House Democrats plan Iraq withdrawal

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2004
70,230
10,864
2,040
:read:

Associated Press
Wednesday, November 8, 2006

Gerald Herbert/Associated Press

Mary Altaffer/Associated Press

Some priorities set by Democrats in Congress:

Military: Force an immediate drawdown of troops in Iraq and conduct oversight hearings on missteps on the war.

Intelligence: Increase attention given to emerging terrorist threats in Africa and Southeast Asia and devote more resources to North Korea and Iran. More oversight of terrorism and government surveillance.

Homeland security: Boost security for rail and mass transit systems. Tougher oversight of the Department of Homeland Security, potential restructuring of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Judiciary: Conduct oversight hearings on treatment of terrorism detainees, domestic surveillance programs and President Bush's use of "signing statements" affecting some requirements in the laws he signs.

Minimum wage: Pass legislation to raise the minimum wage from the current $5.15 an hour to $7.25.

Veterans affairs: Increase oversight with detailed budget accountings. More funding for veterans' health care, including additional mental health counseling for vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Health: Allow the Medicare program to negotiate directly with drug companies for lower prices. Pass a vetoed embryonic stem cell research bill again. Require insurance companies to provide benefits for treating mental illnesses equal to other medical and surgical benefits.

Transportation: Consolidate air traffic control facilities. Allow more foreign control of airlines. Limit the number of Transportation Security Administration airport screeners to 45,000. :shocked: More oversight hearings on the Federal Aviation Administration.

Taxes: Increase education-based tax breaks. Close the so-called $345 billion tax gap, the estimated amount that people and companies owe but avoid paying each year.

Trade: Let a law expire that forbids Congress from amending trade agreements negotiated by the president. Create a chief enforcement officer in the office of the U.S. trade representative.

Energy and environment: Increase incentives for biodiesel, ethanol and other alternative fuels as well as wind, solar, geothermal and other sources of alternative energy. Renegotiate oil and gas leases that waived royalty payments to the government. Impose a national cap on industrial carbon dioxide emissions.

Resist Bush's efforts to open more public lands to oil exploration.

Agriculture: Increase conservation programs and require more corn-based ethanol in motor fuel blends.http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2006/nov/08/democrats-plan-iraq-withdrawal/
 
They can plan all they want, but the President is given sole control over the military. It doesn't matter if every senator and congressman votes to remove the troops from Iraq. The President gets the last word.
 
They can plan all they want, but the President is given sole control over the military. It doesn't matter if every senator and congressman votes to remove the troops from Iraq. The President gets the last word.

100 bucks they pass a law or get a lib judge to say the president's power is unconstitional
 
Actually, the House can reign in the President on this issue. They can simply refuse to fund his efforts.

The Constitution said:
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years

The President gets to decide what to do with the army, but the Congress decides whether to let him do it.

Don't worry, the Democrats won't call for an immediate withdrawal. I think they're too smart for that.
 
They can plan all they want, but the President is given sole control over the military. It doesn't matter if every senator and congressman votes to remove the troops from Iraq. The President gets the last word.

They can vote to with hold funding...
I heard ole woffie blitzer ask Pelosi in an interview today, if they would close the purse on Iraq....(his exact words)..She hemmed and hawwwed around answering it...
 
Actually, the House can reign in the President on this issue. They can simply refuse to fund his efforts.

The President gets to decide what to do with the army, but the Congress decides whether to let him do it.

Don't worry, the Democrats won't call for an immediate withdrawal. I think they're too smart for that.

i don't see the house or senate voting to cut off funds for troops in the field...unless of course they vote for it before they vote against it
 
Now that the Dems will actually be somewhat accountable for things they say, their posture on the war will change. Its easy to criticize when you're not the one making the decisions.
 
