House Passes Bill To Bring Troops Home In '08.

Status
Not open for further replies.

pek1

New Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
0
House passes bill to bring troops home in '08 - CNN.com


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House of Representatives voted 223-201 Thursday to require most U.S. troops to leave Iraq by April 1, 2008.

President Bush vetoed a war-spending bill with a similar withdrawal date in May and has threatened to spike any new effort to set a timetable for a U.S. pullout. His Republican allies in the House said the new measure has no chance of passage.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said Thursday's mixed report on the progress of the war shows it's time for American troops to come home.

"President Bush continues to urge patience, but what is needed -- and what the American people are demanding -- is a new direction," she said.

Earlier Thursday, Bush said a report on U.S.-set benchmarks for Iraq shows "satisfactory progress" in eight areas. He admitted that there is "more work to be done."

During his news conference, the president commented on the nation's psyche, declaring, "There's war fatigue in America. It's affecting our psychology. I understand that.

"This is an ugly war. It's a war in which an enemy will kill innocent men, women and children in order to achieve a political objective. It doesn't surprise me that there is deep concern amongst our people."

The president said it is not Congress' job to make decisions regarding the war.

Before the House vote, Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer: We're the people who decide when to go to war, whether the war should be funded.

"Now, when [the Bush administration] keeps making mistakes as they have made, we have to intercede. The public spoke in the last election and said clearly we want the troops redeployed."

"We are wasting the time and trying the patience of the American people for no useful purpose," said Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole, one of four Republicans who voted for the measure.

Rep. Jay Inslee, a Washington Democrat, said the United States has given Iraqi leaders "a reasonable chance" to work out their differences, and it was time for American troops to come home.

"The moral obligation to Iraq has been completed," he said. "The moral obligation to our families now needs to be honored."

Four Republicans joined 219 Democrats to pass the bill, two more than backed a similar measure in March. But 10 Democrats broke ranks to oppose it.

Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said most Republicans are unwilling to challenge Bush before a September report from Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the top U.S. officials in Iraq. In a closed-door meeting Wednesday, he called Republicans who break with the president "wimps."

"It was a way of illustrating the point that we ought to give the generals on the ground and our troops a chance to succeed," Boehner said.

But Rep. Jim Clyburn, the House Democratic whip, said the vote shows Republicans need to resort to "intimidation" to keep their caucus in line.

"The name-calling that other side has resorted to, I think, is beneath the dignity of the men and women who find themselves in harm's way," said Clyburn, of South Carolina.

The vote came the same day that the White House delivered a mixed report on the progress of the 4-year-old war, concluding that the political progress of the Iraqi government is lagging behind military gains. Across the Capitol, the report added new fuel to a similar debate in the Senate, where a leading Republican senator pronounced himself "disappointed" in the results.

"That government is simply not providing leadership worthy of the considerable sacrifice of our forces, and this has to change immediately," said Sen. John Warner, the influential former chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

A broader report by the top U.S. officials in Iraq -- Petraeus, the top American commander, and Crocker -- is scheduled for September, and Bush told reporters he would consult with Congress about "the way forward" at that point.

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, a Republican, told CNN, "I think any judgments at this time, one way or the other, are quite premature."

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said, "The time to do this is now, not September."

"We're told, 'Good progress is being made. Wait till September. Good progress is being made.' How many times over the last 4½ years have we heard this?" Reid asked.

The Senate's Democratic leaders are using a Defense Department authorization bill as a vehicle to consider several amendments designed to force Bush to change course in the war.

Republicans have so far managed to use procedural roadblocks to head off those measures -- but faced with a U.S. death toll of more than 3,600 and deep public opposition, several GOP senators have wavered in recent weeks.

Three Republicans -- Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Gordon Smith of Oregon -- have co-sponsored a Democratic amendment that parallels the House bill.

But Democrats are likely to need at least eight more Republican votes before their proposal comes to a vote.

Warner and six other Republicans voted Tuesday for an amendment that would have required U.S. troops to spend a month at home for every month deployed. Two more -- Sens. Richard Lugar and Pete Domenici -- have called on Bush to change course, but have opposed Democratic calls for an American withdrawal.

It is past time for US citizens to demand our president to bring ALL troops home for a "war" that was NOT declared by Congress. This fight is for nothing except the Queen of England's oil. If we need to be there, I suggest we get the Queen's kids and grandkids over there, not to mention the kids of our leaders in Washington over there. Especially President Bush's drunken twin daughters.

Enough is enough! I vote for immediate impeachment.
 
It is past time for US citizens to demand our president to bring ALL troops home for a "war" that was NOT declared by Congress. This fight is for nothing except the Queen of England's oil. If we need to be there, I suggest we get the Queen's kids and grandkids over there, not to mention the kids of our leaders in Washington over there. Especially President Bush's drunken twin daughters.

Enough is enough! I vote for immediate impeachment.

:roll: They don't fight for oil. They fight against the terrorists. If they fighting for oil, the gas price should be about $1.30 a gallon. I am a brother of a combat veteran. He told me about his story. Nothing bad, but war is hell. Iraqi kids on the street cheered for my brother and his platoon as they entered the village. Marines gave the candies, foods, or etc to the kids which the news don't show. I suggest you to watch "My War Dairy" on Military channel. It's all about the war in Iraq with positive words.

