Bush And Democrats Near Iraq Showdown

President Demands That Congress Replenish War Funds With No Strings; Pelosi Tells Him To "Calm Down"

(CBS/AP)  President Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress lurched toward a veto showdown over Iraq on Wednesday, the commander in chief demanding a replenishment of war funding with no strings and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi counseling him, "Calm down, take a breath."

Mr. Bush said imposition of a "specific and random date of withdrawal would be disastrous" for U.S. troops in Iraq and he predicted that lawmakers would take the blame if the money ran short.

"The clock is ticking for our troops in the field," he said. "If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

Mr. Bush spoke as the Senate moved toward passage of legislation that would require the beginning of a troop withdrawal within 120 days and would set a goal of March 31, 2008, for its completion.

The final vote on the Senate bill is expected Thursday, CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports.

According to a new CBS News poll conducted before Tuesday's Senate vote, 59 percent of those surveyed favored the proposal while 37 percent are opposed.

The House approved a more sweeping measure last week, including a mandatory withdrawal deadline for nearly all combat troops of Sept. 1, 2008.

Both bills would provide more than $90 billion to sustain military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

After passage, the next step would be a House-Senate compromise measure almost certain to include conditions that Mr. Bush has said he finds objectionable. The president's remarks seemed designed to lay the political groundwork for a veto showdown with the new Democratic majority later this spring.

Confidently predicting his veto would be sustained in Congress, he said, "Funding for our forces in Iraq will begin to run out in mid-April. Members of Congress need to stop making political statements and start providing vital funds for our troops. They need to get that bill to my desk so I can sign it into law."

One key Democrat with longtime ties to the Pentagon, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said Mr. Bush was exaggerating, and he estimated the real deadline for a fresh infusion of funds was June 1.

Gordon Adams, a former Clinton administration official specializing in defense issues, said the Pentagon has authority to transfer existing funds between accounts. "So into June, while it's painful, it's possible" for the military to maintain operations, he said.

Sen. John McCain, a 2008 Republican presidential aspirant and one of the war's most ardent supporters, told CBS' The Early Show that Senate Democrats, "made a big mistake yesterday."

McCain explained successes such as the U.S. military's gaining trust with sheiks in the Anbar province and diminishing violence in Baghdad demands that the U.S. pushes forward in Iraq.

"We mismanaged this war for four years. And it's taken a while. And it will take a while longer," McCain said. Echoing the president, the Arizona Republican said the consequences of failure "will follow us home."

"The Congress has two congressional authorities: one is to declare war, one is to fund wars. Congress has no authority to manage wars," McCain said. "If they want them home as they say they do, then cut off funds and bring them home tomorrow.

"But see if they did that, then they would have responsibility for the consequences of doing that," McCain said.

[azmildman]

The first thing Bush said after nine eleven was that we can't fight terrorism with conventional warfare. Then they realised they could get rich from a war with Iraq whom they figured would surrender like they did during his Dad's administration instead they will never surrender because WE trained Al Qaeda and THEY trained true believers that you can't intimidate with death. Instead, they welcome death and are rushing to meet it. Some call them "extremist Islam". The truest statement is that "You can't fight terrorism.", PERIOD! That is because terrorism is an ideology, not an army.

We trained and used Al Quaeda in the beginning to fight the Soviets for us. We trained them through the CIA to do just what they are doing to us. When they were asked if they thought they could bring a superpower like Russia down, they responded, "No, but we can get them to bring themselves down trying to get rid of us." They are special OPS type of soldiers. President John F. Kenedy stated, "This is another type of warfare - war by guerillas, subversives, insurgents, asassins, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of by engaging him." That is what we trained Al Qaeda to do through our own CIA and the only honest depiction in the movies is the show entitled "Harry Wilson's War", although Reagan had a lot more to do with it than they show in the movie. So, when we went to war with people who weren''t even from Iraq under false pretenses, we were trying to engage in a non-ending war and we didn't know it. We already know it was started under false pretenses, but we all wanted it at first as retaliation for nine-eleven. But to them it is a war about ideologies and a religious war. I know now that we were EITHER, stupid enough to have stepped in the same trap we set for the Soviets, or we got involved under false pretenses and I am still trying to understand how anyone could be arrogant enough to lie to the whole American public and think that we wouldn't notice or care, but it seems they did..

So, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld set about doing this on purpose to keep their own pockets lined because they own oil companies and munitions plants as well as Halliburton and Buckeye Steel Castings that make the armor plating for all of our war machines. If we were really fighting terror, we would engage all terrorist organisations, including the IRA, the bombers in India, Radicals in America, the KKK, You have to remember George Bush uses Nicknames for everything and everyone. And, when racists talk about black people, they would get in trouble and would be accused of being racist if they said openly whom they were talking about so, instead, the racists now use the word Hip Hop to signify black people. So, when people on Fox news say Hip Hop is destroying our country and talk about Hip Hop in the white house, what else could they have meant by that? Does anyone believe a style of music is in the white house or could be accused of ruining anything? You have to remember, some of the followers of the Bush administration believe in evil spirits that invade your body and make you do "evil things". If you or I stated something like that while taking a mental health evaluation we would be considered delusional and would immediately be institutionalized. They get away with it by misconstruing parts of the bible for their own gain and hide behind religious freedom.

After a while it became obvious that when they said 'Terrorist', they meant 'Islamics'. The war on Terror was actually about trying to convert the whole Islamic world and describe it in terms that don't make them sound like biggots. The axis of Evil has more to do with Islam verses Christianity than America Versus a foreign country. At least they admit they hate us. The idea that the Nazis wiped out six million Jews doesn't compare to the fact that the British slaughtered 30 million East Indian people. The rationalization of any nation that says it is alright for them to invade another simply because their ideologies are more correct is solely propaganda and absurd. The United States and the United Nations totally agree about some things that benefit them.

[lars008-2009]

FASCIST NAZI ISLAM SAYS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATES ISLAM LAW...

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

For example, in 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.

http://www.un.org/terrorism/
http://www.un.org/terrorism/strategy-counter-terrorism.html
http://www.un.org/

[homespunlady]

I shouldn't, but I'm bored...
Lars 008: Ya got a GOOD question there. Why don't they? Especially Saudi Arabia the heart of the Moslem culture. Heck, I don't think there's anyone with "equal rights" in the entire country - they're all different based on everything from belief to gender to citizenship status.
Of course I haven't found a country anywhere that is TOTALLY equal for everyone. Not communist, not theocracy, not monarchy, not dictatorship and not even Democracy or Republic. The laws and beliefs of the human race just don't allow that.

[lars008-2009]

NONE OF US IS FREE UNLESS ALL ARE FREE!!!

WHY DO MUSLIM COUNTRIES NOT GRANT EQUAL RIGHTS TO NON MUSLIMS???

[gunnerv1]

Oh Nancy, you're so friggen hot you make me look like a tripod.

[homespunlady]

Must be a paid neocon blitz today.
Didn't the jokes written for George's Media Dinner go over well?
I admit I laughed but then I appreciate good satire and he can unwittingly provide a lot of it. As an independent I prefer either a good laugh or just the facts.
Some of the rude comments are just sad. In a debate the guy that can't back his facts and succumbs to anger or name calling is usually declared the loser but this is real life.
We all have opinions like a certain part of our anatomy. Let's keep it civil.

[lars008-2009]

If Israel attacks Iran they may be fighting both Iran and Egypt. Egypt has an army and airforce that is well-equipped and trained with U.S. technology, the same type technology used to train our Army for desert warfare.
Posted by down-ndirty at 12:04 PM : Mar 29, 2007

ISRAEL BIOTCH SLAPPING MUDSCUMS 4 60YRS!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/israel_palestine_cartoon.gif
silly little mudscums...............LOL

mudscums only brave raping and killing little girls%u2026

with all that oil money & 1.3 billion MUDSCUM COWARDS, you still can't field an army

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

& they ponder why???...........LOL

Even though six million Jews were wiped out during the Holocaust, "today the Jews rule this world by proxy," he charged. "They get others to fight and die for them."

If a small number of Jews can do that, he implied, how much more should 1.3 billion Muslims be capable of achieving.

"One-point-three billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way. And we can only find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weaknesses and our strength, to plan, to strategize and then to counter-attack."
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1225697.html

[gunnerv1]

skyk: Oh what's the matter, didn't get enought sugar in your tea this morning, no kiss on the cheek from mommy as you went out the door to kindergarten. Sorry your panties got twisted this morning, But as you may learn, I and anybody else can post or say anything relevant or not at anytime they choose. Your not under any order to read it or copy it out of context. As a matter of fact, most of the items on these blogs/post rarely
follow through and stay with the subject at hand. Just about every post on here by certain indivduals are always just copied from someone else (you know who you are) and just keep repeating themselves. I alway thought that the Democratic Party was the party of progress and inclusiveness. The only reason the party wants to include illeagals is to broden the voter base because they know without them (the illegals) the will never rise to power again. You saw it with the loss of the labor unions (less than 8% discounting Federal Employees)

[down-ndirty]

notblue wrote: "Former, how many American lives were lost in WW2? 500,000, how many were lost in viet nam? 50,000 How many lives are you willing to sacrifice to fight against the militants who are in every country in the middle east including Iraq? How can you justify retreat from this evil which America will be fighting for years to come by throwing out an arbitrary number? I don't understand your point???"

