They voted for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq by March 31, 2008. By attaching the provision to a funding bill for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, they hope to up the pressure on President Bush to give up on victory.
Do you think insurgents, terrorists, and tyrants have the date on their calendars?
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must be counting the days. Al Qaeda leaders, too.
The President has said that there's no way he would sign a bill that includes a timeline for troop withdrawal. A veto is certain.
The President is disappointed that the Senate continues down a path with a bill that he will veto and has no chance of becoming law. In the two weeks since the Senate defeated a similar proposal, General Petraeus reports encouraging signs are already emerging. The Senate, which unanimously confirmed the General for this mission, needs to support him by providing our troops the funding they need - not by mandating failure. As the President said, "Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win."
The Dems and Republican defectors Hagel and Smith won't be able to override Bush's veto. It's all a game, an effort to appease the fringe anti-war crowd.
They don't care. They want to suck up to anarchists and Vietnam retreads by sending a message to the President and to our allies and to our enemies that the U.S. Senate is pressing forward to secure defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They don't care that while they screw around playing politics, our troops are waiting for a bill to supply necessary funding.
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats are showing no signs of backing down on their rebuke of the Iraq war, insisting President Bush will have to accept some sort of legislative timetable in exchange for the billions of dollars needed to fund the war.
"We would hope that the president understands how serious we are," said Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., after the Senate voted to uphold a proposal in a war spending bill calling for the troop withdrawal.
As the Senate resumes debate on the $122 billion bill Wednesday, President Bush was expected to address the legislation in a speech at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association meeting in Washington.
Deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Bush would use the speech as an opportunity to address the war on terror and the need to let the new Iraq security plan get fully under way.
"The president will say it is dangerous to our soldiers on the ground to let Washington politics delay this funding," Perino said.
But Reid and other Democrats say they won't back down.
"Rather than making all the threats that he has, let's work with him and see if he can give us some ideas how we can satisfy the wishes of a majority of the Senate, the majority of the House and move forward," Reid said.
Reid is such a doofus.
I don't see the President's statement that he will not sign legislation that includes a date for troop withdrawal as a threat.
A veto is the right thing to do. It doesn't take a lot of brains to understand how dangerous a timeline is.
What war in our history has been won by telling the enemy how long we intend to fight?
Bush doesn't have to "satisfy the wishes of a majority of the Senate, the majority of the House."
He has to protect the American people and our interests, and uphold the Constitution.
The Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. (So help me God.)
It doesn't say anything about a president's duty to satisfy the Senate's wishes.
If anyone is making threats, it's the Dems.
Reid said, "We would hope that the president understands how serious we are."
That's not a threat?
It seems threatening to me.
Senate Republicans tried Tuesday to strip out the withdrawal language but failed in a 50-48 vote. One Democrat — Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas — sided with Republicans in opposition to the public deadline, contending such a measure would broadcast U.S. war plans to the enemies.
"Congress should not define how long our enemy has to hang on to win," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Sen. Chuck Hagel delivered the deciding vote by joining anti-war Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon in breaking ranks and voting with Democrats to put a nonbinding end date on the war.
"We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam," Hagel, R-Neb.
Pryor said he supports setting a deadline for U.S. involvement in Iraq, but only so long as such a date remains classified. Pryor compares the 2008 date set by his Democratic colleagues akin to announcing to the Germans plans for the U.S. invasion of France in World War II.
But ultimately, Pryor said, he will vote in favor of the bill.
Sometimes it's hard to believe just how irresponsible and incompetent our elected officials can be.
Hagel is enjoying the embrace of the lib media. He loves all the attention.
And Pryor...what can you say about him?
He's correct in saying that setting a withdrawal date would be like tipping Germany off about the D-Day invasion. But then, he turns around and says that in the end he'll vote for a withdrawal date.
It's like something John Kerry would do.
...Sen. Chuck Schumer said he sees Tuesday's vote as the first step in turning up the heat on Bush's war policies.
"This is not one battle; it's a long-term campaign," Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters.
Listen to Schumer's language.
He and the Dems are at war with President Bush and the administration.
"This is not one battle; it's a long-term campaign."
That's sick.
Schumer's priority is to do battle with his fellow Americans, not foreign enemies wishing the U.S. harm.
Russ Feingold joins Schumer in talking about "first steps."
“Today marks an important step toward ending the war in Iraq. For the first time, the U.S. Senate will pass binding legislation requiring the President to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. While this is long overdue, it is a big step in the right direction and it brings us closer to ending our involvement in this disastrous war.”
This timeline doesn't spring from a desire to end the war. In fact, it wouldn't end the war. It would ensure continued bloodshed and a humanitarian disaster. It would increase the likelihood of more terrorist attacks here at home.
The timeline is all about politics and positioning.
The Dems and Chuck Hagel have decided that the enemy they vow to conquer is the Bush administration.
_____________________________
President Bush vows to fight these political opportunists.
President Bush gestures during his speech to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Wednesday, March 28, 2007, in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
WASHINGTON -- President Bush accused congressional Democrats Wednesday of meddling in Iraq war policy and setting a deadline for a U.S. pullout that would have disastrous repercussions for both countries.
As the Senate resumed debate Wednesday on a bill containing a spring 2008 timetable for bringing American troops home, Bush argued again that such a step would result in a needless delay of funds for troops. But Democrats are insisting that he'll have to accept some sort of timeline to get the money.
...Bush said Wednesday that the Democratic strategy move will not force him to negotiate. He said again that he would veto any funding legislation that includes a withdrawal timeline.
"The consequences of imposing such a specific and random date of withdrawal would be disastrous," Bush said in a speech at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association meeting. "Our enemies in Iraq would simply have to mark their calendars. They'd spend the months ahead plotting how to use their new safe haven once we were to leave. It makes no sense for politicians in Washington, D.C. to be dictating arbitrary timelines for our military commanders in a war zone 6,000 miles away."
Bush broadly defended his new war plan, which involves sending 21,500 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq to help secure Baghdad and troubled Anbar Province. He said two months of joint operations with Iraqi troops have seen some early successes but "it's going to require a sustained, determined effort to succeed."
"If we cannot muster the resolve to defeat this evil in Iraq, America will have lost its moral purpose in the world and we will endanger our citizens," the president said. "If we leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here."
Bush accused lawmakers of engaging in little more than "political statements" even as money for troops will run out next month.
"If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible," Bush said.
No comments:
Post a Comment