House OKs Plan to Withdraw US Troops

[lieberalism]

liberals get excited when they talk about murdering their political enemies. Just look at liberals like stalin. he is the libs hero. him and castro.

 

[Rosotar]

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

How many times do I gotta tell ya RSR?

You're "kook left" slur doesn't hold water anymore.

Now you're talking about Democrats, the MAJORITY of the American people, and soon to be the MAJORITY of your president's party who you affectionately refer to as RINO's as soon as they start thinking independently.

Yet you still insist on having a "boogy-man" in the "kook" left.

Maybe you're the "boogy-man."

What are you going to say when everyone else has jumped ship and you're the only one left? Is everyone else still going to be wrong and you alone are right?

You're fighting a loosing battle!

 

[Larkinn]

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.

Ah, yes, people who kill others are always concerned about nonviolence.

*shrug* it was a stupid thing to say, but it does not qualify as "having the thoughts of a killer, and enjoying those thoughts".

 

[CSM]

Ah, yes, people who kill others are always concerned about nonviolence.

*shrug* it was a stupid thing to say, but it does not qualify as "having the thoughts of a killer, and enjoying those thoughts".

You got the point...it was a stupid thing to say. I suppose you are essentially correct however, since I have no idea what any particular killer thinks about.

What did she really mean then when she says she wishes there were ways to kill people non-violently and what does she mean when she says she would enjoy that?

 

[DeadCanDance]

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.

Ummm, that would be incorrect. Did you believe this, just because Bush said it?

From what I understand, is that none of the benchmarks have been met. Bush was refering to "progress" on meeting some of the benchmarks.

 

[Annie]

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

The choices were: satisfactory, unsatisfactory, or mixed. 8 were satisfactory, 8 were unsatisfactory, 2 were mixed.

 

[Annie]

The 'withdrawal' that isn't really:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071201725.html

...

The measure that passed on Thursday would tell the Pentagon to begin withdrawing combat troops within four months and complete the redeployment by April 1.

Under the bill, an unspecified number of U.S. soldiers would stay in Iraq to train Iraqi soldiers, conduct counter-terrorism operations and protect U.S. diplomats.

 

[Annie]

The 'withdrawal' that isn't really:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071201725.html

It's even less than that:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110kt8gBU::

 

[DeadCanDance]

Originally Posted by Larkinn

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

The choices were: satisfactory, unsatisfactory, or mixed. 8 were satisfactory, 8 were unsatisfactory, 2 were mixed.

Larkinn is right. None of the benchmarks have been met or achieved.

There been "satisfactory" progress or positive "trends" on working towards achieving some of the benchmarks. But, none of the benchmarks have in fact been achieved.

To be fair, the law congress passed did not say that all 18 benchmarks had to be achieved or complete by July 15.

However, it kind of sucks that NONE have been achieved, and in fact, a lot of the most important ones have had an "unsatisfactory" progress grade.

 

[Annie]

Originally Posted by Larkinn

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




Larkinn is right. None of the benchmarks have been met or achieved.

There been "satisfactory" progress or positive "trends" on working towards achieving some of the benchmarks. But, none of the benchmarks have in fact been achieved.

To be fair, the law congress passed did not say that all 18 benchmarks had to be achieved or complete by July 15.

However, it kind of sucks that NONE have been achieved, and in fact, a lot of the most important ones have had an "unsatisfactory" progress grade.

Well gee, I've not seen any of the articles I've read say what you and Larkinn are saying. In fact, the two areas with mixed had written commentary on why they were partial. So where are you getting your information? Counterpunch? Moveon?

 

[hjmick]

Kos.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Well gee, I've not seen any of the articles I've read say what you and Larkinn are saying. In fact, the two areas with mixed had written commentary on why they were partial. So where are you getting your information? Counterpunch? Moveon?

