House OKs Plan to Withdraw US Troops

[DeadCanDance]

House OKs Plan to Withdraw US Troops
By DAVID ESPO

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Iraqi government is achieving only spotty military and political progress, the Bush administration conceded Thursday in an assessment that war critics quickly seized on as confirmation of their dire warnings. Within hours, the House voted to withdraw U.S. troops by spring.

The House measure passed 223-201 in the Democratic-controlled chamber despite a veto threat from President Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September......


http://charter.net/news/read.php?ps=1018&id=13846741&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS

 

[Annie]

House OKs Plan to Withdraw US Troops
By DAVID ESPO

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Iraqi government is achieving only spotty military and political progress, the Bush administration conceded Thursday in an assessment that war critics quickly seized on as confirmation of their dire warnings. Within hours, the House voted to withdraw U.S. troops by spring.

The House measure passed 223-201 in the Democratic-controlled chamber despite a veto threat from President Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September......


http://charter.net/news/read.php?ps=1018&id=13846741&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS

Interesting spin from yesterday, when it was all about not meeting the benchmarks. Now that nearly 1/2 have been met, we get this pap.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

First it was August, now it's spring. The Dems are just playing politics here. They know that Bush will veto any bill the House and Senate put forward and they know that they don't have the votes to override the veto. The Dems are trying to put a dent in Bush and the Repub poll numbers. This is going to backfire on them though. The Dems have the power to bring the troops home without Bush's approval. All the Dems need to do is stop funding the war and they can start bringing some of the troops home by the fall.

How many liberals and Dems here are fed up with the party's reluctance to end the funding and bring the troops home?

 

[hjmick]

First it was August, now it's spring. The Dems are just playing politics here. They know that Bush will veto any bill the House and Senate put forward and they know that they don't have the votes to override the veto. The Dems are trying to put a dent in Bush and the Repub poll numbers. This is going to backfire on them though. The Dems have the power to bring the troops home without Bush's approval. All the Dems need to do is stop funding the war and they can start bringing some of the troops home by the fall.

How many liberals and Dems here are fed up with the party's reluctance to end the funding and bring the troops home?

Hey there Dirt! You there yet?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Hey there Dirt! You there yet?

Not yet, I'm shacked up in a motel right now. I'm en route though. I miss anything the last couple of months? Someone PM me with links to some juicy gossip threads so I can catch up on the on-goings around here.

 

[hjmick]

Not yet, I'm shacked up in a motel right now. I'm en route though. I miss anything the last couple of months? Someone PM me with links to some juicy gossip threads so I can catch up on the on-goings around here.

Miss anything? Just the usual.

 

[Larkinn]

Interesting spin from yesterday, when it was all about not meeting the benchmarks. Now that nearly 1/2 have been met, we get this pap.

Incorrect. None have been met. They merely show "satisfactory progress" according to the Bush administration.

 

[lieberalism]

the liberals cant surrender fast enough

 

[red states rule]

MSM Highlight GOP 'Defections', Ignore Dems Voting Against Their Own
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on July 13, 2007 - 01:55.
We are seeing all over the MSM the reports highlighting the Republicans in the House and Senate who are turning away from the Party line and voting against -- or at least seeming to vote against -- the President's Iraq war policies. The MSM is presenting this revolt as a momentous thing, unprecedented and presenting it as a loss for the President's ideas. Yet, even as a small number of Republicans have, indeed, voted against the Party line, an even larger number of Democrats are voting against their Party, too. Yet, somehow, we are not hearing this being brought up by the tongue waggers and controversy-mongers in the MSM.

In a July 12th vote in the House of Representatives to mandate a certain date to pull out of Iraq, for instance, the fact that four Republicans broke ranks is treated as a stampede of GOP defectors. Yet, in that same vote, 10 Democrats did not vote with their Party -- in effect "defecting" to the GOP side of the argument. Of this fact, the MSM seem strangely quite.

Why is it that four Republican votes against the President's plans is some sort of landslide, yet 10 Democrat votes against their Party line is ignored?

Here are just a few reports that take pains to highlight the GOP defectors and either never mention the Democrat votes, or they do not much focus on them.

