Obama bill to cap Iraq troops

[stephanie]

Go to your room.....Little boy..


From correspondents in Washington
January 19, 2007 08:15am


BARACK Obama, a likely US presidential contender, has introduced legislation that would cap the number of American troops in Iraq, joining the debate over President George W. Bush's new war strategy.

Speaking on the floor of the US Senate, Mr Obama said today his plan would also call for the gradual redeployment of US troops from the region "within two to four months".

"This measure would stop the escalation of the war in Iraq," the Democratic senator said, adding that "it's my belief that simply opposing the surge is not enough".

Mr Bush's announcement last week that he would deploy 21,500 additional troops to Iraq has sparked stiff opposition from Democrats, who took control of the Congress on January 4, as well as some politicians of his own Republican Party.

The plan to restrict US troop strength follows similar bills proposed by Democratic US senators Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd - both also likely contenders for the 2008 presidential nomination.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21083900-38198,00.html

[darin]

I wonder why he believes in telling terrorists "Okay - but we're ONLY sending THIS many...so keep killing them, and we'll go away."

:(

That man is destruction for america as we know it.

[Gunny]

I wonder why he believes in telling terrorists "Okay - but we're ONLY sending THIS many...so keep killing them, and we'll go away."

:(

That man is destruction for america as we know it.

As I've said for a couple of years, the Democrats REQUIRE a loss in Iraq to substantiate their bullshit rhetoric. Now that they have some power, they are actively seeking that defeat.

[avatar4321]

What is the point? They don't have authority to do this. They can complain all they want. But the President is the Commander-in-chief. If they dont like it the only thing they can do is stop funding.

[retiredman]

What is the point? They don't have authority to do this. They can complain all they want. But the President is the Commander-in-chief. If they dont like it the only thing they can do is stop funding.

I think capping funding at current force levels makes a great deal of sense.

[jillian]

What is the point? They don't have authority to do this. They can complain all they want. But the President is the Commander-in-chief. If they dont like it the only thing they can do is stop funding.

Actually, the executive is the CinC, but can't do anything without Congress allocating funds. You know, the whole checks and balances thing. His power isn't unlimited. I know how you guys must hate that.

[5stringJeff]

Actually, the executive is the CinC, but can't do anything without Congress allocating funds. His power isn't unlimited. I know how you guys must hate that.

Still, the CinC can work within given funding levels, especially given that Congress has already approved military action within Iraq.

[jillian]

Still, the CinC can work within given funding levels, especially given that Congress has already approved military action within Iraq.

Yes. But them capping funding is perfectly appropriate since it's their only way of preventing Bush from acting unilaterally. Seems to be a pretty bi-partisan feeling, too.

[retiredman]

Oly Snowe, the senior senator from the great state of Maine just signed on!

[Grumplestillskin]

I wonder why he believes in telling terrorists "Okay - but we're ONLY sending THIS many...so keep killing them, and we'll go away."

:(

That man is destruction for america as we know it.

Your verbose overstatement does nothing to add to the debate Darin. Emotive, rhetoric language totally misrepresenting what he is saying, with nothing but opinion to back it up, does nothing to enhance your POV either...

[Gaffer]

we are in the middle of a war. Putting restriction on the president at this point just reenforces my belief the dems WANT to lose for their own political gain.

The dems have only two goals. Make Bush look bad at any cost. And lose the war on terror.

[darin]

Your verbose overstatement does nothing to add to the debate Darin. Emotive, rhetoric language totally misrepresenting what he is saying, with nothing but opinion to back it up, does nothing to enhance your POV either...



Okay Bunny - So you understand:

"Placing a fixed number-limit on the amount of troops we are to send to a particular engagement only BENEFITS our enemies. See - here's what you and your ilk don't get: The ENEMY doesn't READ or FOLLOW our plan for a particular conflict. The situation dictates how many troops should be in a given area - NOT some worthless political opportunist 'hack' of a senator."

Six months ago people were blasting our President for not sending ENOUGH boots-on-the-ground. When I decides to send MORE, he get blasted for THAT.

The REALLY ironic part is this: YOUR reply that MY reply added nothing SERIOUSLY didn't add anything to the conversation. At least ONE person thought enough of my Reply to quote it and reply in kind. I'll trust Gunny's judgment over the merits of a particular reply EVERY TIME over yours.

