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 ~

[moondoggie]

You have to wonder if the dumb Dems even look at the polls?

No doubt alot of people are unhappy with the way the war is going, but NOBODY wants funds cut off or any artificial deadlines applied.

I'm hoping that thousands of people call the Dems and complain about what they're doing and make them think twice about putting in the same language again.

Probably wishful thinking?

[moondoggie]

Did you hear that young brunette Dem operative on Fox last night with Rick Santorum?

She said that "the ball is in Bush's court now"....and if he vetoes the Democrats' bill, he'll get blamed for cutting off funding to the troops.

[crabbie]

Smith from Oregon (R) also voted with Hagel.

I called both Hagel and Smith's offices, asked their aids how their senators could sleep at night after having betrayed our troops, generally ranted and told them they should be ashamed of themselves.

I know this won't do any good, but it made me feel better to tell them this is how this one conservative republican feels.

[erton1]

I'm afraid she may be right, with the help of the MSM.

[UKrepublican]

There is that famous quote:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

To which I say, those who would deprive our military for political gain deserve neither a military nor political gain.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"Right, that's what I said."

Sorry, you were correct all along. I should have gone to bed the other evening rather than reply to your post.

[do the dhue]

Is it legal to bribe to gain votes?

If Politician A offered a bottle of whiskey to a person to get them to vote for Politician A, that is a illegal act right?

If Politician B offered Politician C 24 million to vote for Politician B's bill, isn't this buying a vote?

Now, if the ACLU can sue Donald Rumsfeld and the Supreme Court over turned it and the ACLU does it anyway. Then why can't we sue Peloser and Scary Ried for bribery and vote tampering or something?

[Sam Ketcham]

I back the people of the us withdrawing from the Senate!

[Sam Ketcham]

I see your point. if we left those who you deem worthy in Congress, we would just have a continuous flow of Illegals and no amnesty.

[golfisnr1]

Just a thought. I am not a lawyer or a constitutional expert but:
1) Representatives and Senators take an oath to support the constitution.
2) With this vote they knowingly infringed on the constitutional right of the CIC to conduct a war.
3) Therefore they are guilty of an unconstitutional act.

Can they be tried in court for an unconstitutional act?

[kinghorse]

They have to get on historic record with a vote out before we get further in re Iran. This was a show vote. Personally I have no problem with telling these people in Iraq five years into this they need to assume a larger burden and take on their bad politicians. Opinion and dissent, it's all good.

[do the dhue]

[Kevmo]

I have a question: Let's say my scenario below is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a "withdrawal" from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when we're all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldn't really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.

How to Stand Up to Iran

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808220/posts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36

Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.

15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts

Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas -- like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It's the South vs. the South.

Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don't want to play that role, Iraq's civil war will end with A or B.

[photodawg]

Your post might as well be a science fiction novel, you’re trying to project so far into the future. And you don’t even know what you’re talking about

You are still wrong, I am still going to come around to say “I told you so,” and I’m still going to enjoy it.
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’

My initial post is printed below. It was posted on march 27. In the face of what is happening today, it looks to be essentially correct. The “slow bleed” strategy will succeed in tying the Presidents hands regarding the surge, which will make conditions worse in Iraq and cause many American soldiers to die. The republican leadership is already caving in to the dems and will leave our President to twist slowly in the wind as they start their “phased surrender”. We need to march on Washington and demonstrate our support for this war in the the main streets of America . It should happen on memorial day and should send a message to these spineless, misguided, underhanded, cowardly, traitors we have elected to congress that we support the war, the president, the troops, and America.

--------------------------------------- original post. 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. I told you so! (smile)