| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Reid: Congress Will Endorse Iraq Pullout |
| 2007-04-23 |
| Defying a fresh veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass legislation within days requiring the start of a troop withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday. The legislation also sets a goal of a complete pullout by April 1, he said. In remarks prepared for delivery, Reid said that under the legislation the troops that remain after next April 1 could only train Iraqi security units, protect U.S forces and conduct "targeted counter- terror operations." Reid spoke a few hours after Bush said he will reject any legislation along the lines of what Democrats will pass. "I will strongly reject an artificial timetable (for) withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job," the president said. Bush made his comments to reporters in the Oval Office as he met with senior military leaders, including his top general in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus. Taken together, Reid's speech and Bush's comments inaugurated a week of extraordinary confrontation between the president and the new Democratic-controlled Congress over a war that has taken the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops. Negotiators for the House and Senate arranged a late-afternoon meeting to ratify the timetable that Reid laid out. The demand for a change in course will be attached to a funding bill that is needed to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. |
| Posted by:Dave D. |
| #10 FOX > BARNES/KRAUTHAMMER > The Dems want the WH in 2008 at any price/costs. O'REILLY Radio SHow > THE FAR LEFT + SECULAR PROGRESSIVES IN THIS COUNTRY ARE DELIBERATELY FOSTERING ANARCHY [CHAOS] IN ORDER TO BEGET REGULATION + SOCIALISM, WHILE DENYING THAT THEY ARE. For the Dems and anti-Dubya-ists to argue for pullout, withdrawal, + redeployment, etc. when Dubya is actually winning and entrenching IS SSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH SYNON WID COVERT SUPPORT FOR MASSIVE GOVT. SPENDING, REGULATION, + GOVT INTERVENTION-CONTROL EVERYWHERE IN AMERICA. As said or inferred times before, DUBYA ENTRENCHING > the day is looming for MOUD-MULLAHS IN IRAN THAT HAVING A DEMOCRATIC POTUS IN THE WH AFTER 2008 IS NOT GONNA HELP THE RADICAL ISLAMIST AGENDA. Presuming that Dubya doesn't stop entrenching, which IMO is likely despite any DEM-Congressional obstructionism, and the Dems win in 2008, essens means MOUD-MULLAHS MAY NOT SEE ANY TYPE OF PER SE US WITHDRAWAL UNTIL YEAR 2010-2012, IOW, after the middle of apost-Dubya Dem FIRST TERM = towards the second term of a post-Dubya Dem POTUS.MOUD-MULLAHS > DUBYA OR POST-DUBYA, THE USA HAS A LOT OF TIME BTWN 2007-2012 TO DO ANYTHING FROM ITS POSITION OF STRENGTH IN THE ME, WHILE RADICAL ISLAM FROM 2007-BEYOND GETS STEADILY WEAKER. The longer Dubya entrenches, the harder it will be for Iran = Radical Islam to challenge and remove the USA from the ME-Muslim World. Dubya is still POTUS for 21 more months, until after January 2009. THE THREAT BY AL QAEDA AGZ BRITAIN vv SEEMING NUCLEAR TERROR ON PAR WID HIROSHIMA-NAGASAKI TELLS ME RADICAL ISLAM IS AWARE THEY'RE LOSING ERGO UP THE ANTE, TO ESCALATE UNTO GLOBAL ANARCHY + SELF/MULTILATERAL, MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-04-23 22:39 |
| #9 hey harry? how's your various family members' beltway bandit business doing? Have they dropped your name enough to scrounge away a few mill this year? |
| Posted by: anymouse 2007-04-23 21:56 |
| #8 |
| Posted by: DMFD 2007-04-23 19:33 |
| #7 Neither Reid nor Pelosi will attend Petraeus' briefings, either. I think we all know the word for these folks. |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2007-04-23 15:54 |
| #6 Calling Senator Lieberman....... |
| Posted by: Brett 2007-04-23 15:37 |
| #5 Reid's ploy here is very very visible and concrete. That is not the usual dem playbook, which is mostly be vauge and say crap like "its for the children". But this is specific action that can have a direct causal trail for people to follow back. If the dems succeed in doing this and it all goes to shit in Iraq with millions killed then the evidence will be as clear as day. They are laying their cards on the table betting for a no-cost surrender. That ain't likely to happen. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2007-04-23 14:55 |
| #4 I'm not so sure about the constitutional issues. From the Iraqi resolution, power to conduct the war was transferred to the President. That part is constitutional. But Congress retains the authority to fund the war through appropriate appropriations legislation. That part is constitutional. What I'm genuinely not sure of is whether Congress can attach conditions to the funding: this money can be spent only for these actions on the war. It's idiotic for the Congress to think they can manage the war, particularly since what is driving the Democrats is NOT any concern over the war, or the Iraqi people, BUT politics, and especially 2008. But is it constitutional? I'm no legal scholar. But I'm plenty worried. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-04-23 13:35 |
| #3 No, they don't. But when has that ever mattered tp a Democrat? |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-04-23 13:22 |
| #2 Congress doesn't have the Constitutional Athority to do this. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-04-23 13:04 |
| #1 Mr. Small speaks. Film at eleven... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-04-23 13:01 |
