why is this so Unreported?

[Truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/33mfzv

 

[Gunny]

http://tinyurl.com/33mfzv

It isn't. It's been mentioned in just about every thread that has devolved into "the Surrender Bill."

 

[Truthmatters]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070510/ap_on_re_eu/iraq_politics

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

 

[Truthmatters]

It isn't. It's been mentioned in just about every thread that has devolved into "the Surrender Bill."

I mean in the news Gunny.

I am a news addict and I havent seen it except on the web

 

[Gunny]

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?

 

[Truthmatters]

"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?

 

[Gunny]

"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.

 

[Truthmatters]

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?

 

[Bullypulpit]

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?

Nice try...It doesn't comport with the Bush administration plans and neo-con wet-dreams for a permanent US presence in Iraq.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.



How does this in any way not help the Current Dem leadership in calling for draw down?

 

[Gunny]

Nice try...It doesn't comport with the Bush administration plans and neo-con wet-dreams for a permanent US presence in Iraq.

It DOES comport with the fact that I've always understood that we will leave Iraq when the Iraqi government can stand on its own two feet.

I'm unaware of Bush administration plans for a permanent US presence in Iraq, but I agree that it does not support that, if it indeed is a plan.

What it DOES accomplish if it makes it past the drawing board is it gets us out. Is THAT not the goal?

 

[Gunny]

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?

Wrong. They won't get credit for something they haven't done.

But a least you spelled out exactly what is taking place. It isn't about right or wrong, it's about "beating Bush."

Since the stated goal from the onset was that the US would leave as soon as the Iraqi's could stand on their own, I don't see how you come up with yet another of your backwards-thinking, illogical conclusions.

If the iraqi's step up to the plate and take over their own physcal security, the credit goes to THEM, not the Dems and not Bush.

 

[Gunny]

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.



How does this in any way not help the Current Dem leadership in calling for draw down?

How many times do I have to draw this picture for you? The Dem's aren't doing it, the Iraqi gov't is. The Dem's failed to get their way. The Iraqi's won't.

You don't get credit for not doing something. Simple as that.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070519/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/world_s_largest_embassy

 

[Truthmatters]

WASHINGTON - The new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad will be the world's largest and most expensive foreign mission, though it may not be large enough or secure enough to cope with the chaos in Iraq.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Bush administration designed the 104-acre compound — set to open in September in what today is a war zone — to be an ultra-secure enclave. Yet it also hoped that downtown Baghdad would cease being a battleground when diplomats moved in.

Over the long term, depending on which way the seesaw of sectarian division and grinding warfare teeters, the massive city-within-a-city could prove too enormous for the job of managing diminished U.S. interests in Iraq.

The $592 million embassy occupies a chunk of prime real estate two-thirds the size of Washington's National Mall, with desk space for about 1,000 people behind high, blast-resistant walls. The compound is a symbol both of how much the United States has invested in Iraq and how the circumstances of its involvement are changing.

The embassy is one of the few major projects the administration has undertaken in Iraq that is on schedule and within budget. Still, not all has gone according to plan.

 

[Truthmatters]

How many times do I have to draw this picture for you? The Dem's aren't doing it, the Iraqi gov't is. The Dem's failed to get their way. The Iraqi's won't.

You don't get credit for not doing something. Simple as that.

Then why was the reporting of this news kept low?

it was breaking news before the vote went down.

If their is a liberal media why would they not report something that would have made it much easier to pass their legislation.

The answer is there is no liberal media there is a corporate media which is aiding the Bush admin.