Posted on 09/13/2007 9:00:41 AM PDT by SkyPilot
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 — Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday called the administration’s plan to keep 130,000 or more troops in Iraq through mid-2008 unacceptable and promised to challenge the approach through legislation next week.
Several proposals were being weighed, including one requiring the American military role to be shifted more to training and counterterrorism, in order to reduce the force by more than President Bush is expected to promise on Thursday. Another would guarantee troops longer respites from the battlefield, effectively cutting the numbers available for combat.
Even if those proposals draw the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster — a level that has eluded Democrats this year — any real strictures on the president would face a veto, frustrating war critics and raising the prospect that roughly as many American troops might be in Iraq a year from now as were there a year ago.
Still, the Democrats tried to get ahead of President Bush’s planned speech on Iraq on Thursday night, and to press what they see as a political advantage in opposing the war in the months before the 2008 elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I can see why they are not happy campers.
Elect Hillary, lose the war, let her explain it.
Better Fred than Red.
ED Hill just had a report on showing that the NYTs gave a whooping 64% discount to moveon.org for it's slanderous ad assaulting General Petraus on Monday.
How about the concept of WINNING by completing the stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan, so as to establish non-terrorist-supporting democracies in the middle east? The dems ARE weak on national security, and their continued floundering around for a way to lose just proves it.
But, if they win in 2008 and THEN the troops are withdrawn, THEY will be blamed for the defeat.
They’re in a real quandary.
That'll be easy for her: "Bush lost the war. All we can do is try to clean up his mistakes. We worked harder than we've ever worked before to try and save our troops, but General Betrayus and Bush have made it impossible to do that the way we would have wanted. And blah, blah, blah . . ."
Good, let them withdraw to Canada.
It’s not their role to do this sort of thing.
The Democrats need to map out a strategy to withdraw their heads from their asses.
I think we SHOULD withdraw from Iraq
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
points to tagline
Won’t work, as soon as she makes a move, it will be all her war. What do you think they are scared of now?
Today the newspapers are full of the dimms saying to Petraeus, it’s his war now. Works both ways.
If those murderous thugs get back into office, I don’t know what I’ll do.
I don’t know why #43 doesn’t just loudly - and pointedly, with ALL the press there - say, “take over, then. You’re so convinced this is way to go, put your money where your mouth is.”
They’re surrendering Congress before the election???
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
This daily search for a new strategy by the Legislative Branch to force the Executive Branch to do their bidding is hilarious. All they can really do is to de-fund the war and they know that’s political suicide and aren’t about to do it. So every day there’s a new stategy floated that goes nowhere. As the irresponsible seek to evade their duty the responsible go about doing theirs.
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.