I'm willing to bet THIS will cause some controversy here and at large!

It's retarded. They can't enforce it. They're not in the chain of command.

It's probably unconstitutional as well.

And it's shamelessly transparent election politicking, as well. Two months before the presidential election, we're either still there and the Democrats either get to bitch that the President isn't following the law (never mind that it's probably unconstitutional and retarded as Congress doesn't command the military), or we're out for whatever reason, and the Democrats get to brag that they're solely responsible for it because of their retarded unconstitutional law. Basically, it ain't about Iraq, it's about the 2008 election.

Its not even that elaborate. It more or less a "we promised to do something about it, so now that we are trying, look who is trying to stop us and support a failed cause."

It will get vetoed by the president and that will be the end of it.

I believe this is also the bill that they kept adding pork (or "sweeteners") to to secure the needed votes.

So it may be the most disgraceful thing I can remember the House ever doing. Way to go, Nancy!

Laughable. Like you and your party should be spouting off about pork. Classic.

The most important part of this bill is getting our troops home. That's what this bill is about. So, instead of supporting our troops, you and your party would rather spin rhetoric and parrot GOP talking points. Personally, I find that pretty damn disgraceful.

So what happens to the Iraqis in September '08?

Ah yes, the new-found concern for the Iraqis. These are the same "rag-heads" that the war drum beaters and GOP enablers have been saying we should just nuke out of existence, right? These are the same Iraqis that after every story on this board about the middle east get's followed by the "Islam is the religion of peace (/sarcasm) " posts. These are the same Iraqis who, when recently polled said the US was the problem over there and overwhelmingly wish we would leave. How convenient that they all of a sudden they become the "poor left behind defenseless Iraqis."

For starters, they wouldn't be killing American troops, Tom. I thinks that's a pretty significant development. I thinks that's a pretty significant and worthwhile goal.

I don't have a party. I've never joined any party and I plan to keep it that way.

I hate the Republicans. It's just that I really, really hate the Democrats.

Again, this bill doesn't get the troops home. It's almost definitely not constitutional and Congress isn't in the chain of command. And even if they were, this thing is being vetoed very quickly. The most significant thing this bill will do is send a message to the people we're fighting that "look, we have a new general and we're in the early stages of a new plan with the surge but just hang in there another year and a half and we're leaving. Don't take us seriously." Our troops aren't coming home because of this thing but our enemies just found out that our legislative branch has no interest in succeeding.

That this has anything to do with bringing the troops home IS a talking point. The most significant effect this bill will have is the headlines it makes today and those make our efforts in the region look very, very bad.

Do you really think the "raghead" card is something only the Republicans play or did you completely forget about the Dubai Ports Deal fiasco?

That thing was squashed 100% based on where Dubai is and who lives there.

For you to think that so many people think like that is concerning. As the past few elections show, its not like what you say (rag heads). However, there should be concern over what we leave, regardless on how we got there. That, seems to me, the more rational exercise. But don't let get in you way of emotions, Johnny. I enjoy your passion.

Spouting rhetoric, claiming no one cares, is a waste of time.

Link me!!!

"New-found"? Save it for Wacka and his ilk, don't spew that sh-- with me. You know better.

And will you think the same way when, by September 2009, two million Iraqis have died in genocidal pogroms? Because that's not even half the current estimate for the shitstorm that'll hit Iraq if we pull out and leave the country destabilized. Of course, it's the standard Democratic response to genocide: ignore it and call it someone else's problem. But hey, if you're satisfied with it...

The problem there is, it was Republicans who freeked out over it. Right wing radio was going nuts over that deal. The Dems did egg it on a bit, but only to divide the GOP. Still not good, but still mostly a Republican thing

Who's current estimate? Seems like its hapopening now only slowely. We leave it MIGHT speed up or the neighboring countries might step in and help out. Either way it won't stop by us staying and wasting our national treasure and young lives there

So the Democratic response is to ignore genocide? You saying the Republicans are any better? Republicans created one in Iraq, to be sure. Remember the opposition to Kosovo? BTW, how many GIs died in Kosovo war?

The current DoD estimate. Actually, I'm not even quoting it...their projections are worse than what I posted. I low-balled the estimate.

One word: Rwanda.

Here's three more for you: "genocide-like activities". The Democratic platform on genocide is: pretend it doesn't exist. If you can't, make sure it's someone else's problem. And here's another good word that's a perfect example of this: Darfur. No one cared, until a Republican was in the White House and the Democrats could play the "somebody else's problem" card.