The last sentence pretty much says it for notblue. He/she doesn't understand that we can't fight terrorism with conventional warfare. Numerous military experts are on record for saying that. If you know of a way, notblue, please tell us; don't keep it a secret.

You can't compare this war to any other war, except perhaps Napoleon's Waterloo. All the 30%'ers who are still supporting Bush's boondogle are our modern-day Napoleon's Chauvinists.

[down-ndirty]

forthepeople, I do agree.

At the Arab summit, the Israelis are objecting to a draft proposal that they return to 1967 borders. I guess they just don't get it. If they don't 'free' the Palestinian refugees and give back the land, they're eventually going to get their assses kicked.

If Israel attacks Iran they may be fighting both Iran and Egypt. Egypt has an army and airforce that is well-equipped and trained with U.S. technology, the same type technology used to train our Army for desert warfare.

[forthepeaple]

yes i agree. and i really think that iseral will nuke iran first. so somebody better get through to our elected...dont you think

[down-ndirty]

News you won't hear on CBS for a few more days:

"King Abdullah of Saudi Arabie denounced the American military presence in Iraq on Wednesday as an "illegitimate foreign occupation" and called on the West to end its financial embargo against the Palestinians."

"In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war," said the king, whose country is a U.S. ally that quietly aided the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Source: on ABC & NBC News & websites 3/28/07 (but not on CBS)

This from a King who has always had a very close relationship with GWB.

Something is rotten in mudville, folks. Do you see the handwriting on the wall?

[forthepeaple]

are you still around nyckate.

[formrusmcsgt]

So I'll ask again notblue, how can you use defeating terrorism as a justification for supporting a policy that is proven by our own 16 intelligence agencies to have the exact opposite effect?

[formrusmcsgt]

Even worse notblue, is that this negative impact on the overall effort to reduce terrorism was predicted and ignored by the neocons:


Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, said the White House %u201Cplayed no role in drafting or reviewing the judgments expressed in the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism.%u201D The estimate%u2019s judgments confirm some predictions of a National Intelligence Council report completed in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. That report stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives.

In early 2005, the National Intelligence Council released a study concluding that Iraq had become the primary training ground for the next generation of terrorists, and that veterans of the Iraq war might ultimately overtake Al Qaeda%u2019s current leadership in the constellation of the global jihad leadership.

[formrusmcsgt]

How can you justify retreat from this evil which America will be fighting for years to come by throwing out an arbitrary number?
Posted by notblue at 11:20 AM : Mar 29, 2007

You and I have exchanged before notblue, and you impress me as an intelligent individual.

I will ask you why, if the intent is to reduce terrorism globally, you support a policy that is proven to foment terrorism?

To wit:
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: September 24, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 %u2014 A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled %u201CTrends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,%u2019%u2019 it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, %u201CIndicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,%u201D cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

[dallasmsl]

Notblue,
You are comparing a real war with one that Bush lied us into. How many US Lives should be lost due to a lie? NONE! Why can't you get that?

[notblue]

Former, how many American lives were lost in WW2? 500,000, how many were lost in viet nam? 50,000 How many lives are you willing to sacrifice to fight against the militants who are in every country in the middle east including Iraq? How can you justify retreat from this evil which America will be fighting for years to come by throwing out an arbitrary number? I don't understand your point??? It will take as many lives as history will show us when the evil called radical Islam stops it's Jihad against modern civilized societies around the globe. The choices are clear retreat and see wehat happens or fight, it's that simple.

[dallasmsl]

I find it funny (in a not funny way) that Bush is now trying to deflect the blame of the failure of the Iraqi War on the Democrats and Pelosi, specifically. What he fails to understand (through his own stupidity) is that this war was lost YEARS ago and never could have been won in the first place.

We were lied into this war and now it is up to Congress and the People Of the United States to get us out of it.

David Sanchez
[e-mail]
Retired Air Force.

[formrusmcsgt]

Still no takers, so I'll ask again:

I would like to ask notblue, pwrslm, or anyone else who supports this boondoggle what they think Iraq is worth in terms of dead or maimed American warriors and American treasure. They obviously feel that it's worth more than the 3,200 dead, 25,000+ maimed and trillion dollars spent so far.

So, how much more? 10,000 dead? 50,000 maimed? 2 trillion dollars?

C'mon neocons, tell us what Iraq is really worth to you. I bet not one of you has the gonads to answer the question.