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.
I meant this part, "I tell you it's not possible to trust any of your neighbors, friends, or even relatives who is a Democrat."
It's not that we cannot trust every single democrat in the nation. It's that we canot trust the democrat leadership and the democrat mindset. There is a big difference! My wife, bless her heart, claims to be a democrat, and I'm working on her, but that doesn't mean I cannot trust her. As I am sure there are plenty more democrats that are friends and family, and I'm not going get all un-trusting on them just because they are democrats. It means I will tell them the truth and hope they see it, but it doesn't mean "it's not possible to trust any of your neighbors, friends, or even relatives who is a Democrat."
Okay I crawled through glass to show you the err of you're ways in writing, so now YOU bow down before me and give me the abject apology.... ;)
What they are hoping for now is that they can propose to exit Iraq, but not get it through Congress. Then assuming the war continues to go badly, they can use the fact that they tried to leave Iraq in the 2008 election without having to face up to the nasty consequences of a cut & run.
Well there is a good possibility that they will make the proposal and it won't go through. However, there maybe enough RINOs to ensure that it does. Guess this is one area Chaffee could have come in handy.
Too many of the new DINO's are ex-military, and we'll make any effort to reduce funding into a slap in the face of the ordinary combat soldier.
These guys are in the same position R's were about a week ago: Razor thin margins in both houses, except they have an R President to deal with, if the guy can find the veto stamp.
The consequences of defeat in S. Vietnam led directly to the current war on terror. The U.S. defeat in SE Asia, facilitated by a Democrat-controlled Congress, emboldened the Soviets to invade Afghanistan, and the rest, as they say is history. I would say defeat in the WOT (again, facilitated by a Democrat-controlled Congress) will lead to Iranian control of the Persian Gulf, jihadist takeovers in Pakistan and other Sunni-controlled states, and probably a new nuclear arms race in the ME. The purpose of this arms race will be to see which branch of Islam gets the bomb first in order to use it against Israel. Control of the Islamic world is at stake and whoever destroys Israel will be at the top of the Islamic heap.
The consequences of defeat in S. Vietnam led directly to the current war on terror. The U.S. defeat in SE Asia, facilitated by a Democrat-controlled Congress, emboldened the Soviets to invade Afghanistan, and the rest, as they say is history. I would say defeat in the WOT (again, facilitated by a Democrat-controlled Congress) will lead to Iranian control of the Persian Gulf, jihadist takeovers in Pakistan and other Sunni-controlled states, and probably a new nuclear arms race in the ME. The purpose of this arms race will be to see which branch of Islam gets the bomb first in order to use it against Israel. Control of the Islamic world is at stake and whoever destroys Israel will be at the top of the Islamic heap.
The dems changed the rules (like they always do when they don't get their way) with the War Powers Act.
The democratic party is causing the deaths of American soldiers by their undermining of our Commander in Chief.
The democratic party was at one time a supporter of Israel
The terrorists should watch out who their allies are.
I am afraid I have to agree with you assessment 100%. Iran is the true winner here, not Al Qaida. People are forgetting that. Al Qaida could not possibly take over Iraq, if we bug out, but Iran and her puppet Syria, are in position to do just that. When Iraq goes, so will the whole Persian Gulf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Baker
Read Baker's post cabinet career section. Unless this is disinformation, changing the course was in the plans prior to the election.
I find it very disturbing.
In the case of Iraq, we have a former slave class, the Shia, being attacked by the former slave-owning class, the Sunni Arabs, and it's really difficult to suggest that their only difference is one of political ambition.
The best solution is to send the Sunni Arabs back home.
It's just a matter of time when it comes to Democrats. Best you set the TV so that CNN doesn't come in anyway. Or, maybe she will convert. Even Al Smith converted.
At least it's four to six months AFTER January, right? They aren't in power yet...I know the LSM & the Libocrats forgot that minor detail.
Darn, I was hoping for some cute slogan - you know like bring our boys home by Valentines Day!
IMO, to the democrats, the enemy is Global Warming/Mother Nature, not Islam/the terrorists.
All those that voted Democrat, have no idea (yet) what damage they have done for this country. I pray Bush can still hold the fort and that they can't do too much damage in 2 years. But if they pull out of Iraq, I can only imagine then... May God be with us.
Is this the same people who said we went in without enough troops? (just a few weeks ago?)
Here buddy, I'll bring you in from the dark.
What I said was:
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.followed by:
If we forbid him to spend money on something, then he can't spend money on it.That's not moving the "goalposts from current law being discussed to fictional future law". I'm talking about *Constitutional* law in both comments (in reply to jveritas's comment regarding what the *Constitution* says), and I'm (rather obviously) saying essentially the same thing both times.
The President send the budget to Congress that includes funds for the troops in Iraq. If the Congress refused the funds the President can veto the budget which will lead to government shut down. In case of government shut down only essential employees can be paid. The troops will be part of the “essential government employees”.
Anyway, none of this will happen because the democrats will not get the votes neither in the House nor in the Senate to cut the funds for the troops.
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.