:dunno:

[avatar4321]

Actually, the executive is the CinC, but can't do anything without Congress allocating funds. You know, the whole checks and balances thing. His power isn't unlimited. I know how you guys must hate that.

We arent talking about capping funds. We are talking about capping troops. Something Congress cant do.

And like I said they can only deny funds. Which means you essentially telling me im wrong and saying the same exact thing I just said.

[avatar4321]

Okay Bunny - So you understand:

"Placing a fixed number-limit on the amount of troops we are to send to a particular engagement only BENEFITS our enemies. See - here's what you and your ilk don't get: The ENEMY doesn't READ or FOLLOW our plan for a particular conflict. The situation dictates how many troops should be in a given area - NOT some worthless political opportunist 'hack' of a senator."

Six months ago people were blasting our President for not sending ENOUGH boots-on-the-ground. When I decides to send MORE, he get blasted for THAT.

The REALLY ironic part is this: YOUR reply that MY reply added nothing SERIOUSLY didn't add anything to the conversation. At least ONE person thought enough of my Reply to quote it and reply in kind. I'll trust Gunny's judgment over the merits of a particular reply EVERY TIME over yours.

:dunno:

One correction, It wasnt 6 months ago. it was last month.

If the Democrats honestly believe they can remove funds from the troops and the people arent going to object, they are in a fantasy world.

[5stringJeff]

Yes. But them capping funding is perfectly appropriate since it's their only way of preventing Bush from acting unilaterally. Seems to be a pretty bi-partisan feeling, too.

Trust me, there are plenty of games to be played with budget appropriations. If they cap funding, we can just pull funding from one program to finance another.

[Gaffer]

Trust me, there are plenty of games to be played with budget appropriations. If they cap funding, we can just pull funding from one program to finance another.

That's exactly what would be done.

[Grumplestillskin]

Okay Bunny - So you understand:"Placing a fixed number-limit on the amount of troops we are to send to a particular engagement only BENEFITS our enemies. See - here's what you and your ilk don't get: The ENEMY doesn't READ or FOLLOW our plan for a particular conflict. The situation dictates how many troops should be in a given area - NOT some worthless political opportunist 'hack' of a senator.:

See Gomer, that's better...Now you're giving your reasons, not Obama's. I disagree he is either worthless or a hack. He knows people are sick of military personal dying for a lost cause. Personally, I don't think Bush plans anything. He seems an off-the-cuff operator to me...


Six months ago people were blasting our President for not sending ENOUGH boots-on-the-ground. When I decides to send MORE, he get blasted for THAT.

Freudian slip???


The REALLY ironic part is this: YOUR reply that MY reply added nothing SERIOUSLY didn't add anything to the conversation. At least ONE person thought enough of my Reply to quote it and reply in kind. I'll trust Gunny's judgment over the merits of a particular reply EVERY TIME over yours.

:dunno:

Actaully two people thought enough of it to reply to it...you forgot about me :wink2:

[jillian]

Trust me, there are plenty of games to be played with budget appropriations. If they cap funding, we can just pull funding from one program to finance another.

Actually, the admin isn't allowed to move funding from one program to another without notifying Congress. They violated that law the first time when they moved funds from Afghanistan to Iraq in the run-up to the War... not that the repub rubber stamp congress ever called him on it.

[darin]

Actually, the admin isn't allowed to move funding from one program to another without notifying Congress. They violated that law the first time when they moved funds from Afghanistan to Iraq in the run-up to the War... not that the repub rubber stamp congress ever called him on it.

I think you're missing what he's saying, really. Naming and Re-naming money happens legally often.

[5stringJeff]

Actually, the admin isn't allowed to move funding from one program to another without notifying Congress. They violated that law the first time when they moved funds from Afghanistan to Iraq in the run-up to the War... not that the repub rubber stamp congress ever called him on it.

I play with the federal government's money for a living. It is illegal to spend money in a manner inconsistent with the authorization/appropriations acts that the money came from. But much of the was is paid for out of the operations and maintenance appropriations, which is the same money that units use in garrison during peacetime. So you can spend less stateside and spend more in theater without breaking the law.

Now, just because it's legal doesn't make it the smartest thing to do, but it is legal.