Not that the Republican track record is much better...but it is, through the simple realization that millions will die in a genocidal pogrom in Iraq if we arbitrarily pull up stakes. The Democrats, true to their Clintonian roots, simply don't give a sh--.



Yeah, the Republicans created one in Iraq. You weren't here to note that I never supported this stupid, unwarranted act of naked aggression against a foreign nation anyway. But how in the hell is the answer to simply unass the area and leave it a complete and utter mess? Again...typical Democratic foreign policy response: make it somebody else's problem. Who cares that we'll kill forty times more Iraqis by such an irresponsible act than we already have by our previous irresponsible acts.

The Iraqis biggest misfortune was being invaded by a completely irrational country. Of course, by definition, no rational country would have invaded them to begin with...

Tom i agree with the other parts of the post, but i have to raise the questions "Is saving all of those lives worth draining funds from our recovering economy?" and if the answer is yes, then "Why is it only America's problem?". Seriously, I believe that we should take care of our own issues first (like our homeless and starving) before going overseas to save other countries civilians. I really take issue with the amount aid distributed around the world for the starving in overpopulated areas, when we neglect our own issues.

Maybe, with respect to places like Rwanda or Somalia, you might have a point.

I would submit, however, that we as a nation took responsibility for the welfare of the Iraqi people the moment we invaded them. Is it worth the money? Maybe, maybe not (there's other national security issues above and beyond the simple moral issues I've focused on here). But if we didn't want to spend a trillion dollars (yeah, it's only half a trillion...it'll be a full trillion at least before we're done) on the Iraqi people, we shouldn't have invaded their country to begin with.

But - and here's the real thing people keep tripping up on - pulling up stakes and leaving isn't going to fix our mistake. No matter how much the idiots in Congress beileve it possible, you can't retroactively fix the original error with new legislation. You can't "deauthorize" something that's already happened, and you can't arbitrarily declare something complete with legislation. The idea that withdrawing US troops equates to ending the war is absolutely ludicrous, and not a solution to anything. It's just another attempt to retroactively address the original mistake by burying it as deeply as possible, without solving anything.

No, its not our responsibility for 2 reasons....

No blood for oil!!!

Save Darfur

eh, ok i see your point... I just don't think that we could ever turn things over to the iraqi gov't w/o an imminent collapse due to the social climite. I would have been in support of the implementation of two or three gov'ts one for each religious sect (ala the division of India).

That said, I'd still rather not see our cash go to Darfur

Some interesting straw men you've set up. If the "GOP enablers" truly wanted to convert Iraq into a very large glass museum or 20MM hole golf course, shouldn't they have done it by now?

I, for one, will admit that I supported the war initially, but now wish we never made the effort. Not because I think our troops will fail or that it was a wrong headed effort, but because I think politicians have (and will continue to) mess(ed) things up. And, we don't seem to have the political will to see things through to a victory. Unitl someone in power figures out how to get the U.S. out without giving the Al Queda supporters free reign, I don't see how the U.S. can leave.

I would be very interested in hearing (reading) how you would get us out of this situation without creating additional problems in the future. (Seriously.)

Yeah, after all, only some places (Iraq) deserve our help, and others don't (Darfur).

Take your partisan blinders off for two seconds, will you? Claiming the Replicans "care" more about slaughters overseas is beyond simplistic and stupid. What has Bush done over Sudan? Didlly squat! The only reason Bush and his mindless legions care about Iraq is because it is an embarassment to them. They don't want to "lose" the "war" there. That's it. Bush is still talking about "winning," whatever that means. His only concern now is to dump this on the next President. Kosvo was a real attempt to stop a bloodbath and it was largely opposed by the GOP. Inspite of that it worked with few casualties.

And conversely the crowd that cries "no blood for oil" are the same ones crying "save darfur"

And of course it took six YEARS for the Clinton administration to even formulate a policy for the Balkans beyond "It's Europe's problem, not ours". You'd have been better off pointing out that the US contingent to Kosovo was a small part of a coalition, which is the one thing the Clinton administration did right in the whole mess, and the one thing the Bush administration should have done in Iraq (the laughable "Coalition of the Willing" notwithstanding). And that itself is above and beyond the fact that, whereas we didn't create the mess in the Balkans, we sure as hell have in Iraq...so sure, let's go ahead and exacerbate it by doing the absolute worst possible thing that will ensure that a maximum number of Iraqis die in both the short- and long-term. What do you people think that's going to do for American foreign policy? For perceptions of American leadership and motives in the world? Do you really think the entire Middle East and Islamic world is going to say "Oh, thank you for leaving Iraq a singular mess and killing millions of Iraqis..." That'll really improve relations with the Islamic world.

lol yeah

You'd rather have Americans dieing, when regardless of when we leave the Sunni and Shite will continue their fight for power? Our foreign policy and standing in the world is already in the toilet, and hopefully can be repaired by the next administration. And get serious, how do we end up killing "millions of Iraqis" if we're not there? That would be Iraqis killing Iraqis, just as they are now.