(If ever anyone talk about this war with negative words, I won't back down and hide like a coward.)
 
:roll: They don't fight for oil. They fight against the terrorists. If they fighting for oil, the gas price should be about $1.30 a gallon. I am a brother of a combat veteran. He told me about his story. Nothing bad, but war is hell. Iraqi kids on the street cheered for my brother and his platoon as they entered the village. Marines gave the candies, foods, or etc to the kids which the news don't show. I suggest you to watch "My War Dairy" on Military channel. It's all about the war in Iraq with positive words.

(If ever anyone talk about this war with negative words, I won't back down and hide like a coward.)

That is common way any medias and other local news alway looking for negative and bad news.
 
Ok Me :confused:

What if all soldiers leave and I am afraid that terrorists will be building up stronger and could be harmful to USA, England, and other?? :Ohno:
 
Ok Me :confused:

What if all soldiers leave and I am afraid that terrorists will be building up stronger and could be harmful to USA, England, and other?? :Ohno:

Then we're pretty much screwed. Unless North Korea blows us up first.
 
Al Qaeda now is stronger than they were before 9/11.

So...
 
Ok Me :confused:

What if all soldiers leave and I am afraid that terrorists will be building up stronger and could be harmful to USA, England, and other?? :Ohno:

That's one of the reasons if we withdrawal the troops from Iraq.
 
Al Qaeda now is stronger than they were before 9/11.

So...

We probably kill Al Qaeda soldiers more than they kill the US or coalitions troops.

BTW, no offense, dude, do you have any proof that Al Qaeda are stronger than they were before 9/11? I'm curious to know that.
 
:roll: They don't fight for oil. They fight against the terrorists. If they fighting for oil, the gas price should be about $1.30 a gallon. I am a brother of a combat veteran. He told me about his story. Nothing bad, but war is hell. Iraqi kids on the street cheered for my brother and his platoon as they entered the village. Marines gave the candies, foods, or etc to the kids which the news don't show. I suggest you to watch "My War Dairy" on Military channel. It's all about the war in Iraq with positive words.

(If ever anyone talk about this war with negative words, I won't back down and hide like a coward.)

Have you ever seen the "Control Room"? It's amazing how often American Corporate Media mistranslates foreign languages.

That said, those (like myself) who say this is about Oil are not saying it's for CHEAP oil, but for control of oil. We Americans have already proven that we are idiots willing to pay almost $3.00/gal, why would any oil company in it's right mind knock the price down?
 
:roll: They don't fight for oil. They fight against the terrorists.

Simple question:

Why the soliders go to Iraq after Saddam's arrest when they know Saddam is not responsible for 9/11?

It's soliders's job to defend their country against enemies is understandable but why go to enemies's countries for? It look like that US soliders attack enemies's countries, not fight against the terrorist.

Is it necassary to go Iraq?




If they fighting for oil, the gas price should be about $1.30 a gallon. I am a brother of a combat veteran. He told me about his story. Nothing bad, but war is hell. Iraqi kids on the street cheered for my brother and his platoon as they entered the village. Marines gave the candies, foods, or etc to the kids which the news don't show. I suggest you to watch "My War Dairy" on Military channel. It's all about the war in Iraq with positive words.

(If ever anyone talk about this war with negative words, I won't back down and hide like a coward.)

We need to listen positive and negatives on both sides, not just one positive side.
 
Ok Me :confused:

What if all soldiers leave and I am afraid that terrorists will be building up stronger and could be harmful to USA, England, and other?? :Ohno:

They won't bother our countries only if we leave them alone.
 
I am all for troops coming home since I am from a military family. But the thing is that what it concerns me is that.. would the terrorists go after us if they think that the military is over them and forget about them.. then they go after us .. something bigger than 9/11. I still wish that 9/11 wouldn't happen because it does affect all of us in some ways! But again.. the news and the media is making out some coutnries to be bad which soliders tell me it isnt that bad but one thing they gonna watch their backs everyday no matter what.

One thing they aren't afraid is what to.. fight for the freedom we have in this country and to defend it.
 
But Saddam is not responsible for 9/11, isn't he?

The soliders have to die because Bush thought Saddam is the responsible for 9/11. Why Bush sent soliders to enemies's countries when they have no proof either it's really them or not... ?

Yes, they die for nothing... :(
 
YAY! That mean my uncle Elias will go back to home from Afghanistan and my other uncle Mike will finally start the retirement as he desired!

THANK GOD!!!
 
Do you guys realize that 9/11 wasn't the first or last or only attack by terrorists against Americans? It was the catalyst for action but it certainly wasn't the first time Islamic terrorists attacked us. Islamic terrorism against the US and our allies is much more beyond 9/11.
 
Do you guys realize that 9/11 wasn't the first or last or only attack by terrorists against Americans? It was the catalyst for action but it certainly wasn't the first time Islamic terrorists attacked us. Islamic terrorism against the US and our allies is much more beyond 9/11.

But government sent their soliders to Iraq is also attack, too.

The soliders have the right to defend their countries against enemies's attack but go to their countries?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top