Posted on 11/14/2007 7:15:48 PM PST by SmithL
House Democrats pushed through a $50 billion bill for the Iraq war Wednesday night that would require President Bush to start bringing troops home in coming weeks with a goal of ending combat by December 2008.
The legislation, passed 218-203, was largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who already has begun reducing force levels but opposes a congressionally mandated timetable on the war. And while the measure was unlikely to pass in the Senate — let alone overcome a presidential veto — Democrats said they wanted voters to know they weren't giving up.
"The fact is, we can no longer sustain the military deployment in Iraq," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Staying there in the manner that we are there is no longer an option."
The White House pledged to veto the bill, and Republicans said they would back the president.
"In addition to infringing upon the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief, the bill would mandate a precipitous withdrawal of troops that could increase the probability that American troops would have to one day return to Iraq to confront an even more dangerous enemy," an administration statement said.
The bill represents about a quarter of the $196 billion Bush requested for combat operations in the 2008 budget year, which began Oct 1.
It would compel an unspecified number of troops to leave Iraq within 30 days, a requirement Bush is already on track to meet as he begins in coming weeks to reverse the 30,000 troop buildup he ordered earlier this year. It also sets a goal of ending combat by Dec. 15, 2008, and states that money included in the bill should be used to redeploy troops and "not to extend or prolong the war."
The measure also would set government-wide standards on interrogation,...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
These turkeys ARE the MoveOns and CodePinks!
Ron Paul has to be one of them.
I see that Ron Paul voted no- I sincerely apologize, Ron. (post #42.)
They know. You see, if we’re winning then Nancy and Harry aren’t. Panic has set in. They’re melting, they’re melting...
You misunderstand. Ron voted no because the resolution is too moderate. He wants to deny funding (a simple majority is only needed) not play Democratic partisan gangs with an inevitable Bush veto.
The Democrats writers are on strike so I thought this was a rerun.
That does fit his philosophy better- not one dime for this illegal war.
So in other words, suck it, Pelosi.
I think it's virtually certain. Iraq is as quiet as it's ever been right now, Al Qaida's been driven out of Baghdad and Anbar is silent. Mortar and rocket attacks are down 95% in Baghdad from last year, car bombs reduced a similar amount, and a soldier I know who's patrolling there says the few insurgents who mount attacks now are terrified and run like hell after a few unaimed rounds.
Now...imagine what it's going to be like there in 11 months, when everybody's ready to vote...
I hate to say it, but Perino’s tougher than Tony Snow on a good day.
This war is not illegal. If Ron Paul believes it's illegal, then I have to question why he voted for the 2001 autorization, which was broader, and which he admitted did not target a specific nation and was not a declaration of war.
Anyone who votes to cut funding for troops while they're in the war zone is providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Ron Paul should be deported immediately just as Lincoln deported a Copperhead Congresscritter during the Civil War. I hope Paul likes hockey, because he belongs in Canada. (Actually, syria would be a better fit.)
You, meanwhile, should take your bong and head over to DU. As you go, you may consider this message from our great founder:
"Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!" -- Jim Robinson, 09/30/07
We aren't giving up trying to give up!
We will never surrender trying to surrender!
We will only win when we lose!
Some posters here are giving aid and comfort to those who are giving aid and comfort to America's enemies...by bashing Republican presidential candidates.
Yeah, they want to make their constituency think it was their idea.
They don’t want us to win. It’s sick that one of our major political parties thinks this way, but it’s the truth. They prefer to be “tolerant” of our enemies. They want us to lose because it will be a lot easier to win in 2008. Imagine how much harder it will be to win in 2008 if the evil Republicans have won the war, and they have to admit they were wrong. It’s a lot easier to pull out, say Bush screwed the country, and they were right. They can work on implementing socialism in America, which is their ultimate goal.
From all practical military purposes Al Qaeda has been utterly crushed in Iraq, our troops led by President Bush won this war, the democrats are going to pay a very heavy price for betting on America defeat in this war and siding with the terrorist enemy, they and the terrorist enemies have lost the war.
God bless our brave troops and President Bush.
Pelosi Inc is a veto generator of the nth degree.........waste of electricity to keep the lights on in congress these days.
Flush congress of all professional polidiots in 2008 be they rat or rino.
The Demagogues are proving that not only are they defeatest whiners, but that even when victory is so obviously within our grasp they are determined to try to “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory” — the Pelosicrats will go down in our history as some of the most pathetic losers ever — if not for the lying MSM protecting them they would already be in a freefall collapse as a political party.
like Rudy? I really don’t know what we’ll do if he wins the nomination. I don’t think he has the moral credibility to send Americans into harms way.
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.