Posted on 11/12/2006 7:40:13 AM PST by shrinkermd
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats, who won majorities in the U.S. Congress in last week's elections, said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin in four to six months.
"The first order of business is to change the direction of Iraq policy," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), a Michigan Democrat who is expected to be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the new Congress.
Levin, on ABC's "This Week," said he hoped some Republicans would emerge to join Democrats and press the administration of President George W. Bush to tell the Iraqi government that U.S. presence was "not open-ended."
Bush has insisted that U.S. troops would not leave Iraq until the Iraqis were able to take over security for their country.
"We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months," Levin said.
Speaking on the same program, Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), a Delaware Democrat who is expected to head the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he supported Levin's proposal for a withdrawal.
Doesn't matter. The President can't command the armed forces without the funds to do so. Without money, he'll have no choice but to bring them home.
It does matter Sandy. The President of the United States can allocate emergency funding from anywhere in the budget to fund the troops.
Did you vote or work to see that the Democrats didn't gain control? I don't live in a dream land. I live in reality and I watched scores of Republicans and Conservatives "NOT" vote. This isn't only about Democrats...this is about "AMERICANS," and this is where you show how myopic you are about this whole scenario.
Earthdweller's above response seems reasonable. Wouldn't you Doe, agree?
I agree, but thing a stable non-theocratic government may not be achievable in the near term (3 - 5 years).
If President Bush leaves under lessor terms, is he cutting and running?
The problem is that the Congress makes the spending possible. If the money isn't in a bill before the president to fund the troops, they can't be paid.
This is not a simple "veto" circumstance. They come home without the funding.
That doesn't say it all about Teddy Chappy Kennedy. "ALL" includes: leaving the scene, DUI, vehicular manslaughter, perjury, and obstruction of justice. His penalty? A lifetime on the public payroll in the U.S. Senate.
No he can't, not legally at least. If we forbid him to spend money on something, then he can't spend money on it. His will doesn't trump the people's.
If the Democrat "leaders" had been at Valley Forge, they would have deserted. After two years of listening to Pelosi & Co., voters will be ready to reject the Jackass Party in 2008.
The terrorists probably won't attack inside the U.S. until after 2008, since an attack before the next presidential election would hurt the Jackass Party's chances of gaining the White House. The terrorists have much to gain if the Jackasses have both Congress and the Oval Office.
The Cut and Run, Part II begins. First they snubbed their noses at 58,000 dead in Vietnam, and now they will snub their snotty noses at 3,000 more dead troops. I HATE THE SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS AND EVERYONE WHO VOTED FOR THEM. THEY ARE MY ENEMIES.
And the rats take offense when called unpatriotic.
They are just like the terrorists in that they believe they have the unrestricted right to attack others and if you call them on it you are the one making the attack.
Morons. Don't ever, ever trust these people.
Similar, but not the same. One only filibusters on a bill that is before them. If the bill is not allowed to come up, due to the control of the committees and the houses of Congress, there is no filibuster necessary. That would have to come from Senate Republicans on an actual bill.
Essentially, no bill may be allowed with the proper funding until assurances are made that Bush will cave on that issue or some other issue.
Bush can veto every bill before him, thus requiring the Democrats to compromise with House and Senate Republicans to then create a bill that could either have enough support to override a veto or that the President would pass without the need for Republican approval (because all the Democrats did pass it).
Regards, Ivan
Wow! When did Levin become CIC ?
You certainly don't win by SURRENDERING the field to the opposition, taking your ball and going home. That's the same CUT & RUN policy the DUmocrats propose for Iraq.
The DUmocrats won by a 6-year slander campaign provided by the DNC media. They won on NOTHING except Bush hate, not on principles, not on ideas, and most certainly was not a route or a WIPEOUT (as Lardballs Prissy Matthews says).
This was a victory for the PROPAGANDISTS, with the help of those claiming to be on our side. The talking heads endless sniping (at something they can never be - a leader) certainly helped the DUmocrats. Throw in thousands of illegal voters and DUmocrats squeak in a win for Al Queda.
Would you have left Europe in December 1945 because it was difficult and let the chips fall???????????????
Would you have left the Pacific in February 1945 after Iwo Jima because it was difficult and let the chips fall??????????????????????????????
I seem to remember the rats filibustering and threatening to filibuster judicial nominees when the constitution requires a majority(51) not 60 to break a filibuster.
Remember the so called "nuclear option" to change the rules to get approvals with majority vote.
that was a scheme to get their way.
Why wouldn't they do that again expecially now that they have majorities.
The dems are the "All about me" generation where they don't care about the innocent Iraqis only their own skins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.