House, Senate both pass surrender legislation

[Little-Acorn]

Last November, we, the Amercan people, voted to put Democrats into majorities in both the House and the Senate. Many of those Democrats had promised to cut and run from Iraq. Now they have kept their word.

There is no word yet from the troops, who will be asked to keep fighting and dying for a country we will turn over to the enemy on Oct. 1.

We are getting the government we deserve. Unfortunately, so are our troops and allies.

President Bush has promised to veto the bill.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOEQF00&show_article=1

Congress Passes Iraq Bill, Veto Awaits

Apr 26 02:18 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war.

At the White House, the president immediately promised a veto.

"It is amazing that legislation urgently needed to fund our troops took 80 days to make its way around the Capitol. But that's where we are," said deputy press secretary Dana Perino.

The 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president's threatened veto. Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.

"The president has failed in his mission to bring peace and stability to the people of Iraq," said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He later added: "It's time to bring our troops home from Iraq."

The $124.2 billion bill requires troop withdrawals to begin Oct. 1, or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The House passed the measure Wednesday by a 218-208 vote.

Across the Potomac River at the Pentagon, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, told reporters the war effort likely will "get harder before it gets easier."

Republicans said the vote amounted to little more than political theater because the bill would be dead on arrival after reaching the White House. Bush said he will veto the bill so long as it contains a timetable on Iraq, as well as $20 billion in spending added by Democrats.

"The solution is simple: Take out the surrender date, take out the pork, and get the funds to our troops," said Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Republicans Gordon Smith of Oregon and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska sided with 48 Democrats and Independent Bernard Sanders in supporting the bill. No Democrats joined the 45 Republicans in voting against it. Missing from the vote were GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both staunch advocates of the president's Iraq policy.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., sided with Republicans in opposing the bill.

"We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between al-Qaida terrorism or sectarian violence. Or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving," Lieberman said.

[gabosaurus]

This is not surrender. It is deployment. We are merely removing our troops from an area where they are no longer wanted or needed.
Would you prefer that our troops continue to die on a daily basis?
No, don't answer that. I already know that you do.

[Hobbit]

So, our enemy wants us to do something...and we do it...by taking all of our troop presence from the area they want to control...and this is not surrender?

[typomaniac]

So, our enemy wants us to do something...and we do it...by taking all of our troop presence from the area they want to control...and this is not surrender?This is "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." :p

[darin]

I quote Myself:


Overheard in a cave or safe house somewhere in Iraq:

(laughing)"Ahmed!! Ahmed!! Did you see CNN? The US Congress is telling the President to give up! (laughing Harder) "

"Yes, Sayir! I saw that! I TOLD you the Americans are lead by pussies! All we have to DO is kill a few of them, and they roll-over quicker than a 1-dinar-per night whore!"

"True, my brother!" Ahmed says, "Soon we'll have Iraqi Oil to fund our fight against Non-believers. Soon we'll have an entire COUNTRY from which to launch attack after attack against the US! Now, it will prove Allah is on our side if they elect a Democrat President in 2008. If so, 911 will look like a mosquito-bite!"

[Pale Rider]

We need a war right here in our own country. A civil war.

[Mr. P]

Last November, we, the Amercan people, voted to put Democrats into majorities in both the House and the Senate. Many of those Democrats had promised to cut and run from Iraq. Now they have kept their word.

There is no word yet from the troops, who will be asked to keep fighting and dying for a country we will turn over to the enemy on Oct. 1.

We are getting the government we deserve. Unfortunately, so are our troops and allies.

President Bush has promised to veto the bill.

-----------------------------------------------------

.
Oh yes there is...
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=46040&postcount=1

[gabosaurus]

Who are we fighting (exactly) and what exactly are we fighting for?
The Iraqi people do not want us in their country. The day we leave, the country will further descend into chaos. Whether it is next week or five years from now.
You can't open Pandora's Box and then expect to close it again. How many car and roadside bombs were regularly detonated in Iraq before the U.S. invasion? How many U.S. troops died on a daily basis?

What can happen if we deploy that is worse than what is happening now? Other than the fact that Americans will no longer die unnecessarily?
I know the hawks and warmongers will need to find a new way to get their stiffys, but they can work on that later.

[stephanie]

Who are we fighting (exactly) and what exactly are we fighting for?
The Iraqi people do not want us in their country. The day we leave, the country will further descend into chaos. Whether it is next week or five years from now.
You can't open Pandora's Box and then expect to close it again. How many car and roadside bombs were regularly detonated in Iraq before the U.S. invasion? How many U.S. troops died on a daily basis?

What can happen if we deploy that is worse than what is happening now? Other than the fact that Americans will no longer die unnecessarily?
I know the hawks and warmongers will need to find a new way to get their stiffys, but they can work on that later.

Who....Can take a person seriously, who continues to talk about chubbies, stiffies, etc.......Good grief....:slap:

[darin]

Who....Can take a person seriously, who continues to talk about chubbies, stiffies, etc.......Good grief....:slap:

Nobody takes that fool seriously. In fact, if y'all stop quoting and replied to that fool's ignorance, the board would be a MUCH better place :D

[loosecannon]

So, our enemy wants us to do something...and we do it...by taking all of our troop presence from the area they want to control...and this is not surrender?


