the streets of Baghdad, in Fallujah, in Sadr city, or in Basra (without a flak jacket or air support) then we should believe progress is being made. With our allies there now, he would not know if the bullet was coming from the front or the back. Will the elected government make a treaty with our friends from Iran as soon as we leave?

DogJudge,

Come on, give credit where credit is due. There's still an outside chance that our efforts will result in a Shia theocracy, friendly to Iran. Not exactly what we had in mind, but hey, since Bush couldn't complete his Rapture Ready Christian takeover of our own government, it's the next best thing.

Oh, and Dog, Uncle Sam would like your $46,000 for the war now (in Euros please), "success" has its price, you know.

dogjudge:

You claim the “Democrats are trying to take the troops out of harms way.” I must respectfully disagree with you. They have already had at least two, and maybe three, golden opportunities to take the troops out of harms way – and they blew it each time.

Instead of sending Duh’bya bills to fund the war – and attaching strings to them to put him on a timetable (which is arguably unconstitutional), they could have simply refused to send him a funding bill at all. For an entire year now the Democrats have had a commanding majority in the House of Representatives. If all of them simply refused to approve any more funding, Duh’bya would have had no funding and preparations for withdrawal would already have begun.

They didn’t have to authorize further funding just because Duh’bya wanted it. The Constitution gives them, and not the President, the right to decide how much to spend. Furthermore, if they simply refused to send him a war funding bill, they wouldn’t have had to try to override a veto. Duh’bya would have had nothing: no money and nothing to veto.

But, instead, they have been sending Duh’bya these bills which dictate the terms of withdrawal. After those failed (and all have failed thus far), they cave in and give Duh’bya exactly what he wanted – money to continue the war. Is there something wrong with this picture? I think so.

Honestly, if they wanted the war to end, they could have ended it. The fact that they haven’t tells me that they don’t want it to end because they want to milk it for all the political capital they can get out of it.

I don’t hold out any hope that this time around will be any different.

John W wants the troops stranded in a war zone with no means of exit and no supplies. He wants them all dead and dragged through the streets.

That's what the plan he maliciously suggests for the Democrats would mean. Any thinking person knows that it will take a great deal of money to actually remove the troops from Iraq, they can't all hitchhike home. But John W throws out a Republican smoke screen to try and make the war the Democrats fault and make Bush look like a hero defending the constitution.

What a stinking pile of crap.

It is unfortunate that the Republican Congress has become spanks for the Executive Branch and the Democrat Congress is spineless and insignificant. We have been without a Legislative Branch since the end of WWII while our country continues to lose rights, property and the pursuit of happiness (Freedom)! In now appears that Nixon did manage to institute a Dictatorship.

The House of Representatives needs to say to the Senate and the president: This is the only funding bill we're going to pass. If you veto it, (or if the Senate Republicans filibuster it,) then it is you, not the Democrats, who have failed to support the troops you placed in harm's way.

JT:

Your response to my post is both hysterical and ignorant. George W. Bush has stated, on at least one occasion that a funding cut-off would not result in leaving the troops stranded. In fact, he claimed that he could actually maintain operations in Iraq for a significant period of time by juggling military budgets. This is because the funding he asks for today isn’t for tomorrow – it’s for several months from now.

So, if funding were cut off today, he would not only have the funds to implement an orderly withdrawal of the troops, he would still have the means to continue operations for a time before he was forced to withdraw the troops. Thus, your suggestion that I want “the troops stranded in a war zone with no means of exit and no supplies” or “all dead and dragged through the streets” – is just pure nonsense.