(Reuters) REPUBLICANS BREAKING RANKS

The White House report is being sent to Congress after several prominent Republicans have broken ranks with Bush on Iraq, adding momentum to Democratic-led efforts to try to force a scaling-back of troop levels more than four years after the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

New York Times

For now, at least, Mr. Bush has rejected the advice of those who have urged him to hint at a timeline for withdrawal, concluding that to follow that course would only have emboldened Republican rebels and others in Congress to go even further in trying to reshape his strategy.

The San Francisco Chronicle

(San Francisco Chronicle) Republican congressional support for President Bush's Iraq war policy may be splintering, but enough GOP senators remained united with the president Wednesday to sidetrack legislation that would have made it harder to return military units to the war zone.

http://newsbusters.org/node/14062

 

[red states rule]

and more form the unbiased media


Helen Thomas Leads Pack of Reporters in Pressing Iraq Pullout

It starts with Helen Thomas insisting that President Bush is responsible for al Qaeda in Iraq and ends with Martha Raddatz of ABC News misconstruing a new report on al Qaeda to conclude the terror network's threat is "greater than ever now." NBC's David Gregory and CBS's Jim Axelrod are also included. All questions betray an alarmist and defeatist tone on Iraq and/or push President Bush to consider hypotheticals involving Democrats passing legislation to curtail his management of the war.

watch the video

http://newsbusters.org/node/14057#comment

 

[ReillyT]

MSM Highlight GOP 'Defections', Ignore Dems Voting Against Their Own
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on July 13, 2007 - 01:55.
We are seeing all over the MSM the reports highlighting the Republicans in the House and Senate who are turning away from the Party line and voting against -- or at least seeming to vote against -- the President's Iraq war policies. The MSM is presenting this revolt as a momentous thing, unprecedented and presenting it as a loss for the President's ideas. Yet, even as a small number of Republicans have, indeed, voted against the Party line, an even larger number of Democrats are voting against their Party, too. Yet, somehow, we are not hearing this being brought up by the tongue waggers and controversy-mongers in the MSM.

In a July 12th vote in the House of Representatives to mandate a certain date to pull out of Iraq, for instance, the fact that four Republicans broke ranks is treated as a stampede of GOP defectors. Yet, in that same vote, 10 Democrats did not vote with their Party -- in effect "defecting" to the GOP side of the argument. Of this fact, the MSM seem strangely quite.

Why is it that four Republican votes against the President's plans is some sort of landslide, yet 10 Democrat votes against their Party line is ignored?

Here are just a few reports that take pains to highlight the GOP defectors and either never mention the Democrat votes, or they do not much focus on them.

(Reuters) REPUBLICANS BREAKING RANKS

The White House report is being sent to Congress after several prominent Republicans have broken ranks with Bush on Iraq, adding momentum to Democratic-led efforts to try to force a scaling-back of troop levels more than four years after the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

New York Times

For now, at least, Mr. Bush has rejected the advice of those who have urged him to hint at a timeline for withdrawal, concluding that to follow that course would only have emboldened Republican rebels and others in Congress to go even further in trying to reshape his strategy.

The San Francisco Chronicle

(San Francisco Chronicle) Republican congressional support for President Bush's Iraq war policy may be splintering, but enough GOP senators remained united with the president Wednesday to sidetrack legislation that would have made it harder to return military units to the war zone.

http://newsbusters.org/node/14062

The former is more interesting than the latter, because the Democrats have never all been of one mind on Iraq, while previously, the Republicans were nearly unanimous in supporting the President (at least when it came to remaining in Iraq - there were disagreements about the how, but not the if). Couple this with changing attitudes of Americans toward our presence in Iraq, and Republicans defections become more important because this could signal a major switch in policy (about presence in Iraq) from the status quo.

 

[red states rule]

The former is more interesting than the latter, because the Democrats have never all been of one mind on Iraq, while previously, the Republicans were nearly unanimous in supporting the President (at least when it came to remaining in Iraq - there were disagreements about the how, but not the if). Couple this with changing attitudes of Americans toward our presence in Iraq, and Republicans defections become more important because this could signal a major switch in policy (about presence in Iraq) from the status quo.

