|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Senate Signals Support for Iraq Timeline
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Senate Signals Support for Iraq Timeline
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| vegaseric |
2020 will be a date they can agree on.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.ph...&show_article=1
Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Defying a veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March.
Republican attempts to scuttle the non-binding timeline failed on a vote of 50-48, largely along party lines. The roll call marked the Senate's most forceful challenge to date of the administration's handling of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.
Three months after Democrats took power in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the moment was at hand to "send a message to President Bush that the time has come to find a new way forward in this intractable war."
But Republicans—and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent Democrat—argued otherwise.
John McCain, R-Ariz., a presidential hopeful, said that "we are starting to turn things around" in the Iraq war" and that a timeline for withdrawal would embolden the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.
The effect of the timeline would be to "snatch defeat from the jaws of progress in Iraq," agreed Lieberman, who won a new term last fall in a three-way race after losing the Democratic nomination to an anti-war insurgent.
Bush had previously said he would veto any bill containing the timeline, and the White House freshened the threat a few hours before the vote on Tuesday. "This and other provisions would place freedom and democracy in Iraq at grave risk, embolden our enemies and undercut the administration's plan to develop the Iraqi economy," it said in a statement.
Similar legislation drew only 48 votes in the Senate earlier this month, but Democratic leaders made a change that persuaded Nebraska's Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson to swing behind the measure.
Additionally, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a vocal critic of the war, sided with the Democrats, assuring them of the majority they needed to turn back a challenge led by Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.
The debate came on legislation that provides $122 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as domestic priorities such relief to hurricane victims and payments to farmers.
Separately, supporters of an increase in the minimum wage readied an effort to attach the measure to the spending bill, along with companion tax cuts that Republicans have demanded. The House and Senate have passed different versions of the bill but have yet to reach a compromise.
The House has already passed legislation requiring troops to be withdrawn by Sept. 1, 2008. The Senate vote assured that the Democratic-controlled Congress would send Bush legislation later this spring that calls for a change in war policy. A veto is a certainty, presuming the president follows through.
That would put the onus back on the Democrats, who would have to decide how long they wanted to extend the test of wills in the face of what are likely to be increasingly urgent statements from the administration that the money is needed for troops in the war zone.
"Frankly, I think we'd like to reach out to the president ... and say, 'Mr. President, this is not a unilateral government. It is a separation of powers, and the Congress of the United States is assuming review,'" House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland told reporters as the Senate debated the war.
Reid also referred to the president at a news conference. "I would hope that he would be willing to work with us in coming up with some language that both (houses of Congress) could accept. At this stage, he has been very non-negotiable. So we'll see what happens," he said.
As drafted, the legislation called for troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, with a non-binding goal that calls for the combat troops to be gone within a year.
The measure also includes a series of suggested goals for the Iraqi government to meet to provide for its own security, enhance democracy and distribute its oil wealth fairly—provisions designed to attract support from Nelson and Pryor.
The vote was a critical test for Reid and the new Democratic majority in the Senate nearly three months after they took power. Despite several attempts, they had yet to win approval for any legislation challenging Bush's policies in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops and cost in excess of $300 billion.
Republicans prevented debate over the winter on non-binding measures critical of Bush's decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops. That led to the 50-48 vote derailing a bill that called for a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days but set only a non-binding target of March 31, 2008, for the departure of the final combat forces.
Some Democrats said they would support the non-binding timetable even though they wanted more. "I want a deadline not only for commencing the withdrawal of our forces but also completing it rather than a target date," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
"This provision represents a 90-degree change of course from the president's policy of escalation in the middle of a civil war," he said, "I'm confident once the withdrawal of our troops begins, there will be no turning back."
Republicans disagreed, strongly. "Wars cannot be run from these hallowed and comfortable and sanctified chambers 10,000 miles away from the war zone," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. "How about allowing the officers, the men and the commanders in the field who are engaged daily, risking their lives to bring peace and security to Iraq, determine when and how we can best turn over to the Iraqi security forces the critical job, the critical job of assuring security."
