Dems In Disarray Over Iraq

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Poor Libs - they have been played for suckers in the last election

The Dems will cave on Iraq. The Pres will get his funding with no strings attached

Truth is setting in on Capital Hill - even the kook left is starting to see the real world


Anti-War Liberals in House Weary of Opposing Iraq Funding Bill
Friday, April 20, 2007


WASHINGTON — Anti-war liberals worried about party unity are reluctant to mount opposition to war spending legislation in the House even if it does not set a firm date for troop withdrawal.

Their support would pave the way for Democratic leaders next week to send President Bush a bill that would fund the Iraq war and still call for troops to leave by March 31, 2008, albeit a nonbinding withdrawal date.

The measure would be weaker than House Democrats wanted but is advocated by the Senate, where Democrats hold a slimmer majority and many party members oppose setting a firm timetable on the war.

Rather than let the bill sink, "we want to get it to the president and let him veto it," said Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a party liberal who opposes funding the war at all.

In the Senate, the debate on the war grew sharper Thursday when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the war had been lost and that Bush's troop buildup is not stemming violence in Iraq. That statement prompted Republicans to declare that Democrats don't support the troops in Iraq.

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.

Bush has promised to veto any bill that sets a timetable on the Iraq war, contending that decisions on troop deployments must be left to the commander in chief and military commanders on the ground. His position raises the bigger question of what Democrats will do after the veto.

The quiet support of a House-Senate compromise among the rank-and-file represents a new tack by Democrats who say they want to pull together in their fight against Bush on the war.

Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, a freshman Democrat who represents a district strongly opposed to the war, said lending his support to a bill that funds the war without setting a firm end date will be difficult. On the other hand, he added, Democrats might be in a tougher spot if they can't pull the caucus together long enough to act against Bush.

"We have to look at the political realities of being the party that's in control, and prove to the American people we can govern," he said.

Last month, Watson was one of several liberal Democrats who threatened to block passage of the House bill because she did not think the measure went far enough to end the war. Watson and California Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they refused to fund the war and wanted language that would end combat before the end of 2007.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched an aggressive whip operation to persuade members the bill was their best shot at trying to force Bush to abandon his Iraq policy. Eventually, the group said they would help round up support for the bill despite their intention to personally vote against it.

The bill passed narrowly, mostly along party lines, in a 218-212 vote. House appropriators are now trying to negotiate a final bill that could be sent to the president by next week.

With Senate leaders nervous the final bill would fail if it included a firm deadline, aides said Democrats were leaning toward accepting the Senate's nonbinding goal. The compromise bill also is expected to retain House provisions preventing military units from being worn out by excessive combat deployments; however, the president could waive these standards if he states so publicly.

On Thursday, Pelosi, D-Calif., summoned Woolsey, Lee, Waters and several other of the party's more liberals members to her office to discuss the issue. According to aides and members, concerns were expressed but there were no loud objections to a conference bill that would adopt the Senate's nonbinding goal.

Watson said she would personally oppose the final bill, as she did last month, but would not stand in Pelosi's way if the speaker agrees to the Senate version.

"It's still a timeline," she said. "We're not backing down from that."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267381,00.html
 

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Blasts Kill at Least 11 in Afghanistan


KHOST, Afghanistan (Reuters) - At least 11 people were killed and 10 wounded in a suicide blast and two separate bomb explosions in Afghanistan on Sunday, officials said.

The first blast occurred in a mobile telephone shop in a crowded produce market in the heart of the southeastern town of Khost, the scene of a series of Taliban attacks in recent weeks.

An hour later a suicide bomber blew himself up after being chased by police, just meters away from the previous explosion.

A roadside bomb exploded later in the day in the eastern province of Laghman, killing four security officials travelling in a car, police said.

Violence has been rising in Afghanistan following a winter lull, after last year witnessed the bloodiest fighting since the Taliban were ousted in 2001.

