Senate backs troop withdrawal from Iraq

Reuters (excerpt) ^ | March 27, 2007

[HAL9000]

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday endorsed a March 31, 2008, target date for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraq, moving Congress a step closer to a showdown with President George W. Bush over the war.

By a vote of 50-48, the Senate defeated an amendment that would have stricken the withdrawal language from a $121.6 billion bill that mostly would fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A final vote on the bill is expected later this week.

~ snip ~

[lovinit]

Maybe. Planning a Dim meltdown is no way to win elections. Right now, they are giving the public what it thinks it wants.

[Mr. Silverback]

He'll veto it again. And he'll keep vetoing it until they give him a clean bill Trust me, they will be the ones that look bad.

[lovinit]

Actually, Bush opened this can of worms by asking for this emergency funding. He should have locked this up before the election. He had to know that war funding was going to hard to secure from the Dims.

[Mr. Silverback]

Not. Even. Close.

Just watch.

[Mr. Silverback]

No, the electorate did not vote for a loss in Iraq. The Dems are shafting themselves here.

[photodawg]

It is only "non-binding" if Bush keeps his promise to veto this crap.

Otherwise troop funding is tied to a specific withdrawal date.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Even if vetoed it will end the war. Bush does not have time or votes for a "good" funding appropriations bill. The surge will be ended by summer and all hell will break out in Iraq. It will be spun as Bush's failure. The dems and the rinos will then pass a troop withdrawal timetable so they can run free from the war, which all believe the American public want us out. It will be spun as Bush's war. The mistake of an incompetent president and both parties will claim credit for ending it. Only the conservatives will support the president and the war. This is a dark day for our nation. We are very close to a socialist takeover of power. The only thing preventing it would be a major terror attack by islam before the '08 election. The enemy is not that stupid. They will leave the dems alone while they solidify caliphate in middle east, and attack with a vengeance by 2010. Tactics will involve attack on US economic system through oil markets, attack on Israel, and terror inside our borders.

[Sam Ketcham]

Zzzsch YOu must have a crystal ball. How do you know how I voted? I voted for Buchanan (R) a CONSERVATIVE. Once the GOP WAKES UP and stops with their un American activities we can defeat the Dims. Right now, you have a R-D AMNESTY bill in the Congress. In the mean time, what is the difference? In the immortal words of GWB, "Nada!"

[erton1]

I don't understand how the war will be funded if Bush keeps vetoing the emergency funding bill. Someone is going to have to blink, and I am afraid that it will be Bush.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"He can always sign an executive order for more money to go to the defense of our nation and our Troops in Iraq until the demoncraps are forced to send him a legitimate bill."

No he can not. Money has to be spent where it is appropriated to. There is a little flexibility for emergency situation, but very little flexibility. There is no where near enough flexibility in the entire US Government for the President to fund this supplemental bill.

Also, Congress holds the purse strings, an executive order is only to clarify Congresses intent, not to override it.

[scratcher]

Right now, they are giving the public what it thinks it wants.

Only the moonbats will appreciate what the Democrat traitors did. 

[Mr. Silverback]

When did I say how you voted. Go back and READ my post.

Yep, there's no difference now on immigration because lamebrains voted out enough GOP reps to make stopping amnesty impossible.

[photodawg]

Not. Even. Close.
Just watch.


''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Watch what? The American congress exhibit political courage and do what's right for America. Not a chance. Thats what was so revealing about Obey's video. go back and listen. The dems have all the votes and polls they need to delay the money for the surge to be successful . The surge is Bush's last chance. when its fails for lack of appropriated funds he will be blamed and we will withdraw. Show me where I am wrong on this. I have been watching it unfold since Obey made his speech to the whacko moonbats. We don't have the votes to get the President the money he needs in time to make the surge work. Soldiers will die and Iraq will descend to chaos as they realize the we are going to pull out. It is exactly what the dems want and have been planning since '04.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"You're forgetting perhaps when a majority of Republican Senators (cheered on by Hannity and Rush) voted to end the bombing in Kosovo when our troops were in harm's way."

We did not have troops in harms way until after the bombing stopped. We did have troops in the vicinity, but not in harms way.

[Mr. Silverback]

He will not blink on troop funding. You are the latest in a long line of people who have misunderestimated his character.

[scratcher]

No, the electorate did not vote for a loss in Iraq. The Dems are shafting themselves here.

Exactly!  

[Mr. Silverback]

Show me where I am wrong on this.

I'm sure I wouldn't be able to show you any evidence that you will accept. you're just another in a long line of people who have misunderestimated Dubya's character.

What I will do is be around to say "I told you so" when we win this. I will enjoy it. A lot.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"Lets see the Bush that has not done Jack you know what about the borders."

The President has done more about the borders than the last several Presidents and all of this has been reported over and over and over again.

"Tied our troops hands with ridiculous rules of engagement that reminiscent of Vietnam."

The President does not set the rules of Engagement.

"Yeah the same W that has only used the veto pen once."

He only promised to use it once before and that is the one time he used it.

"But like you said I guess we really do not know him."

Pay closer attention to what the President actually says, not just the MSM soundbites. You have missed most of what he has said and done.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"The really F*&KING INFURIATING THING is if all of REPUBLICANS - this means you HAGEL AND SMITH, had vote YEA on the amendment, it would have passed and the timetable would have been REJECTED."

Hagel and Smith are the only Republicans that did vote Yea. It took a majority of neas to defeat the amendment. I think you meant that if Hagel and Smith had voted nay the amendment would not have passed to pull the troops. Is that what you meant?

[Mr. Silverback]

Yep, I'm looking forward to seeing them caught between a rock--the unending wrath of the moonbats--and a hard place--the wrath of the American public.

The first thing my brother said to me when we spoke the Sunday after the elections was (in a horrifed tone) "Are the Democrats going to try and pull the funding?" There were a lot of people fed up with the GOP's spending spree but were not interested in losing a war, and they will be ticked.

[erton1]

Then where does he get the money? We are talking about 100 billion dollars. I don't see a legal or politically viable alternative until he signs a supplemental funding bill. I thought supplemental funding bill method was a mistaken way of funding the war before 2006, and now I am convinced that this is the wrong way to fund the war. It gives the democrats too much opportunity for mischief.