|
|
|
|
| zimmie |
| I'm not in favor of any timetable....Reid is an abject failure |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
I'm not in favor of any timetable....Reid is an abject failure |
He's also an empty suit who has no idea what the ramifications of a premature withdrawal of coalition forces means. This was a completely irresponsible manouver by the Senate and this vote should be condemned by all constituents of each and every member that voted yes for this. |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
He's also an empty suit who has no idea what the ramifications of a premature withdrawal of coalition forces means. This was a completely irresponsible manouver by the Senate and this vote should be condemned by all constituents of each and every member that voted yes for this. |
why don't you explain to us what the proper withdrawal would be of U.S. forces? The "coalition" has already set their timetable. |
|
|
| gazill |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
He's also an empty suit who has no idea what the ramifications of a premature withdrawal of coalition forces means. This was a completely irresponsible manouver by the Senate and this vote should be condemned by all constituents of each and every member that voted yes for this. |
I disagree, I think he thinks it means he will get votes. He cares little about the yellow streak running up his spine and down his pants. |
|
|
| Oz |
| I think a timetable gives the Iraqi forces a date they know they need to be ready by for handover. Until we have that they don't have a goal to work towards. This is so obvious. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
I think a timetable gives the Iraqi forces a date they know they need to be ready by for handover. Until we have that they don't have a goal to work towards. This is so obvious. |
The Iraqi government is useless. Set a date and it will mean nothing to them because they control nothing. They collapse the second we pull out.
We are better off getting away from the civilian population and then leaving Iraq.
A timetable is nothing. It will only inform enemies that a date exists where after that day you no longer have to concern yourself for crimes against U.S. troops. You are absolved, forgiven after that date no harm will come to you from the U.S., no retribution.
Thats all a timetable does. |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
| RETREATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT |
|
|
| otherone4life |
| bullshit ...bumper sticker foreign policy doesn't get it done in 2007 DUDE |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The Iraqi government is useless. Set a date and it will mean nothing to them because they control nothing. They collapse the second we pull out.
We are better off getting away from the civilian population and then leaving Iraq.
A timetable is nothing. It will only inform enemies that a date exists where after that day you no longer have to concern yourself for crimes against U.S. troops. You are absolved, forgiven after that date no harm will come to you from the U.S., no retribution.
Thats all a timetable does. |
then you are suggesting we're now stuck in a quagmire forever w/o resolution - I didn't realize you had no faith in the Iraqis - not sure why we cared about liberating people we (you) knew were worthless :scratch: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
then you are suggesting we're now stuck in a quagmire forever w/o resolution - I didn't realize you had no faith in the Iraqis - not sure why we cared about liberating people we (you) knew were worthless :scratch: |
The Iraqi Government is corrupt. Incompetent. Uneffective. Are part of the problem and not working towards a resolution of conflict. The Shia and Sunni are not even interested in sharing power. Both sides want it all. The Government is run by the various terror groups in Iraq.
The minute we leave the Government will melt away because their power is in Militias and other terror groups. It is a collection of misfits. We are the only reason Iraq even has a government. It is a facade and nothing else.
I make no Judgement on the worth of individual Iraqi's. They are defining themselves.
Stupid is as stupid does. |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The Iraqi Government is corrupt. Incompetent. Uneffective. Are part of the problem and not working towards a resolution of conflict. The Shia and Sunni are not even interested in sharing power. Both sides want it all. The Government is run by the various terror groups in Iraq.
The minute we leave the Government will melt away because their power is in Militias and other terror groups. It is a collection of misfits. We are the only reason Iraq even has a government. It is a facade and nothing else.
I make no Judgement on the worth of individual Iraqi's. They are defining themselves.
Stupid is as stupid does. |
feel free to answer my post when you get around to it - so we're stuck there forever? |
|
|
| zimmie |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
I think a timetable gives the Iraqi forces a date they know they need to be ready by for handover. Until we have that they don't have a goal to work towards. This is so obvious. |
Exchange the words Iraqi forces with terrorist insurgents |
|
|
| Glenda Yenta |
| This is such a no win situation either way. Prolonging the misery will do no good. Let the Iraqi government know that it will have to get up to speed on becoming responsible for itself. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
feel free to answer my post when you get around to it - so we're stuck there forever? |
We could be.
I don't think that we have two choices and we have to pick either staying forever or a timetable.
I would not be for a timetable. I would be for the President to issue orders to withdrawl to bases outside of civilian populations and then off to Kuwait and then home. An orderly immediate withdrawl. Without notice.
That is not going to happen.
