House Dems Rally Support For Iraq Deadline

Bill Would Set Sept. 1, 2008, As Deadline For U.S. Combat Troop Withdrawal

(AP)  On the eve of a critical vote, Democrats in the House of Representatives labored to lock down a majority behind a Sept. 1, 2008, date for U.S. combat troops to be pulled out of Iraq. It will be the sternest test yet for a determined new majority party eager to challenge President Bush.

"If it comes off, it's a superb accomplishment," Democratic Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday as the party's leaders cajoled liberals who want an even faster timetable and moderates fearful of tying the hands of the commander in chief and generals in the field.

Democratic aides expressed growing confidence of success when the vote is called. Four of the bill's most consistent critics said they had told the Democratic speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, they would help pass it, even though they intend personally to vote against it.

"While I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war," said one of the four, Rep. Barbara Lee.

An aide to Pelosi confirmed the speaker had met with Lee and Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters and Diane Watson. All four of the members and Pelosi are Democrats from California. With party leaders lobbying intensively on its own, however, it was not clear which lawmakers, if any, had swung behind the bill as a result of the offer the four had made.

Throughout the day, a string of liberal opponents of the war swung behind a bill they deemed insufficient.

"I want this war ended today. If I thought it would help this war ending sooner by voting against the bill, I would vote against it in a heartbeat," said Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern, who sponsored legislation for a troop withdrawal in 2005.

"But I don't believe that to be the case," he added, speaking of the bill that combines money for the war, the troop withdrawal deadline and billions of dollars for politically popular programs at home ranging from farm aid to relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The legislation marks Congress' most direct challenge to date of Bush's policy in a war that has claimed the lives of nearly 3,200 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis.

As debate began in the House, Republicans criticized it vociferously. "The bill is a sham," one of them, Rep. Harold Rogers, said. He said it would "provide fodder for our enemies abroad."

Bush has threatened to veto the bill, opposing both the troop withdrawal provision and billions of dollars in spending the Democrats added.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said any delay in approving the funds could "have a genuinely adverse affect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families."

White House press secretary Tony Snow sharpened the message. "There's a very real chance that money for the troops will run out while members of Congress are on vacation," he said. "Is that the message you want to send to men and women who are putting their lives on the line?"

Across the Capitol, a Senate committee launched legislation taking a slightly different approach: to set a date to begin a withdrawal but only a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008, for the final exit of combat forces.

The measure cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee on a voice vote, but Republicans said they would attempt to strip out the withdrawal provisions when the issue comes before the full Senate next week.

Senate Democrats fell short of a majority, 50-48, last week on a similar attempt to set a timeline for the war. Since then, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and others have made changes in hopes of persuading Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas to swing behind the withdrawal proposal. The changes include a series of suggested goals for the Iraqi government to meet to provide for its own security, enhance democracy and distribute its oil wealth fairly.

More than two months after Democrats took power, the main focus in the war debate was on the House, where Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other leaders chipped away at holdouts.

Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott, a 10th-term lawmaker and longtime opponent of the war, said he would support the measure. He called the legislation a "bare minimum but dramatically better than what we have today, which is a war without end, from a president capable only of escalation, not negotiation."

Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson, new to Congress, said he was leaning toward supporting the legislation as well. Like McDermott, he said he wanted a faster end to the war but also that he had listened to the arguments of party leaders that the current measure was the most that could be passed given the current composition of the House.

"What we are here to do is to govern," Johnson said of the new Democratic majority, which came to power last January after midterm elections framed by voter discontent with the war.

Democrats hold 233 seats in the 435-seat House, meaning they can lose 15 votes from their rank and file and still be assured of passing the measure.

Whatever the vote count, some war foes disagreed with the strategy.

"I think the Democrats are doing it all wrong," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a former Democratic presidential candidate.

"We don't agree with them," said Democratic Rep. Lynn Woolsey. She said she and others believe the party must "honor what the voters of November said, which is to be bold, end the war and bring the troops home."

In another sign of gathering support for the legislation, however, the Congressional Black Caucus issued a statement pointing favorably to numerous provisions apart from the withdrawal deadline. The list included increased funding for traumatic brain injury care and research, money for post-traumatic stress disorder, money for the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington and $1.3 billion in hurricane protection for the New Orleans area.

[epiker-2009]

Part 1/2

I'm annoyed by some of the myths that the left keeps regurgitating in their anti-US/GOP agenda, so I thought I'd address a few. Sadly its these fallacies that keep the left from seeing the truth and uniting with the right.