The Taliban's fugitive leader Mullah Mohammad Omar recently urged followers to step up suicide raids, a Taliban commander told Reuters on Friday, and the commander of NATO forces in the country has also said he expects to see more attacks.

Sunday's suicide explosion killed three civilians, said Wazir Badshah, a senior provincial police officer.

``Police had spotted the suicide bomber who began to run away and, before being caught, blew himself up, killing three civilians and wounding several people, including police,'' he told reporters close to the scene.

Shopkeepers had quickly shut down their businesses after the first blast when police warned them another bomb could explode.

A doctor at a local hospital said seven men were killed and many more wounded in the blasts.

No one claimed responsibility for the bombs, but shopkeepers suspected the Taliban and said the target may have been the mobile phone shop, where residents regularly download music into their phones.

The Taliban have targeted music shops in the past as part of their harsh interpretation of Islam. Music, film and videos were banned under their 1996-2001 rule of Afghanistan.

The radical insurgent force and their Islamic allies, including the al Qaeda network, are largely active in southern and eastern areas close to the border with Pakistan.

The group has vowed to drive out foreign troops from Afghanistan and topple the elected and Western-backed government of President Hamid Karzai.

Close to 4,000 people were killed last year. Several hundred, including about 30 Western troops, have died so far this year, regarded as a critical period for all concerned.

The new NATO commander told journalists in Kabul on Thursday he saw the expected increase in roadside bomb attacks and suicide raids as an act of desperation on the Taliban's part and a sign they lacked military might.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-afghan-violence.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Gunmen execute 23 from tiny sect in northern Iraq in apparent revenge attack


8:34 a.m. April 22, 2007

BAGHDAD – Gunmen in northern Iraq stopped a bus filled with Christians and members of a tiny Kurdish religious sect, police said, separating out the groups and taking 23 of the passengers away to be shot.

Police said the execution-style killings of the Yazidis – a primarily Kurdish sect that worships an angel figure considered to be the devil by some Muslims and Christians – appeared to be in response to the stoning death of a Yazidi woman who had recently converted to Islam.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, on a tour abroad to ask the mostly Sunni-led governments of the Arab world to help his struggling government stop the violence in Iraq, said he told Egypt's president that Iraq's reality is “not a civil or sectarian war.”

In the northern Iraq killings, armed men in several cars stopped the bus as it was carrying workers from the Mosul Textile Factory to their hometown of Bashika, which has a mixed population of Christians and Yazidis – a primarily Kurdish sect that worships an angel figure considered to be the devil by some Muslims and Christians.........................

.....................“All our belongings and money were smashed and are gone. What kind of life is this? Where is the government?” he asked. “There are no jobs, and things are very bad. Is this fair?”

Iraqi police stations often are the target of attacks by insurgents who accuse the officers of betraying Iraq by working in cooperation with its U.S.-backed Shiite government and the American military.

A policeman, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, said 13 people died – five policemen and eight civilians – and that 82 were wounded.


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070422-0834-iraq.html



Things are lookin up!!
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Libs do love any bad news - is this what the left calls patriotism?
 

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Yes, but then again, libs also dismiss and ignore any good news as quickly as they celebrate the bad news
Because good news like putting up "walls" and "Troop Surges" are out weighed by people exploding and being shot.

You like to ignore bad news about death, and violence in a country the US currently occupies.

Id like for you to list ANY and ALL of the US accomplishments in the past 4 years and id like to see if any of them are worth more than the death of even ONE human.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Because good news like putting up "walls" and "Troop Surges" are out weighed by people exploding and being shot.

You like to ignore bad news about death, and violence in a country the US currently occupies.