It is sad to see how the left is willing to cut and run from Iraq and surrender to terrorists

The RINO's are doing this not because they actually believe the war is lost - but for the same reason Dems are willing to hand the terrorists a victory.

It is all about political power and keeping their power

 

[ReillyT]

The RINO's are doing this not because they actually believe the war is lost - but for the same reason Dems are willing to hand the terrorists a victory.

It is all about political power and keeping their power

I am sure that the popularity (or lack thereof) of the war has something to do with Republican defections, but I don't know how much there is wrong with that. Sure, a legislator should vote their conscience, but in a situation as complex as Iraq, where the outcomes of any course of action are problematic, why shouldn't the members of Congress be responsive to the public and the constituents of their states and districts. At the very least, they should be cognizant of public attitudes.

 

[red states rule]

I am sure that the popularity (or lack thereof) of the war has something to do with Republican defections, but I don't know how much there is wrong with that. Sure, a legislator should vote their conscience, but in a situation as complex as Iraq, where the outcomes of any course of action are problematic, why shouldn't the members of Congress be responsive to the public and the constituents of their states and districts. At the very least, they should be cognizant of public attitudes.

The kook left is running the Dem party. These are the people they are listening to - a perfect example of the "support" the kook left gives the troops

 

[ReillyT]

The kook left is running the Dem party. These are the people they are listening to - a perfect example of the "support" the kook left gives the troops

Sure, the politicians could be listening and responding to a few nutjobs with a sign, or, they could be listening and responding to the 2/3 majority of Americans that favor beginning a withdrawal of the troops. You pick whatever interpretation makes your pretty little head happy.

 

[red states rule]

Sure, the politicians could be listening and responding to a few nutjobs with a sign, or, they could be listening and responding to the 2/3 majority of Americans that favor beginning a withdrawal of the troops. You pick whatever interpretation makes your pretty little head happy.

A few nutjobs?

Go to any peace nik rally and you wil see many signs slurring the troops, America, and Pres Bush

Here is another recent example of the peace loving left



Nobel winner apologizes for Bush comment

Irish peace activist's speech at Dallas event gets standing ovation

11:57 PM CDT on Thursday, July 12, 2007
By JAMES HOHMANN / The Dallas Morning News


snip

In a speech before 1,000 people Wednesday, Ms. Williams said that violence is a choice and the push for peace takes hard work and commitment.

"Right now, I could kill George Bush," she said. "No, I don't mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that." As she made her point, she chuckled and some members of the audience laughed.

Ms. Williams, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976 for creating a group that helped start peace talks in Northern Ireland, also said that Mr. Bush should be impeached. About half the audience responded to that with a standing ovation.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...N-peace_12nat.ART.State.Edition1.43b8067.html

 

[lieberalism]

the noble prize is a liberal tool used by european liberals to undermine america.

 

[CSM]

A few nutjobs?

Go to any peace nik rally and you wil see many signs slurring the troops, America, and Pres Bush

Here is another recent example of the peace loving left



Nobel winner apologizes for Bush comment

Irish peace activist's speech at Dallas event gets standing ovation

11:57 PM CDT on Thursday, July 12, 2007
By JAMES HOHMANN / The Dallas Morning News


snip

In a speech before 1,000 people Wednesday, Ms. Williams said that violence is a choice and the push for peace takes hard work and commitment.

"Right now, I could kill George Bush," she said. "No, I don't mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that." As she made her point, she chuckled and some members of the audience laughed.

Ms. Williams, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976 for creating a group that helped start peace talks in Northern Ireland, also said that Mr. Bush should be impeached. About half the audience responded to that with a standing ovation.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...N-peace_12nat.ART.State.Edition1.43b8067.html

Interesting ... a supposed pacifist with the thoughts of a killer and admits to enjoying those thoughts of murder.

 

[Larkinn]

Interesting ... a supposed pacifist with the thoughts of a killer and admits to enjoying those thoughts of murder.

Right...because killers think "I could kill someone...no, I don't mean that".

 

[CSM]

Right...because killers think "I could kill someone...no, I don't mean that".

How about "How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that." I guess we are supposed to ignore that.