I would be for Congress to repeal the AUMF on Iraq. Get both houses to pass that. If the President does not agree and does not withdrawl then Impeach the President and remove him. I would rather see that than a timetable. That has honor for the troops. A timetable is a crime to the troops. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
why don't you explain to us what the proper withdrawal would be of U.S. forces? The "coalition" has already set their timetable. |
Well, I can't explain what a "proper withdrawal" would be, because this all depends on conditions on the ground. As the situation changes, so do our tactics, strategy and thus our outlook on when we will be able to reduce the troop strength of the coalition force.
What I do know is that the current strategy will quell the sectarian violence and thus give the Iraqi government the breathing room it needs to make political accomodations. Simply put, they can't bring people to the table to reach agreements with ongoing violence. Once this is quelled, then they can sit down and rationally work out an agreement that will bring a peace that will make the Iraqis able to sustain, govern and defend themselves and they will also be valuable allies in the war on terror.
Setting artificial deadlines for progress and/or withdrawal is unrealistic and, given the situation in the region, dangerous. All the Congress has done is weaken this country and threatens to embolden the enemy. Shame on all that voted in favor of these pieces of legislation. |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
Exchange the words Iraqi forces with terrorist insurgents |
but why? I thought you had faith the Iraqis would love being liberated - I think we have to have faith in our brothers and sisters in Iraq that we've set free and that they look forward when they can live with self-determination and democracy - 11 million of them voted - does that not mean anything to you? This makes no sense - either you believe them when the go out and vote and hold up their purple fingers or you don't -
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
We could be.
I don't think that we have two choices and we have to pick either staying forever or a timetable.
I would not be for a timetable. I would be for the President to issue orders to withdrawl to bases outside of civilian populations and then off to Kuwait and then home. An orderly immediate withdrawl. Without notice.
That is not going to happen.
I would be for Congress to repeal the AUMF on Iraq. Get both houses to pass that. If the President does not agree and does not withdrawl then Impeach the President and remove him. I would rather see that than a timetable. That has honor for the troops. A timetable is a crime to the troops. |
a timetable is exactly what you're suggesting - a withdrawal out of areas makes sense to me - but you're still suggesting a timetable - I think its dangerous for people to think timetables are dangerous because it again locks you into a black and white which has plagued this administration and this occupation |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by StumpedTroll
The Iraqi Government is corrupt. Incompetent. Uneffective. Are part of the problem and not working towards a resolution of conflict. |
You are of course talking about the Bush Administration. How Freudian (Fraudian) of you. Goddamn schizo nut-case.
:rdf:
Quote: Originally posted by StumpedTroll
Stupid is as stupid does. |
Which is why you can't stop spamming the board with your delusional blatherings:
"If you catch me, I'll give you a pot full of Bullshit!":
StoneTroll
LYING Member
Off His Rocker
Posting Frequency_______
Spamming Like a MoFo...
:rdf: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
What I do know is that the current strategy will quell the sectarian violence and thus give the Iraqi government the breathing room it needs to make political accomodations. Simply put, they can't bring people to the table to reach agreements with ongoing violence. Once this is quelled, then they can sit down and rationally work out an agreement that will bring a peace that will make the Iraqis able to sustain, govern and defend themselves and they will also be valuable allies in the war on terror. |
Exactly how far up your ass has your head been the past 4 yrs???
Idiot. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I don't think that we have two choices and we have to pick either staying forever or a timetable. |
Caught you LYING again Stumpednutz. Your posting history proves that you believe in one of two arbitrary "choices" 99.9% of the time. I know having four separate "personalities" makes it hard to avoid contradiction...but the outright LYING has to stop. Poor sick fuck.
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Jackson was a traitor to his country and Constitution. Just like Bush, everyone in his administration, and all the cockroaches who follow them. Believe me, I know why you admire him!:
You are a duped sucker, who, much like the inbred hillbilly's of 1860 who fought so loyally for the rich Plantation owners who told them to, and the poor, dumb Bavarian farmboys who joined the SS for love of Hitler, you are so desperate for "Daddy's" love, you'll excuse any crime or treachery. How pathetic.
You are weak. You are scared. You are ignorant. You are mentally unhealthy.
Thus, you are a Conservative.
:rdf:
Stonewall "Whackson"
Senior Snowballer (gulp!)
Jerkin' Off
Posting Frequency_______
Spamming Like a MoFo...
