Senate committee rejects Bush Iraq plan

Phlegm · Post by **Phlegm** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:52 pm

Senate Foreign Relations committee has rejected President Bush's plan to send extra troops to Iraq, passing the measure to the full Senate for a vote next week. The Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee dismissed Bush's policy as "not in the national interest" in a 12-9 vote.

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:34 am

like we didn't already see this coming. /Cong to the democratic party for creating the Divided States of America. Bunch of flamers.

:dung:

Xaiveir · Post by **Xaiveir** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:53 am

Narrock wrote::rofl: like we didn't already see this coming. /Cong to the democratic party for creating the Divided States of America. Bunch of flamers.

The Divided states of america was formed when Bush and company, decided to send troops to the middle east on the claims that there were weapons of mass destruction.

Evermore · Post by **Evermore** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:15 am

Xaiveir wrote:
Narrock wrote::rofl: like we didn't already see this coming. /Cong to the democratic party for creating the Divided States of America. Bunch of flamers.

The Divided states of america was formed when Bush and company, decided to send troops to the middle east on the claims that there were weapons of mass destruction.

QFT

Bush needs to be reigned in HARD. this "war" has been mis- managed and mis-run from day 1. He has ignored everyone of his advisors that were against it from day 1. now, once again, he ignore the joint chiefs, the iraq commision, and about anyone else who advised against this path. I almost wish he would get impeached but cheney is way fucking worse.

Spazz · Post by **Spazz** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:52 am

Mindia i am 24years old and all my life i have watched the country become more devided. It really pisses me offf that you libs this dems that and dont blame anything on your side. BOth sides are creating the devide and both sides are wrong. Get a fuckin clue.

You new bush was gonna get checked hard on this war. Why the fuck do you think people voted the dems back into power?

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:07 pm

spazz wrote:Mindia i am 24years old and all my life i have watched the country become more devided. It really pisses me offf that you libs this dems that and dont blame anything on your side. BOth sides are creating the devide and both sides are wrong. Get a fuckin clue.

You new bush was gonna get checked hard on this war. Why the fuck do you think people voted the dems back into power?

Because the masses are asses?

Evermore · Post by **Evermore** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:14 pm

Narrock wrote:
spazz wrote:Mindia i am 24years old and all my life i have watched the country become more devided. It really pisses me offf that you libs this dems that and dont blame anything on your side. BOth sides are creating the devide and both sides are wrong. Get a fuckin clue.

You new bush was gonna get checked hard on this war. Why the fuck do you think people voted the dems back into power?

Because the masses are asses?

in this case, they are very wise.

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:06 pm

So sending in additional help to Iraq isn't in our best interest?

Leaving our soldiers already there, to hang, is more acceptable?

Take out the political bullshit you homos, this was a bad decision in general.

Spazz didn't even go one full sentence without misspelling a word. Yet, somehow we are to give a shit about his opinion on the country and why we shouldn't send more help? :ugh:

Post by **Arlos** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:23 pm

And what, exactly, will be accomplished by sending more troops? Which, mind you, only gets them back to the levels of a year or so ago, when we were still losing? It's a risk and cost/benefit analysis. Is the extra cost, risk of loss of life, risk of further eroding the public image of the US worth the likely potential gain of sending those soldiers. It's a very heartless, but necessary sort of analysis. There comes a point where the potential return is so unlikely that it simply does not make sense to commit more resources. Note that it's not just Democrats pushing back against the plan, a fair number of Republicans are doing the same thing. More troops didn't work THEN, the situation is now WORSE, and we're supposed to blithely accept some pie-in-the-sky assertation that NOW they'll make all the difference? Riiiight.

Not to mention, we *HAVE* an alternate plan, one that was put together by a BIPARTISAN group, with major input from diplomatic and military sources. A plan that Bush is completely ignoring. Remember the Iraq Study Group? They published a comprehensive plan for going forward, one that did NOT include 20,000 more troops. It just happened to contain elements that Bush didn't care for, so he chucked the entire thing out the window. I guarantee you if he was moving to follow the recommendations laid out by that comission, that he'd be getting infinitely less push-back from Congress.

-Arlos

Spazz · Post by **Spazz** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:49 pm

Yea im a poor speller but I live int his country. I pay into it and I vote I think my opinion matters as much as yours.Also if your gonna rag on me about my spelling what do you think of our leader who cant even speak the language ?. Leaving the troops there isnt really a good plan either. The whole war has been a mess as i new it would be. Harrison you make me sick. You talk shit all over the place but you never share any of your own opinions or ideas. What do you think we should do about the mess in iraq buddy ?