Democrats in the Senate surprised even themselves yesterday when they got just enough votes to hang onto their troop withdrawal timeline for Iraq. Republicans hoped to amend the emergency military funding bill and strip the withdrawal language, but fell short by 2 votes. The actual bill comes to a vote any day now. Of course, the House already voted in favor of a firm deadline of August 31, 2008. The Senate's version sets a March 31, 2008 deadline, but it isn't binding. The promised presidential veto, on the other hand, would be. We'll let our favorite Political Junkie dig into this vote, and where it leaves both sides if the president follows through with a veto. Will Democrats vote for a bill without a timeline? Or will they risk voting down a military funding bill if it doesn't include a deadline?
Blog Of The Nation
does anybody think things will ever get better in Iraq, no its a lost cause.
Every body seems so hotheaded there theres no sense wasting our time and TROOPS LIVES! we need to not worry so much about "Innocent Civilians" who don't thave the guts to stand up for them selves. Remember Japan, when we dropped the 2 bombs there we went so worried about those civilians. The Iraqi people need to start killing insurgents when they find them if they really want freedom they need to act like they want it.
I am confused by the difference between a date certain and not being in Iraq forever. If not forever does that not at least suggest a date?
Is it not correct that:
President Bush may veto the supplemental war funding bill,
BUT the President may no force Congress to pass a funding bill without the time limits.
AND if there is no supplemental authorization bill, is this not the same as the passing of a bill to cut off funding?
ALSO:
If we will supposedly know if the surge strategy will work by November of 2007, what is the problem with having a time limit of August 2008?
Phil Pedersen
Denver, Colorado
The congressman is either misguided or misinformed. The notion that the funding of the military activities is lending support to the Iraqis who have aided us is a hollow gesture.
When we continually abandon those who have served us materially as translators and aids as has been reported on NPR. While we refuse to offer sanctuary to those attempting to flee the cluster boondoogle,we show our callous misunderstanding of conditions on the ground.
I think more members of Congress need to visit the war zone and get a better understanding of what is actually happening on the ground, rather than taking for granted what they are being told.
I wish you had asked Senator Shelby why it is okay to let the Iraqis know that we intend to leave sometime, but if we put a date on our time for withdrawl then that is a signal to the insurgents that we are pulling out and a "prescription for defeat." If we haven't been able to make any progress in four years why should we expect significant progress by Labor Day. Even General Petraeus has indicated that a substantially greater number of troops is required for a successful "surge" strategy, but the administration cannot accomodate that request. So, we continue to fight a war without the commitment required and the public won't support this war, because they haven't seen any signals that the government can make any progress.
I am pretty amazed by how pathetic your analysis of "politics" is. I just listened to your "Political Junkie" segment, and you did not once mention a political issue, but only talked about the nature of the political game. I expect significantly more from NPR and I am extremely disappointed. Actually, it is disgusting. Your "Political Junkie" has does absolutely nothing to improve our democracy or help us understand anything about serious problems, but he has reported a gossip column. If I wanted that, I would read the National Enquirer. I listen to NPR because I want to understand issues and I want to become an informed person. I actually became dumber by listening to the "Political Junkie" segment. It left me with the idea that interpersonal issues between candidates, or how much money they raise, are more important then their positions on national health care, global poverty, tax policy the environment, the war against Iraq, or millions of other important issues. I can't overstate my disappointment in this pathetic coverage. YUCK.
Putting a time limit on funding to Iraq is telling the troops that we believe they deserve better than to be expected to sacrifice indefinitely with no hope of results and no hope of an end.
The time limit is only a statement that the failures have been on the part of the defective and flawed policies of their commander in chief and his administration. IT IS NOT A STATEMENT TO THE TROOPS THAT THEY ARE NOT COMPETENT OR THAT THEIR EFFORTS ARE NOT APPRECIATED!!!
I have always found it curious that the President believes he can veto a bill and then think the American people will blame it on the opposing party for not sending him a bill he likes. Isn't it somewhat arrogant to believe that only he has the right to execute the duties of office? After all, Congress was charged with the power of the purse. We elected the Democrats to put a check and balance on the President, and that is what they are doing. This reminds me of another George, some 230 years ago, who thought that only he had the right answers and the God-given right to rule. Perhaps the President needs to be reminded that he is not a Monarch.
Here are some obvious words on Iraq that no one seems to be saying:
We won the war. It took the US military some thirty plus days to completely overwhelm Iraq. The war was over once the Iraqi military collapsed.
What we have been involved in for the past four years is not a war but rather an occupation. Four years is nothing for this type of action.
Following World War II the occupation of Germany took far more then the four years it took the defeat the German armed forces. The observation that has become popular of late, comparing World War II to Iraq, is a complete fallacy. The occupation and restoration of the German society took decades. In fact, we still have troops on the ground in Germany more then 50 years later.
The problem with Iraq is not that the fighting is taking longer then expected. The problem with Iraq is that the United States of America, its leadership and the American people as a whole, lack the will to invest the time and resources necessary to rebuild the Iraqi society. We broke it, but we are unwilling to make the sacrifices needed to fix it.
And in my humble opinion this is the fault of the Republican leadership that ran the government unheeded until last November; pushing for war and failing to properly fund its aftermath. This is the fault of Democratic leadership who gave in to fear and lent their support to the president for the invasion. And this is the fault of everyone who calls themselves American for failing to object while these things were happening.
For those of you who start at the bottom of the comment string and read up, and are intimidated by the number of rather lengthy posts up there, let me give you the Cliff's Notes version of the above posts begining with the one immediately above (post 10).
Post 10: This is well worth reading for yourself in it's entirety, and doesn't lend itself to abbreviation. It is by far the most insightful.
Post 9: Bush doesn't know jack.
Post 8: Time limits related to the Iraq war are good.
Post 7: NPR political coverage sucks.
Post 6: Time limits related to the Iraq war are good.
Post 5: Congress doesn't know jack.
Post 4: The Congressman doesn't know jack.
Post 3: Time limits related to the Iraq war are good.
Post 2: I am confused about dates.
Post 1: Time limits related to the Iraq war are good.
So, in the aggregate, neither the executive nor legislative branches of our government know jack, time limits in Iraq are good, one person is confused, another doesn't like NPR political coverage, and there's one truly pithy commentary on the situation in Iraq. See how much time that saved you?
Thos
I find it very surprising the House and Senate want to get involved in telling the President how to run the war in Iraq and equally surprised that the President doesn't take them up on the suggestions. The war is going poorly and there are no good outcomes. Dictates from Congress would get the President "off the hook" and he could than blame Congress for the failure in Iraq. Just like basketball???. If you know the ball is going out-of-bounds, you don't want to be the last person touching it. Give the President everything he wants. If you give him enough rope, he will hang himself.
On the other hand, it would be wise for Congress to demand a clear and definitive roadmap from the President. If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there.
Congress has spoken, Bush must compromise. He doesn't have the ability to get a blank check any more. Congress has every right to exert the power of the purse and is following a tradition of imposing conditions on conflicts.
senator shelby's response to 50 iraqi police going around shooting people is "well, it's a tough neighborhood." is this guy on drugs?
Comments
Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information.