So, the people against wars of naked aggression are the same ones who want help in stopping a genocide that is preventable. Ya, that makes sense. What's your problem there?

The Iraqis want us to leave. The American people want us to leave. Its real easy "saving" the world by declaring we need to send the troops back to that sh-- hole for their fourth and fifth deployments while the rest of us sit around and argue, but that's not really reasonable. Maybe if Bush would reach out to his base and ask them to join in in the hundreds of thousands to go over there and serve, it might be worth it, but he won't. Send recruiters to College Republicans, Conservative Evangelical Churches, Anti-Gay and Anti-Abortion organizations and see who is in. The Dems have reasonable set a 17 month goal for this disaster to end. That's well over a year. Another year of our troops deployed while every else sits around picking their asses. If the Iraqis are not will ing to form an army, a police force and a security appartus, then its not our problem.

Where do you people get this logic from? We're responsible for making a mess of Iraq, our foreign perception is horrible...so if we just up and leave Iraq to total and murderous anarchy it'll be both an improvement for Iraq and our international perception?

Yeah, I can just see the international community now..."Well, we hated the fact that you invaded Iraq, but now that you're taking absolutely no responsibility for your actions...good job! "

No, the Dems have set a 17-month goal for the occupation to end. The disaster will not only continue, but get even worse. The Democrats aren't ending anything, they're just washing the country's hands of the immediate problem and insuring that it'll have to be dealt with by someone else's administration a decade down the line.

How in the hell do you think ending the occupation ends the war? Does anyone actually believe this nonsense?

This is one of the biggest lies being perpetrated by the Neocon crowd. There is no new plan. There is no plan for short, or even long-term success. Bush's surge isn't a new plan and it hasn't worked the last several times it's been tried. It's more of the same crap--more of the same rhetoric and lies being spewed by this administration to cover up for the fact that they have no idea how to solve the mess they've gotten this country and the military into.

If their only answer to any and all questions is "Give us more time, give us more money, give us more troops, asking why gives comfort to the enemy" then one can only come to the conclusion that they have no idea what to do. Do you think that 17 months from now, after having given them more money, resources and time, that there will be anything of significance to point to and call "success" using even the most minimal of levels? The answer is a resounding "no."

I think the phased withdrawl plan is the best scenario for leaving. Despite what Cheney and the GOP will have you believe, the Dem plan is giving Bush more money in this bill than he asked for. The US military isn't pulling up stakes on a friday and the country won't be empty by Sunday afternoon. There would be specific benchmarks, measurable goals, however you want to term them, for the Iraqis to achieve. It is their country afterall, is it not (at least that's what Bush/Cheney are telling them)? If the goals aren't met and the Iraqis show the same lack of urgency they've shown in getting their crap together after the past four years, then the US troops mediating (caught in, really) the Iraqi Civil War start to come home even sooner. And even after all that, there will still be a US presence advising them wrt training and setting up their own forces.

As for "get[ting] us out of this situation without creating additional problems in the future", that's an incredibly unrealistic goal to think that a considerably longer (and larger) US military presence in Iraq will be a long-term benefit to that region at all. There isn't a single shred of evidence that the region is any more stable with the US bogged down over there than if the US was using diplomacy and the help of any number of the more benign countries over there. All of those countries have a vested interest in achieving some level of Mid East stability.

The region is not going to descend into chaos simply because the US occupation of Iraq ends.

Which war would that be? The US-Iraq war was over within a few months, and Saddam has been tried and executed. The US isn't fighting a war in Iraq. The US is bogged down while being caught in the Iraqi's civil war. Ending the US occupation of Iraq just ends the US military involvement in the Iraq Civil War. It does not end US involvement in an advisory role in helping whatever legitimate Iraqi central govenment that emerges. It also doesn't end the US diplomatic involvement in the entire region. In fact, removing the US military from being the de facto target for any and all wrath and blame for the region could only help wrt image and diplomacy.

There is a new plan. It is not Bush's plan. It was formulated by General Petraeus and he's over there implementing it now as the top commander. Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate for the job after explaining his plan in Senate hearings.

