House passed a spending bill that include Iraq deadline.

[Phlegm]

-- August 31, 2008 -- for combat troops to leave Iraq.



http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/23/ ... index.html

[Narrock]

What a stupid bill. Are democrats ever going to think with their brains rather than their hearts?

[Tacks]

you're a douchebag

[Narrock]

you're a douchebag

Tacks posted. Thread over.

[Zanchief]

Taxx does bring up a valid point though.

[Tacks]

If this had been a Republican bill he would have been humping all over it.

If you noticed, 14 Dems voted against it and 2 Republicans supported it.

[Narrock]

If this had been a Republican bill he would have been humping all over it.

If you noticed, 14 Dems voted against it and 2 Republicans supported it.

Republicans are smarter than democrats, so there's no way this asinine bill would have been a republican bill.

[Tacks]

Yes, because it doesn't involve blowing anything or anybody up.

[Arlos]

Well, this should certainly go a bit of the way towards quieting down the crowd that was bitching about the Dems not trying to DO anything about the war besides those nonbinding resolutions. No, I don't think there's any chance of it being made law, though the political wranglings as money gets closer and closer to running out could produce some spectacular fireworks.

Mindia, like it or not, by the way, polls clearly show that most americans (over 60% of them, actually) are sick of the war at this point, so there's hardly a lack of constituent base pulling for such a measure. So, agree with them or disagreewith them as you see fit, but the Demos are hardly going against the prevailing will of the citizenry.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

It's actually a good move by the House Dems, in that it appeases both sides of the debate and allows them to possibly get enough support to pass this.

The problem is, with Lieberman in the Senate, the Dems do not even have a simple majority for this. I don't see it getting through unscathed.

[Phlegm]

Bush just vow to veto this bill.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17750825/

[Snero]

I was against the war from the start but that doesn't much matter now. I personally think having a set time table for when troops have to leave is a bad idea, nobody knows what will happen in a years time. Iraq is a mess right now, and leaving it too early now would cause a lot of humanitarian problems, and also could potentially create another Muslim country with a profound hatred of the west.

smart move politically, bad move strategically

[Zanchief]

Although I agree with you somewhat, I don't see things ever changing in Iraq so they'll have to do this eventually.

If they stay for the next 10 years people will still hate them, there will still be insurgence, and people will be saying we should have left 10 years ago.

[Burgy99]

Although I agree with you somewhat, I don't see things ever changing in Iraq so they'll have to do this eventually.

If they stay for the next 10 years people will still hate them, there will still be insurgence, and people will be saying we should have left 10 years ago.

Word. We're just wasting more money and lives over there when the end result isn't going to change.

[Tossica]

I disagree with Mindia.

[Arlos]

In this debate you're never going to find a position that satisfies everyone, so compromise is an absolute necessity.

If one side is saying it goes too far, and the other side is saying it doesn't go far enough, that's probably a pretty good indication that they're fairly close to the right balance point, honestly. That's almost where this is, I think, but yes, getting something through the senate is going to be problematic.

Even if they do get this through both houses, I think it's safe to assume they'll never get the 2/3 necessary to override the veto. So, it's GOING to get amended and changed. How far it has to tip one way or the other is going to be interesting indeed. Going to be really interesting what happens if it goes back to Bush a 2nd time with troop withdrawl still in it in some form (albeit weakened), and they're up against the deadline for the money running out. It's going to be a big game of political "Chicken" at that point.

Even if I don't agree completely with this bill (and I don't), I must say it is VERY nice to finally see Congress acting like an independent branch of government again, rather than just a rubber-stamp organization that pushes through whatever Bush wants, like it's mostly been for the last 6 years.

-Arlos

[Jay]

Arlos for Pres!

[Lyion]

The problem is compromise is not passing a bill by a vote of 218 to 212 that is loaded with outrageous amounts of pork and has zero chance of making it through the Senate, let alone W's Veto.

Compromise would be not trying to please or bribe just enough to make a political statement, but having a bill that a real majority would agree with and vote for and that is workable in the Senate.

[Arlos]

The problem is, Lyion, you've got one camp on the right, who are adamantly opposed to ANY restrictions on the war, even non-binding resolutions of "Please bring them home sometime soon, OK?", and on the other side, you have a fairly sizeable group who are just as adamant about "I ain't votin for it if it doesn't say to bring the troops home within 3.8 seconds of passage." Finding a middle ground between 2 groups that polarized is effectively impossible, if you stick solely to the base issue.