No, the information is Directly from the Bush Adminstrations own report, and Public Law 10-208: the Legislation requiring the updates on benchmarks

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/images/07/12/final.benchmark.report.pdf


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ028.110.pdf

Note, that the Report refers to "satisfactory" progress towards meeting or achieving the goals or benchmarks.

So, in effect NONE of the benchmarks have been achieved, but "some" satisfactory "progress" or "trends" are being made towards meeting/achieving the benchmarks.

That's exactly what I told you. I don't know what you heard on Rush Limbaugh. Congress required the military to report on the progress towards meeting benchmarks. It didn't neccessarily require all the benchmarks to be met by July 15 -- but it's dissapointing that none were, and its alarming that most of the really important benchmarks had unsatisfactory progress being made towards acheiving them.


I'll check back later to see if you admitted being wrong.

 

[Annie]

No, the information is Directly from the Bush Adminstrations own report, and Public Law 10-208: the Legislation requiring the updates on benchmarks

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/images/07/12/final.benchmark.report.pdf


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ028.110.pdf

Note, that the Report refers to "satisfactory" progress towards meeting or achieving the goals or benchmarks.

So, in effect NONE of the benchmarks have been achieved, but "some" satisfactory "progress" or "trends" are being made towards meeting/achieving the benchmarks.

That's exactly what I told you. I don't know what you heard on Rush Limbaugh. Congress required the military to report on the progress towards meeting benchmarks. It didn't neccessarily require all the benchmarks to be met by July 15 -- but it's dissapointing that none were, and its alarming that most of the really important benchmarks had unsatisfactory progress being made towards acheiving them.


I'll check back later to see if you admitted being wrong.

Once again, you show your ignorance of my posts and what I am influenced by. Rush ain't it.

Funny how all the major media outlets reported as what I posted, not a one gave the convoluted nonsense you posted, but go ahead and tighten that tinfoil as you suck up the lefty kool aid.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Once again, you show your ignorance of my posts and what I am influenced by. Rush ain't it.

Funny how all the major media outlets reported as what I posted, not a one gave the convoluted nonsense you posted, but go ahead and tighten that tinfoil as you suck up the lefty kool aid.

Well, this was just a childish response. You asked where I got the source, and I gave you the direct link to the legislation and the adminstrations report. They completely support what I just told you:

Public Law 110-28 -- May 25, 2007:

-Section 1314(a)(9)It is essential that (Iraq) set out measurable and achievable benchmarks….The United States strategy in Iraq…shall be conditioned on the Iraqi Government meeting benchmarks.

-Section 1314(b)(1)(A): The President shall submit an initial report…not later that July 15, 2007, assessing….whether satisfactory “progress
toward" meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being, achieved.

Presidents Initial Iraq Report:

-Standard of Measurement: Section 1324(b)(2)(A): “The President shall submit an initial report….declaring, whether satisfactory progress
toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved….(by assessing if) present trend data demonstrates a positive trajectory, which is
tracking towards satisfactory accomplishment (of benchmark)

This is exactly what I told you.

NO benchmarks have been met or achieved. That’s okay though, they weren’t required to meet all or even most of the benchmarks. Unfortunately, none have been met or achieved. But, at a minimum, they were required to demonstrate whether they at least had made satisfactory progress toward meeting the benchmark. Yet, alarmingly, less than half even exhibit satisfactory progress towards achieving the benchmarks. That’s less than 50%.


In school, a grade of less than 50% is a failing grade. Wouldn't you agree?


I’ll await you’re admission, that you were wrong. None of the benchmarks have been met/achieved yet.

Thanks in advance for your honesty.

 

[red states rule]

How many times do I gotta tell ya RSR?

You're "kook left" slur doesn't hold water anymore.

Now you're talking about Democrats, the MAJORITY of the American people, and soon to be the MAJORITY of your president's party who you affectionately refer to as RINO's as soon as they start thinking independently.

Yet you still insist on having a "boogy-man" in the "kook" left.

Maybe you're the "boogy-man."