________________________________________
"Let us cross over the river and corn-hole each other under the shade of the trees." Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Whackson...jerkin' it since 1869:jackoff::ass2mouth:69::slapcum::bruno::blow:
. |
|
|
|
| vegaseric |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
I think a timetable gives the Iraqi forces a date they know they need to be ready by for handover. Until we have that they don't have a goal to work towards. This is so obvious. |
I can agree with that. What happens if the Iraqis ask us to stay? Will you turn your back on humans and say fuck you? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by vegaseric
I can agree with that. What happens if the Iraqis ask us to stay? Will you turn your back on humans and say fuck you? |
So you admit Iraqis are humans?? Its a start, cockroach!! |
|
|
| cecilturtle06 |
Four words...
Good work Senator Hagel. :tu: |
|
|
| vegaseric |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
So you admit Iraqis are humans?? Its a start, cockroach!! |
If I'm correct faggot, you want them dead. The military pulling out of Iraq equals what????? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by vegaseric
If I'm correct faggot, you want them dead. The military pulling out of Iraq equals what????? |
...Your grasp of the situation (unlike the death-grip you have on your 8th "Hostess Ho-Ho" of the night) is tenuous at best...
Later, "75"...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
:rdf: |
|
|
| vegaseric |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
...Your grasp of the situation (unlike the death-grip you have on your 8th "Hostess Ho-Ho" of the night) is tenuous at best...
Later, "75"...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
:rdf: |
? |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by vegaseric
I can agree with that. What happens if the Iraqis ask us to stay? Will you turn your back on humans and say fuck you? |
then we need to start getting paid - enough free rides for everyone but the American taxpayer |
|
|
| vegaseric |
| Only thing about this is this......you guys don't want the US to secure the oil dept. You guys called it ALL FOR OIL and that is the oly way they can pay for it. How else are they going to pay for it? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Exactly how far up your ass has your head been the past 4 yrs???
Idiot. |
Haha, brilliant retort.
When people can't defend his or her own position, they resort to ad hominem attacks. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt -
So what happens if we cut and run?
What happens in Iraq? What if a regional war based on sectarian differences breaks out? Are you going to ignore it and hope it goes away?
What's your plan? |
|
|
| Glenda Yenta |
Quote: Originally posted by cecilturtle06
Four words...
Good work Senator Hagel. :tu: |
Taken together with this weekend's comments about impeachment, I think it's safe to say that Senator Hagel has made an enemy out of Bush. Any chance he had at the nomination has probably disappeared. |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by vegaseric
Only thing about this is this......you guys don't want the US to secure the oil dept. You guys called it ALL FOR OIL and that is the oly way they can pay for it. How else are they going to pay for it? |
what's this "you guys" shit - the Iraqis should benefit firstly from their oil - secondly they should pay for their own infrastructure, security, etc.... big oil should not profit from taxpayer war |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacatedBrain
Haha, brilliant retort. When people can't defend his or her own position, they resort to ad hominem attacks. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - |
Ask that castrated corpse Stumpy about my ability to defend a position. Anyone of passing intellect could tell at a glance that the "brain" behind your post was pea-sized at best.
Quote: Originally posted by VacatedBrain
What's your plan? |
To not listen to the same people who have been wrong in EVERY SINGLE "prediction" regarding this war. And to not do the exact same things that have been proven misguided, OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
Start there brainiac. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
what's this "you guys" shit - the Iraqis should benefit firstly from their oil - secondly they should pay for their own infrastructure, security, etc.... big oil should not profit from taxpayer war |
...Mindless cockroaches don't even know what 'big oil' is... |
|
|
| vegaseric |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
what's this "you guys" shit - the Iraqis should benefit firstly from their oil - secondly they should pay for their own infrastructure, security, etc.... big oil should not profit from taxpayer war |
I agree. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by vegaseric
I agree. |
...which is why you expose yourself as a complete fucking moron everytime you post...
DUPED SUCKER!!!!
:rdf: |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
...which is why you expose yourself as a complete fucking moron everytime you post...
DUPED SUCKER!!!!
:rdf: |
I wasn't trying to dupe anyone - that's what I really think :dunno: |
|
|
| vegaseric |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
...which is why you expose yourself as a complete fucking moron everytime you post...
DUPED SUCKER!!!!