Who is our enemy?

Bush blew it big time by not declaring victory and leaving after Saddam was captured.

It isn't too late given his record of saying it like it isn't to just declare a success and a deployment.

As the American people, whom he works for, and the Baker Hamilton group, who gave him the presidency, have asked.

Bush could say anything at all and 32% of America would swear by it.

He could say he walks on water, YES!

He could say God told him it is time to move on to other projects, YES!!

He could say He never lied about WMD, YES!!!

See, those faithful will believe anything.

[loosecannon]

We need a war right here in our own country. A civil war.


I can barely stand to ask who we would be fighting and who "we" are in that war.

[Samantha]

I can barely stand to ask who we would be fighting and who "we" are in that war.I guess he's so bloodthirsty, he not only wants our troops to die in a war in Iraq, he wants his own fellow American citizens to kill eachother. I wonder if he is on the mental patient list to deny gun ownership? That list needs to be seriously worked on.

[manu1959]

it would appear that people are happy that the US has lost this battle....

i am curious....what happens to iraq next.....what happens to the US now?

[Yurt]

This is not surrender. It is deployment. We are merely removing our troops from an area where they are no longer wanted or needed.
Would you prefer that our troops continue to die on a daily basis?
No, don't answer that. I already know that you do.


This is the most irrational comment, wait, not the most, but very close, I have ever heard. You have no idea the thoughts of that poster. Because that poster believes in our military and supports their actions in Iraq, that necessarily means they prefer the troops to die? That is not just a leap of logic, but head first dive, from 5000 feet up, into a concrete slab.

You have no proof whatsoever that bringing the troops home would mean less deaths. You have no proof whatsoever that bringing the troops home would keep AQ from attacking us again. None. And don't whine about me not having proof, because I already have it:

They have not. We are there. They are not here.

Notwithstanding AQ, it does seem like the iraqis simply want to kill themselves. But, this is only a minority of Iraqis. The extremists from the the sects of Islam. Using your "logic":

You prefer that Iraqis continue to die on a daily basis, in greater numbers because the US is not there. Wait, no, don't answer that. I already know that you do.

[Gaffer]

I think we need to redeploy too.

I suggest we redeploy north to iran. That alone would stem half the violence in iraq. Once iran is taken down we don't stick around. we redepoly again to syria. Again we won't stick around, we get ready for redeployment to korea.

A few other countries come to mind after that but I'm sure there will be a lot of talking and cooperation from most of them after that.

[loosecannon]

it would appear that people are happy that the US has lost this battle....

i am curious....what happens to iraq next.....what happens to the US now?


Manu, technically speaking we won the Iraq war before we lost it.

We could have easily left after saddam was captured and been victors.

But we stayed, stretched our goals beyond the acheivable horizon and ended up in Guagmireville, Axis of Mideast. 00911

Staying longer only increases the terror threat we are creating and makes the situation worse for Iraqis and ourselves.

There is and has been nothing we can do for Iraq short of a draft, 500,000 soldiers and $500 billion/year in costs.

Bush blew it.

[manu1959]

the past matters not....the US has chosen to quit.....the US are quitters....

we will leave ... iran will take control of the middle east along with syria ....

wish the isralies and saudis luck.....

we will soon pull out of afganistan ......

[loosecannon]

I think we need to redeploy too.

I suggest we redeploy north to iran.

Iran is due east. Turkey is north.

http://www.srpublications.com/tools/communications/images/iraq-map.jpg

[loosecannon]

the past matters not....the US has chosen to quit.....the US are quitters....

we will leave ... iran will take control of the middle east along with syria ....

wish the isralies and saudis luck.....

we will soon pull out of afganistan ......


Yeah, when we left VN they said that communist NVN and china or Russia would control VN.

But it never happened.

The primary evidence against the domino theory is the failure of communism to take hold in Thailand, Indonesia, and other large Southeast Asian countries after the end of the Vietnam War, as Eisenhower's speech argued it would.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

[Yurt]

Manu, technically speaking we won the Iraq war before we lost it.

We could have easily left after saddam was captured and been victors.

But we stayed, stretched our goals beyond the acheivable horizon and ended up in Guagmireville, Axis of Mideast. 00911

Staying longer only increases the terror threat we are creating and makes the situation worse for Iraqis and ourselves.

There is and has been nothing we can do for Iraq short of a draft, 500,000 soldiers and $500 billion/year in costs.

Bush blew it.

Left after Saddam was captured? What then? What is your idea of how things would have progressed and/or should have been. I would like the full scenario, not some quip.

[manu1959]

Left after Saddam was captured? What then? What is your idea of how things would have progressed and/or should have been. I would like the full scenario, not some quip.

things were so peaceful then.....it was only after saddam was capture that the freedom figthers showed up.....

[Yurt]

things were so peaceful then.....it was only after saddam was capture that the freedom figthers showed up.....

just ask saddam and his sons...

[Yurt]

oh wait, they are dead. something virtually all iraqis wanted...