I think you just summarized the thinking of most who call themselves Democrats.:baby:

I'm not happy with all the events form this war. Fact Saddam had to be put out of business, fact we have a serious issue with terrorism and it is in our country just waiting to go for it. No place is safe and if those looney ones in liberalville thinks so then shame on them. And since pandoras box has been open we need to figure out a few things: like allowing the military to do it's job instead of keeping a choker chain on the military brass. I do think problems like Abu Grab should have had all involved swing, that is stars down to stripes and that would have sent a very clear message throughout the military. Next convict all these yahoos on Gitmo and be finished. See we had great opportunities to get our nation in the right direction after 9/11 and we failed. So hopefully we won't have history re-written on our asses again to relearn what we forgot. I'm just amazed these folks can't see or clearly understand some of the things at stake here.
 
Actually, the House can reign in the President on this issue. They can simply refuse to fund his efforts.



The President gets to decide what to do with the army, but the Congress decides whether to let him do it.

Don't worry, the Democrats won't call for an immediate withdrawal. I think they're too smart for that.

you are giving them way too much credit.
 
Actually, the House can reign in the President on this issue. They can simply refuse to fund his efforts.



The President gets to decide what to do with the army, but the Congress decides whether to let him do it.

Don't worry, the Democrats won't call for an immediate withdrawal. I think they're too smart for that.

Wanna lay some money down on that one? The dims want out so bad they can hear the choppers peeling off the roof of the US embassy in Baghdad already. Saigon again....The horror, the horror.......
 
Actually, the House can reign in the President on this issue. They can simply refuse to fund his efforts.



The President gets to decide what to do with the army, but the Congress decides whether to let him do it.

Don't worry, the Democrats won't call for an immediate withdrawal. I think they're too smart for that.

I disagree the president is the commandeering Chief and has totally control of the military, once congress has authorized a war the only thing left that they can do is cut off funding for the war.
 
I disagree the president is the commandeering Chief and has totally control of the military, once congress has authorized a war the only thing left that they can do is cut off funding for the war.

No one is going to cut off funding for the war while the troops are there. That's just Steffie's usual morning post that lets everyone knows she hates everyone who disagrees with her. What I see happening is everyone waiting for the results of the Baker Commission Report and going by its recommendations. Then they'll follow the recommendations in the report and let everyone save face. Plus, Bush will be able to blame everything that was messed up on Rummy and Gates and Congress will look like heros. It's a win-win for everyone.
 
No one is going to cut off funding for the war while the troops are there. That's just Steffie's usual morning post that lets everyone knows she hates everyone who disagrees with her. What I see happening is everyone waiting for the results of the Baker Commission Report and going by its recommendations. Then they'll follow the recommendations in the report and let everyone save face. Plus, Bush will be able to blame everything that was messed up on Rummy and Gates and Congress will look like heros. It's a win-win for everyone.

Jillian, the only reason anyone is suggesting that Democrats are going to cut funding is because they said they would. Charlie Rangel promised that he would use his new committee position to cut funding for Iraq.
 
Jillian, the only reason anyone is suggesting that Democrats are going to cut funding is because they said they would. Charlie Rangel promised that he would use his new committee position to cut funding for Iraq.

Charlie Rangel is one person... and the house is full of moderate dems now... it's a non-starter. There is a difference between political rhetoric and reality. Do you think for a second that Pelosi is going to be known as the speaker who let her Congress do something that would hurt the troops on the ground? She'll be out in two years if she were to permit it.
 
Charlie Rangel is one person... and the house is full of moderate dems now... it's a non-starter. There is a difference between political rhetoric and reality. Do you think for a second that Pelosi is going to be known as the speaker who let her Congress do something that would hurt the troops on the ground? She'll be out in two years if she were to permit it.

one person? He is the chairmen in charge of funding! you honestly dont think committee chairmen in charge of finances isnt speaking on behalf of the party?

Honestly, Im surprised Pelosi is still in. I know Murtha is aiming for her position.
 

Forum List

Back
Top