:rdf: |
Damn, some fool on SFN called me a duped sucker. I don't know what I'm going to do....waaaaaa |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
I wasn't trying to dupe anyone - that's what I really think :dunno: |
...what's wrong with you tonight Oz? I wasn't talking to you. For veguts to agree with your 'big oil' comment, AND be a Bush Admin ball-licking cockroach is the height of absurdity...he is obviously a DUPED SUCKER!!! |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by vegaseric
Damn, some fool on SFN called me a duped sucker. I don't know what I'm going to do....waaaaaa |
...probably go open another box of 'bon-bons'... |
|
|
| vegaseric |
| Had no idea they still made those....how did you get this information? |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
...what's wrong with you tonight Oz? I wasn't talking to you. For veguts to agree with your 'big oil' comment, AND be a Bush Admin ball-licking cockroach is the height of absurdity...he is obviously a DUPED SUCKER!!! |
oh oh.... sorry - had the flu for the past couple days :doh: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
a timetable is exactly what you're suggesting - a withdrawal out of areas makes sense to me - but you're still suggesting a timetable - I think its dangerous for people to think timetables are dangerous because it again locks you into a black and white which has plagued this administration and this occupation |
I'm not suggesting a timetable. A timetable would be a date certain, say Sept. 10th., and of course nothing happening on that date.
We need to get away from our current mission because it can never work. There is no government, there is a collection of groups who will not compromise. We hold this up and call it a government. It is a facade that has been sold as progress. To have it collapse would show a total defeat by our standard of victory, by our understanding of this war, and what progress means in it. I suggest anyone look at this government and tell me where I am wrong. What is the U.S. to do? Destroy this thing and start over?
It is time to re-define the war...
We are one power in Iraq among many powers. Ours is to prevent what we do not want. We can never build in Iraq or create in Iraq. Our mission should be stopping an Al Qaeda victory in the Sunni Areas. Stopping Shia from attacking the Sunni and vice versa, on a single line. Not everywhere. Secure Kurdistan. Let loose the Shia in Baghdad and the South. Let them fight it out. There will be a huge fight when the British pull out of the south. They have attempted in the past to turn over power and it very quickly becomes a war zone. The Shia have a war to fight amongst themselves.
We should concentrate on the Kurdish areas and Sunni areas. That might lead to the destruction of the Country, a break-up. But, it is at least realistic.
Do you see what has happened to the timetable? It is gone. We have a new mission in Iraq.
:)
If we proceed as we are in Iraq now, we have no hope. You can pass timetables till you run out of sanity and you will be right back here again. Giving this Iraqi Government a timetable is like giving your dog a certain date when he has to begin speaking. Giving our troops a certain date to be out, tells them that whoever dies is dying for nothing. What do you tell them? Go out on a patrol and...why are we still here? The minute that date is set is the minute our Army should say 'we are leaving now instead'. The civilian leadership will have proven themselves unworthy and criminals.
Instead of timetables to get your dog to begin talking. Or, timetables of a date certain troops will leave. I suggest we repeal the AUMF on Iraq. And, go that route like a said in my last post. Thats if we cannot change the mission to a more reasonable one. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
oh oh.... sorry - had the flu for the past couple days :doh: |
...no worries mate... |
|
|
| vegaseric |
| Yeah oz, hurry up and make a fool out of yourself like your brother fdubya does. |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by vegaseric
Yeah oz, hurry up and make a fool out of yourself like your brother fdubya does. |
You make the least sense out of anyone here....ever.... take a nap captain carb. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
You make the least sense out of anyone here....ever.... take a nap captain carb. |
...Now you've gone too far Oz...let's not exaggerate.
See fatgutseric, I know what's fair...you are no higher than 4th on the list of nonsensical right-wing numb-nuts in here...and I'll tell anyone that'll listen...
...don't say I never got your back, Grimace! |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
To not listen to the same people who have been wrong in EVERY SINGLE "prediction" regarding this war. And to not do the exact same things that have been proven misguided, OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
Start there brainiac. |
You prove your ignorance in regards to Iraq by saying, and I quote "to not do the exact same things that have proven misguided, over and over again." If you knew anything about the current strategy in place, you'd know that we are not repeating the same strategy. Here's a primer - in the past we would clear an area and then move on elsewhere (John McCain dubbed this "whack-a-mole"). Now we have coalition troops imbedded with Iraqi forces and once an area is under control a force stays there to maintain security.
I assure you I am not a "brainiac," but it is obvious that you have little or no knowledge of the current strategy. I would assume you have derived most of your generalizations from far-left websites such as moveon.org and other bastions of liberal propaganda. |
|
|
|
|
|
