Comments on: House Passes Iraq Funding With Withdrawal Timetable: Veto Certain

By: kritter

kritter — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:01:38 +0000

There is supposed to be enough money to supply the troops for at least a month- so its not down to the wire yet, despite the rhetoric.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:58:31 +0000

If congress wants a time line, give money but enough for a calculated withdrawal, tell the President: here, all the money you get, when it runs out … you better have a different plan.
If Bush wants support for why the war needs to be funded … START EXPLAINING IT. I am not 12, I understand if there is no money, troops die, *I* understand if we back off the violence comes to us [look at the enemy reaction to the time line votes and debates, there is a link!!!] BUT Congress DOES have the right to say:
‘No more money, sorry, we recommend you use the remainder of what you have to withdraw, we won’t give MORE money for that if you waste it!’
The current mentality of ‘Make THEM look like the bad guy, so I can look good…’ from both sides is costing the lives of our troops, and making our leaders look worse then 8 year olds … mom he won’t stop poking me…..

By: kritter

kritter — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:20:07 +0000

Thanks, Shaun!

There was a young man from USAID on c-pan this morning, who is trying to raise the profile of Iraqi refugees who, because of our invasion, lost everything they have, and are now living hand-to-mouth in neighboring countries. Many were forced to leave after helping our efforts and receiving death threats from their own countrymen. They are being ignored by the Bush administration, who, true to form, views helping them as an admission of defeat. Those are the people we should feel morally obligated to help, but we aren’t doing a damn thing. I think his name was Kirk Johnson- what impressed me was that beyond helping these people (that he feels have been used and then betrayed by our government) he has no political agenda or self-interest in pursuing this.

I believe that we should recognize the reality, and move to damage control now.

By: DLS

DLS — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:10:52 +0000

Bush is actually going to veto a bill?

By: House Votes in Favor of Withdrawal from Iraq « Michael P.F. van der GaliÃ«n

House Votes in Favor of Withdrawal from Iraq « Michael P.F. van der GaliÃ«n — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:32:14 +0000

[...] More at The Moderate Voice (great post about the political implications), The Newshoggers (I haven’t forgot about the post about terrorism / radicalization in Europe), The American Street and Blue Crab Boulevard. [...]

By: Shaun Mullen

Shaun Mullen — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:28:15 +0000

Kritter:

You nailed it perfectly.

By: White Agent

White Agent — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:12:02 +0000

Michael van der Galien- Why don’t the Dutch go save them? No, they die.

By: kritter

kritter — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:34:11 +0000

Approval of how the president is handling the war is down to 22%, with only 12% believing that the surge is working. I actually think that Petraeus is doing a stellar job with what he’s got to work with, but the Iraqis are not meeting the political benchmarks that were set for them, and resent us for pressuring them to reconcile. The situation is not under our control, which is why ,unfortunately ,I believe that we need to allow them to work it out for themselves- even if the violence escalates.

By: Spinoneone

Spinoneone — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:50:21 +0000

If Iraq and Afghanistan were the only places that the US could fight militant, radical Islam, and IF we could be absolutely sure that the fight could be confined to those two locations, then getting out of Iraq in the near future might make sense. However, most Dems and many independents are unwilling, unable, or simply refuse to recognize the fact that Islam commands its followers to rule the world and eliminate the “kafirs” or unbelievers. Any Muslim who is an active believer in his/her religion would acknowledge the “fact” that Islam is the “superior” religion and that Allah and Mohammad command them to spread it world-wide. Islam is not just a religion. It is a socio-political construct which aims at world domination with a single religion, one or a few leaders who have 50 or so “wise Men, including theologians and shari’a law experts” to advise them, and few or no freedoms as we now know and practice them in the West. If Islam wins, it means the end of Western Civilization and democracy. N.B.: “democracy” as a word in Arabic is a borrowed word. It never existed in antique Arabic in the time of Mohammad. If we do set a date certain to remove our forces from Iraq, history may look back on it as the beginning of the world-wide success of Islam.

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:31:16 +0000

Perhaps the Democrats should start answering questions like “and how do you intend to make sure that millions of Iraqis won’t get killed once the US withdraws?” The US started this war, you all are responsible.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 05:01:16 +0000

AR Why did Sanctorum,Allen and Weldon lose their seats? I think the Iraq war is a big factor and both sided are still playing politics instead of doing something.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 05:01:11 +0000

It’s a little interesting that Bush isn’t just finding ways to sign the bill and then ignore it. There are provisions for troops staying to train Iraqis and other items. It would be a typical maneuver to stay and “train Iraqis” in the tens of thousands. Eventually, there would be another Congressional showdown, but I bet Bush could get another half a year to year out of delaying tactics.

By: White Agent

White Agent — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 04:58:28 +0000

AustinRoth- Ya think so? Bush runs out of war money in July.

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 04:36:24 +0000

Kabuki theater, meant only to tee up the 2008 campaigns, and nothing else.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 04:21:58 +0000

The votes were almost completely along party lines. The Liberal Democrats without powerfull comittee seat voted against and Kucinich. Of the three anti-war Republicans (Gilchrest and Jones) voted for the resolution. Ron Paul voted with his party, but his vote was consistant with his philosiphy, he has many papers stating his points. The talking points on both sides are for the most point mindless drivel…

By: White Agent

White Agent — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 04:15:53 +0000

Joe- I am in perfect agreement with Elrod. Not only has this invasion/war made more jihadists that want to kill us, but it has our own allies looking at us with grave suspicion!

We are going bankrupt with this war. We can “take” any part of the middle east we want, we just can’t control it after we do. It is much easier for anti-American powers in the region to create more insurgents than ever it is for us to add more troops. We simply do not have them. That is why McCain and the war republicans have absolutely no credibility with their “escalate the war” platform. Its just brain dead.

It is much better to pull out, watch the animals butcher each other on TV, and wait till world opinion changes. We can always invade again. We do invasions well and if we do we just might have to world on our side.

By: Elrod

Elrod — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 03:18:26 +0000

I love this quote: “There will be no greater event to empower radical Islam than our retreat and defeat from Iraq.” Sadly, Jeb Hensarling fails to realize that no event has empowered radical Islam more than our invasion of Iraq. Undoing that invasion won’t be easy, but it’s a necessary first step toward engaging Al Qaeda on theater that we can manage – like Afghanistan.

By: stevesh

stevesh — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:48:50 +0000

“But as the Times notes, BOTH sides are now gearing up for a longer-range battle…”

Sigh. GodSpeed, Patreaus.
______________________________________________________________

DUBAI (Reuters) Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:14am ET – Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden is orchestrating militants’ operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior commander of Afghan Islamist group Taliban said in remarks broadcast on Wednesday.