And the bottom line, as Tom points out, is that whether we leave today, in a month, or in 17 months, if we don't leave before the region is stabilized things will be about ten times worse in the long run. Leaving for the sake of leaving is not a solution.

I didn't know that Schumer & Menendez were GOP. Learn something new every day.

After 17 months some units will be getting ready for their 5th tour of duty in Iraq. If the Iraqis want to make war on one another, if they won't stand up and defend their own government, then its not our problem. We gave it a good try, I guess. 17 months should be enough added time for them to at least get an army together, if they can't do it after 6 years, they never will.

In other words..."Mission Accomplished"?

Never mind that whatever neocons are left in the administration, they don't have much of a voice these days.

If we left Iraq things might actually improve there. With so many Iraqis killing other Iraqis for associating with Americans it is a factor in the violence. Not saying the violence would end, but it might lesson. Those Iraqis fighting us might turn to solving their own problems. It is no doubt a fact that our presence there is a divisive influence. All I'm saying is that us leaving does not automatically have to be a disaster for Iraqis, might be a good thing, which would explain why most Iraqis want us out of there.

Staying there just means more of the same

Things would most likely improve if we left. Reformers would agin have a voice and not be labled and pro-Bush scum and traitors. The disasterous invasion has helped the dictators in that region a lot.

It's not a new plan and you are on hallucinogens if you think Patraeus was picked because he'd be anything other than another general in a long line of yes-men. Adding 21,000 (and counting) more troops is not a plan. Staying and adding more troops because you don't have a plan (and you're trying to save your own legacy) is not a solution. And, there is no guarantee (if anything you're guaranteeing the oppostite, see Iran) that a huge US military presence in Iraq is going to stabilize the region. The evidence (and bodies) to the contrary is mounting.

Isn't it great to argue that the failed reconstruction effort is akin to having no plan, at all? Or that a change in strategy to stabilize Baghdad first, is not a plan? What are you basing your assertion that there is absolutely no plan, other than a blind hatred of Bush?

At Least 50 Killed In Iraq Violence (3-24)
Roundup of violence in Iraq - 23 March 2007
Probably too long to quote here.

Reports of Progress In Iraq Challenged


There is no plan, GG. We could pull up a "violence in Iraq" round-up for every day for the past four years, and they'd all look the same. Unless you count the upsurge in chlorine tanker explosions. Those are new.

EDIT: Quick Update
If you blink you miss it, I guess. 5 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq bombings


Calling this progress is insulting.

Thanks for the voluminous links. Why didn't you include this passage from the available quotes in Wash Post's story?


Has the troop surge really been implemented yet? I didn't think so. It's just as disingenuous to call the recent plan a failure before it's even close to having been installed than using the tired "Mission Accomplished" cliche in separating the military victory from the failed reconstruction.

I am curious about this point. There was a bi-partisan committee which advocated a gradual redeployment.
Bush - as a politician and commander in chief - clearly ignored their advice.

Is it Petraeus's plan? Perhaps within the parameters he was given, not to redeploy.

By ignoring the Baker-Hamilton - Bush basically screwed his opportunity for political cover because, hell, he's either just plain smarter, or truly believed he found a better plan.

But that's his call.

I really do think Petraeus is the best guy to have over there - regardless of a surge.

I didn't include the quote because it's a load of sh--. Shrub is always proclaiming that it's too early to judge success. We've had four years of "You have to be patient. This is the plan that will work. It's too early to judge whether it will be successfull." It's a load of crap. There has been no improvement. None.

That sure reads like an opinion.

But, that's OK, cause its your opinion. Right. Got it.

One opinion of many.

Newsweek poll 3/14-15/07: 69% disapproval of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, 64% oppose President Bush's decision earlier this year to increase the level of U.S. troops in Iraq

Polls suck.

Went over your head, I guess. You chastise others for posting opinion, yet yours is an absolute.

Yeah, and polls do suck poles. I noticed how that poll is really judging Shrub or our troops. Good job. Try again.

Nice to see you overlooking our troops, though I'm not surprised. Afterall, its the polls that are fighting the war.

I do appreciate the serious reply. I don't think we will see eye to eye on this one though. I don't know how much longer U.S. troops will be required there, but I don't see where setting an artificial deadline for withdrawl has any realistic possibility of resulting in an outcome we'd consider successful. Perhaps it will scare the moderates into getting their acts together, but I just don't see it happening.

I don't think the whole region will descend into chaos when the U.S. declares victory and walks away, but I see it creating a lot more problems than we currently have.