Posted on 05/10/2007 3:10:36 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
House Rejects Nine-Month Iraq Withdrawal
(AP) WASHINGTON The Democratic-controlled House defeated legislation Thursday to require the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq within nine months, then pivoted to a fresh challenge of President Bush's handling of the unpopular war.
The vote on the nine-month withdrawal measure was 255-171.
On a day of complex maneuvering, Democrats said they would approve legislation funding the war on an installment plan and Bush said he would veto it. But the president, under pressure from lawmakers in both parties, coupled his threat with an offer to compromise on a spending bill that sets standards for the Iraqi government.
"Time's running out, because the longer we wait the more strain we're going to put on the military," said Bush, who previously had insisted on what he termed a "clean" war funding bill.
Despite Bush's ability to sustain his vetoes in the House -- as demonstrated last week -- critics of the war insisted on challenging him anew.
"This war is a terrible tragedy and it is time to bring it to an end," said Rep. James McGovern, leading advocate of the bill to establish a nine-month withdrawal timetable. "For four long, deadly years, this administration and their allies in Congress have been flat wrong about Iraq," said the Massachusetts Democrat.
Republicans argued that a withdrawal would be disastrous.
(Excerpt) Read more at wcbstv.com ...
My post “He’s, actually, both.” was not supposed to mean he’s both Libertarian (L) and Republican (R) - that would be a neat trick - but was in response to “Idiot yes, but not RINO.”
His mind and heart is with Libertarian Party, which he does not deny - that makes him factually uniquely a Republican In Name Only. My response to the first part was my opinion.
He’s a pure Libertarian.
Considering they are all in bed with each other, does it really matter?
I noticed that to. I read it and was thinking, “what the hell is happening, who did what?” Very nice media spin indeed!
He has said so, but it's semantic gymnastics on his part to cover his chickens**t non-interventionist stance. He's demanding specific language that is nowhere mandated in the Constitution and ignores the fact that the current authorization the President is working under is nearly identical to the language Congress used to authorize America's first foreign war -- against the Barbary Pirates, oddly enough, Muslim terrorists/pirates who were not a nation-state themselves, but who were accorded protection by actual nation-states.
Personally, I read it as saying that despite the fact that Democrats control the House, it was still defeated.
Believe me...wars are never popular...especially with the losers.
Its the “isolationist” ideology, or should I say idiotology - let the World take care of its own problems.
There hasn’t been a war yet that these people haven’t come out against our involvement, even WWII.
All wars are a "tragedy" moron. We didn't start this one remember?
And I really resent these pigs saying “our troops”. Nothing about my son is yours!!
Even against the Barbary Pirates, there was a "no blood for trade" contingent.
Here’s hoping the President doesn’t allow this precedent setting nonsense get past him.
Veto til they stop it.
All those Democrat clowns in Congress can use any term they want to label the war in Iraq, but they will never call it an “abortion”. That much is assured.
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.