What are you going to say when everyone else has jumped ship and you're the only one left? Is everyone else still going to be wrong and you alone are right?

You're fighting a loosing battle!

the libs will continue to stick their head in the sand and ignore the truth

Olbermann Claims Counter-terrorism Report 'Created' to Give Chertoff Credibility
Posted by Jason Aslinger on July 13, 2007 - 15:22.
Does Keith Olbermann even read the MSNBC website ?


On Thursday’s Countdown (as well as his blog “The News Hole”), MSNBC host Keith Olbermann continued his attack on Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff’s “gut feeling” about increased terrorist vulnerability.


In his expert analysis, Olbermann theorized that Chertoff’s comment was a mistake, and that the Bush administration hurriedly (actually in one day) “created” a counter-terrorism report, indicating increased Al Qeada strength, to cover Chertoff’s supposed mis-statement. Olbermann claims of Chertoff: “You shot off your bazoo, and then this National Counter-Terrorism Center report was rushed out -- even created -- to cover you, to give you credibility.” Olbermann later described the sequence of events as: “a gaffe backfilled by an ‘instant report.’"


There’s just one problem with this theory. Olbermann’s own network ran an AP story hours earlier in which it was pointed out that the couter-terrorism report is the collaborative effort of 16 separate spy agencies, and are “the most authoritative written judgments that reflect the consensus long-term thinking of senior intelligence analysts.” (emphasis added)

While Olbermann is usually predisposed to call the Bush administration incompetent, he now wants you to believe that a politically-driven multi-agency National Intelligence Estimate was created literally overnight. Olbermann should know that this type of governmental efficiency exists only on “24.”

http://newsbusters.org/node/14076

 

[actsnoblemartin]

i disagree with what the house did.

 

[Annie]

Well, this was just a childish response. You asked where I got the source, and I gave you the direct link to the legislation and the adminstrations report. They completely support what I just told you:









This is exactly what I told you.

NO benchmarks have been met or achieved. That’s okay though, they weren’t required to meet all or even most of the benchmarks. Unfortunately, none have been met or achieved. But, at a minimum, they were required to demonstrate whether they at least had made satisfactory progress toward meeting the benchmark. Yet, alarmingly, less than half even exhibit satisfactory progress towards achieving the benchmarks. That’s less than 50%.


In school, a grade of less than 50% is a failing grade. Wouldn't you agree?


I’ll await you’re admission, that you were wrong. None of the benchmarks have been met/achieved yet.

Thanks in advance for your honesty.

I often will come back and say, whoops, I read that wrong or what have you. This isn't one of those cases. It's 'making satisfactory...or achieved,' most often in nearly any endeavor the final outcome is always 'developing.'

What I do NOT disagree with is that the Iraqis could be doing a whole lot more. There are serious problems as our military reported yesterday having to shoot some Iraqi policemen that were aiding the insurrgents. So no, I don't think I'm wearing rose glasses.

 

[red states rule]

i disagree with what the house did.

So do alot of Americans - the Dems will find that out in Nov 08

 

[roadhouse158]

I think we should be able to vote on Congress yearly..Not every two years. They have nothing better to do than waste tax dollars by spending time on something they know will fail. I think the next time I vote, I will vote against anyone that is currently in office. Congress should be working on Immigration every day. Not taking breaks to waste time on a useless cause. NOBODY knows what every American person wants. NO ONE. Not every American votes. The majority only vote when it's a Presidential election. I hate that rhetoric. The dems won congress because people who are democrats were inspired enough to go out and vote. That doesn't mean that the majority of America wants to leave Iraq. Not that I am saying the majority want to stay in Iraq. No one knows. Congress hasn't been worth a crap for a long time. Democrat or Republican ran ones. Immigration, social security, and companies going overseas are the major issues for ALL Americans. That's what they should be working on. What a waste.

 

[mattskramer]

I think we should be able to vote on Congress yearly..Not every two years.

Do you think that we should be able to vote on president yearly..Not every 4 years?