Myth #1: 9/11 was an inside job (by Bush).
No it wasn't, the conspiracy theorists have been debunked by noted scientists-just go to popsci.com. Also don't forget the muslims went wild with joy when this evil act was carried out-calling the hijackers the "magnificent 19".

Myth #2: Bush/Cheney lied about WMD's in Iraq and hence the pretence for the war was false.
In fact, the Dems (and UN) also believed Iraq had WMDs and voted for the invasion. Even though there were no WMDs, it wasn't a mistake to invade. Saddam had butchered many tens or hundreds of thousands during his rule-so the US bringing democracy to Iraq is a huge improvement over the status quo.

(cont'd)

[epiker-2009]

Part 2/2

Myth #3-Radical Islam is a GOP concocted 'boogy-man'.
I strongly urge every westerner to read the Quran, learn about Islam's murderous 1300yr history. It is 1000x more dangerous than Nazism. The West is currently being invaded by this death cult and WW3 which has already started between Islamic barbarism and Western freedom.

Even if the US pulls out of Iraq, this war with Islam will only grow-the jihadists are already within our borders in massive numbers. As scholars tell us, either we will become Islamified, or Islam will be 'democratized.'

We in the West must unite to defeat this threat-its very real and if we fail, our children's children might be living under the hellish world of Islamic tyranny forever. Here's some great sites to learn more about Islam and this continuing War on Terror.

www.frontpagemag.com
www.thereligionofpeace.com
www.prophetofdoom.net
www.memritv.org
www.faithfreedom.org

[zoroastor]

Posted by thgdriver,

I like how you guys always equate liberals wanting to get out of this war with liberal not caring about what happens to our troops and our country.
Have you considered that one of the factors that played into the sailors being detained is that they were THERE?
Defending one's self does not mean making a pre-emptive strike against a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11, was, for all intents and purposes already contained by us, and was no real threat.
I challange you to find one, just one, liberal who will say that we should not defend ourselves and our interests (that is the true interests of the American public, not those of the oil rich robber barons). Good luck. Come back to me when you find one.

[thgdriver]

What the hel! CBS, 15 British sailer's were just detained by the Iranians in Iraq waters.

OK you liberals, just remember who started it.

[micma-2009]

What Bush and Co. are selling:


"We have done nothing wrong but we don't want to speak about that on record because we have nothing to hide."

"If we talk to Congress about this afair it must be behind closed doors and we must pick who will be in the room and the questions to be asked because we have nothing to hide."

"Our offer is very generous."


Are you buying?

[zoroastor]

Ha. RedSox, you and I agree about most everything. But you caught me, I AM whats-his-name.
No, I'm not even a Zoroastorist. I'm Church of God, with some buhdist and taoist philosophies.

[micma-2009]

the74blaster

Well said. But the nation is not committed to this and the Bush administration knows it. That's why we're borrowing the money from China to pay for it and sending the children of the poor to fight it.

[the74blaster]

The only comment I have is if it took over 600,000 Nazi storm troopers to maintain order over 10 million people during Hitler's occupation of the Balkans, why are we trying to occupy and maintain order over 25 million in Iraq with a 140,000 troops?

It is obvious that the Bush administration believed their own sales pitch that we would be welcomed as liberators and should be held accountable.

If were not committed to a total war effort, then we need to cut our losses and get out of Iraq. Otherwise, we need to reinstate the draft, obtain enough people, equipment and send them over there.

The only sad part is we have spent billions and 3200 lifes for a misrepresentation of the facts.

[rsoxfan1123]

Zoroastor-I still think it's odd that you picked the name of the Iranian fire worshipper. I am still suspicious about your D&D explanation. Could be you are really that Iranian president whathisname blogging on his spare time...not that I disagree with everything you have been saying. You do know what you're talking about when it comes to economics and you're explanation of "trickle down" is spot on.

[zoroastor]

Well, you just pointed out something that I wanted to point out as being wrong with your first post about the economy. Thanks for doing the work for me.
There are a great many factors that go into an economy going up or down, as you pointed out. To give credit to Bush Sr. and Ronnie would be incomplete, at best.
Your theory that it was solely due to corporate mergers and the internet explosion is lacking a in a few key areas.
1. Corporate mergers benefit the rich, by and large. CEOs, and major share holders.
2. Money does not trickle down; this is something you can actual research. It stays at the top.
3. Mergers are generally bad for the typical American as they decrease competition and therefore prices increase.

I suggest YOU go talk to your econ professor. Contrary to popular belief in your circle, you can't get an education from Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coultier and FOX News. Factoids out of context, occasionally innaccurate, and always with an agenda are no subsitute for actual study.