Id like for you to list ANY and ALL of the US accomplishments in the past 4 years and id like to see if any of them are worth more than the death of even ONE human.
The most obvious one is no attacks on US soil in the last 6 years

But libs dismiss that out of hand as luck

But, if we were or are hit again, the libs will be screaming how {res Bush failed and he needs to go

Nothing new
 

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
The most obvious one is no attacks on US soil in the last 6 years

But libs dismiss that out of hand as luck

But, if we were or are hit again, the libs will be screaming how {res Bush failed and he needs to go

Nothing new
Good one, Bush was successful in keeping people living in caves out of the US.

and it only cost a couple thousand lives of US soldiers.

good thing people over there are dying by the thousands so no one dies here.

is that your logic,

At least no one is dying here?

you simply dismiss all the people dying there?

talk about ignoring bad news.

as long as thousands upon thousands of people are dying SOMEWHERE ELSE.

its all good.

yer such a turd.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
and if/when we get hit again here, you will be one of the first screaming how Pres Bush let us down

you will fail to mention you are one of the people who has opposed all his efforts to win this war
 

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
and if/when we get hit again here, you will be one of the first screaming how Pres Bush let us down

you will fail to mention you are one of the people who has opposed all his efforts to win this war
Im not opposed to winning anything,

Im opposed to the OCCCUPATION.

this is the point where you usually stop reading.



THE U.S. CANNOT LEAVE

The US made a mess, and must stay to clean it up. or just like bush says, "We'll have to go back later."

I dont agree with how and why the US got into Iraq.

the fact of the matter is the US is there and CANNOT leave.

both countries are waiting for things to get better.

and more people are dying everyday.

we're waiting patiently and more people are dying everyday.

we're waiting for signs of progress, and more people are dying every day.

We're waiting for the people in charge to come up with a plan and more people are dying every day.

If the US packs up and leaves, even more people will die every day.

I am opposed to the occupation,

I AM NOT OPPOSED TO THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE DOING SOMETHING TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION.

Bush asked for patience.

people are dying every day

and we are waiting.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I am sure the troops like being called occupiers

I guess that is as nice as the anti war left can be towards them
 

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
I am sure the troops like being called occupiers

I guess that is as nice as the anti war left can be towards them
I knew you wouldnt read past that.


200 people have died in the past 7 days in Iraq.

and you are still a turd.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
and if/when we get hit again here, you will be one of the first screaming how Pres Bush let us down

you will fail to mention you are one of the people who has opposed all his efforts to win this war
the war in Iraq has America in the unenviable position of being both the protecter and the target for sunnis and shiites who are venting centuries old grudges.... what we are doing in Iraq has little to nothing to do with the war we ought to be fighting against islamic extremists.

and are you ever going to explain your claim that America has seen a 60% reduction in casualties because of the "success" of the "surge"?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
the war in Iraq has America in the unenviable position of being both the protecter and the target for sunnis and shiites who are venting centuries old grudges.... what we are doing in Iraq has little to nothing to do with the war we ought to be fighting against islamic extremists.

and are you ever going to explain your claim that America has seen a 60% reduction in casualties because of the "success" of the "surge"?
So with terrorists in Iraq, libs want to run away

Some victory plan - if youy want the terrorists to win and the US to lose
 

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
and are you ever going to explain your claim that America has seen a 60% reduction in casualties because of the "success" of the "surge"?
Dems like bad news about people dying, 200 in 7 days makes them happy cause it gives them reasons to say the war is bad, which proves that they are against the war which means they are "Pro Terror"

Being opposed to death means you want the terrorists to win.

This is the logic of RSR.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Dems like bad news about people dying, 200 in 7 days makes them happy cause it gives them reasons to say the war is bad, which proves that they are against the war which means they are "Pro Terror"

Being opposed to death means you want the terrorists to win.

This is the logic of RSR.
Considering Dems are doing what the terrorists want them do I would say they do want the terrorists to win
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
Considering Dems are doing what the terrorists want them do I would say they do want the terrorists to win
No...I just do not want any more Americans to die in a war that does nothing to make us any safer.

The real enemies of America - islamic extremists - would much rather have us tied down in the middle of a civil war in Iraq than actually concentrating on THEM.

Iraq is a senseless sideshow that treasonous partisans such as yourself refuse to admit is a mistake because your loyalty is to party and president and NOT country.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top