Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Truthmatters, May 20, 2007.
It isn't. It's been mentioned in just about every thread that has devolved into "the Surrender Bill."
BAGHDAD - A majority of Iraqi lawmakers have endorsed a bill calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and demanding a freeze on the number of foreign troops already in the country, lawmakers said Thursday.
The legislation was being debated even as U.S. lawmakers were locked in a dispute with the White House over their call to start reducing the size of the U.S. force here in the coming months.
The Iraqi bill, drafted by a parliamentary bloc loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, was signed by 144 members of the 275-member house, according to Nassar al-Rubaie, the leader of the Sadrist bloc.
The Sadrist bloc, which sees the U.S.-led forces as an occupying army, has pushed similar bills before, but this was the first time it had garnered the support of a majority of lawmakers.
The bill would require the Iraqi government to seek approval from parliament before it requests an extension of the U.N. mandate for foreign forces to be in Iraq, al-Rubaie said. It also calls for a timetable for the troop withdrawal and a freeze on the size of the foreign forces.
I mean in the news Gunny.
I am a news addict and I havent seen it except on the web
Because it takes away from the Democrats claiming it as their idea as a talking point in the next Presidential election.
Now we'll see if y'all are going to stand on principle, or politics.
Don't you ever wonder why ALL you hear coming out of the ME via the MSM is negative?
"Because it takes away from the Democrats claiming it as their idea as a talking point in the next Presidential election."
HUH? why would a liberal press supress something that backs their arguement?
It does NOT back their argument. It accomplishes the same thing. However, There's a BIG difference between Congressional Dem's forcing the issue and the Iraq government making a decision about the future of its own nation.
If Democrats are successful in getting the timelines signed into law, they will claim to be teh ones who ended America's involvement in Iraq. It makes perfectly logical sense that they would do so.
They can't claim anything if the Iraq government does it.
gunny are you fucking with me dude?
It backs their whole arguement , they would still get the credit from the voters.
how in shivas name would want to supress something that Backs them in thier fight to Beat Bush?
Nice try...It doesn't comport with the Bush administration plans and neo-con wet-dreams for a permanent US presence in Iraq.
Separate names with a comma.