That's why a bunch of stuff got added to the bill (and for the most part what I've seen of what it's going to ARE worthy causes, no 500 million bridge to nowhere in there), because without sweetners NO bill was going to get passed, period.

So, regardless of the circumstances, putting together a bill that stands any chance of passage is problematic at best. There's no middle ground here that makes everyone happy. The best we can really hope for is to generate as little un-happiness as possible for everyone, and that's what they seem to be aiming for.

Ultimately, the nature of tje competing polarized camps involved is why I dont think this one is going to get resolved until the absolute last minute, and the pressure is immense to sign off on it or have funds run out.

What I think'll happen in the end is the spending will stay in (or the vast majority of it will), but the troop removal component will get changed to a non-binding advisement. The hardcore anti-war side won't be happy about that, but I think they'll eventually buy off on it so that they send SOME message, and for the sweeteners. The republicans won't like the non-binding resolution, but the dem's only need a few to vote for it, if any, so that's not a big deal Bush will hate the non-binding resolution embedded in it too, but since it's nonbinding he won't be able to build enough of a case to veto it and have funds for the troops run out. There'll just be a hell of a lot of rhetoric and hot air before we get to that point.

I guess we'll see how accurate my prediction is by mid/late-april, eh?

-Arlos

[Lyion]

No, this solely is the Democrats trying to make headlines. They had almost zero GOP input. This bill got 2 GOP votes in the house, and was razor thin with 15 Democrats voting against it. They appeased the moderates not by compromise, but by bribery, Arlos. 24 billion of it, to be exact.

The problem is there are more GOP Senators than DNC ones, and one of the two Independents absolutely won't support these provisions. Thus there is no real compromise, anyways, despite the bribery and massive pork

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/washi ... yt&emc=rss

To make it easier for members of the conservative Blue Dog coalition, many of whom represent farming districts, Democratic leaders inserted nearly $24 billion in domestic spending, including emergency agricultural assistance, to go along with the financing for troops and veterans.

The Washington Post put it succinctly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01883.html

The legislation pays more heed to a handful of peanut farmers than to the 24 million Iraqis who living through a maelstrom initiated by the United States, the outcome of which could shape the future of the Middle East for decades.

House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates. . .[Democrats] should not seek to use pork to buy a majority for an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support.

[Yamori]

People always talk about "chaos" hitting Iraq if the US troops leave...

Well what exactly would you call what we have there now?

[Lueyen]

People always talk about "chaos" hitting Iraq if the US troops leave...

Well what exactly would you call what we have there now?

While some areas are certainly chaotic, I wouldn't call the situation there now as the same level of chaos we might see if all international forces were to leave. I say might because a recent poll of Iraqi's show a little over half believe that if international forces were to leave the security situation would improve... of course the security situation was much better under Sadam but only around 1/4 of Iraqis preferred that. Interesting enough the poll showed a large majority of Iraqis do not believe that the country is currently in a state of civil war as our MSM has dubbed it... kinda makes you wonder what other differences the civilian people see compared to our media.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=67

[Evermore]

If this had been a Republican bill he would have been humping all over it.

If you noticed, 14 Dems voted against it and 2 Republicans supported it.

Republicans are smarter than democrats, so there's no way this asinine bill would have been a republican bill.

you really are a fucking douchebag.

[Phlegm]

The Bill passed in the Senate. Now on to George Bush for the veto.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/29/ ... index.html

Senate Democrats ignored a veto threat and pushed through a bill Thursday requiring President Bush to start withdrawing troops from "the civil war in Iraq," dealing a rare, sharp rebuke to a wartime commander in chief.
.
.
.

"We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we've got a troop in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded," Bush said, surrounded by Republicans on the North Portico, "and we got commanders making tough decisions on the ground, we expect there to be no strings on our commanders."

.
.
.
The Senate vote marked its boldest challenge yet to the administration's handling of a war, now in its fifth year, that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops and more than $350 billion. In a show of support for the president, most Republicans opposed the measure, unwilling to back a troop withdrawal schedule despite the conflict's widespread unpopularity.

.
.
.

[Evermore]

too bad there isnt enough support to over ride Bush's 1st ever veto. Yet. 2008 cant come soon enough to get rid of this spermstop we call a president