House Votes To Withdraw US Troops By Spring

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Text

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

The Iraqi government is achieving only spotty military and political progress, the Bush administration conceded Thursday in an assessment that war critics quickly seized on as confirmation of their dire warnings. Within hours, the House voted to withdraw U.S. troops by spring.

The House measure passed 223-201 in the Democratic-controlled chamber despite a veto threat from President Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September.

"The security situation in Iraq remains complex and extremely challenging," the administration report concluded. The economic picture is uneven, it added, and the government has not yet enacted vital political reconciliation legislation.

As many as 80 suicide bombers per month cross into the country from Syria, said the interim assessment, which is to be followed by a fuller accounting in September from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in the region.

"I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must," Bush said at a White House news conference at which he stressed the interim nature of the report.

Describing a document produced by his administration at Congress' insistence, he said there was satisfactory progress by the Iraqi government toward meeting eight of 18 so-called benchmarks, unsatisfactory progress on eight more and mixed results on the rest.

To his critics ? including an increasing number of Republicans ? he said bluntly, "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops."

Democrats saw it differently.

A few hours after Bush's remarks, Democratic leaders engineered passage of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days, and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.

The vote generally followed party lines: 219 Democrats and four Republicans in favor, and 191 Republicans and 10 Democrats opposed.

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., voted for troop withdrawals for the first time, contending that while she still opposes a swift pullout, "staying in Iraq indefinitely is equally unacceptable."

"The report makes clear that not even the White House can conclude there has been significant progress," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

To Bush and others who seek more time for the administration's policy to work, she said, "We have already waited too long."

Republicans sided with Bush ? at least for now. The bill "undermines Gen. Petraeus, undermines the mission he has to make America and Iraq safe," said the House GOP leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio. "What we have here is not leadership, it's negligence."

The 25-page administration report was issued in the fifth year of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,600 U.S. troops and is costing U.S. taxpayers an estimated $10 billion a month.

Bush announced last winter he was ordering thousands of additional troops to the war zone, but the full complement has only arrived in recent weeks. "The full surge in this respect has only just begun," the report said.

It warned of "tough fighting" during the summer as U.S. and Iraqi forces "seek to seize the initiative from early gains and shape conditions of longer-term stabilization."

The president sampled the report at his nationally televised session with reporters.

"Iraqis have provided the three brigades they promised for operations in and around Baghdad. And the Iraqi government is spending nearly $7.3 billion from its own funds this year to train, equip and modernize its forces," he said.

But in other areas, he added, they "have much more work to do. For example, they've not done enough to prepare for local elections or pass a law to share oil revenues."

The report was blunt at points and more opaque at others.

While Iraq has begun to show progress in providing services, "citizens nationwide complain about government corruption and the lack of essential services, such as electricity, fuel supply, sewer, water, health and sanitation."

At another point, it added, "The prerequisites for a successful militia disarmament program are not present."

In addition to citing a Syrian connection for terrorists, it also said Iran has continued to foster instability in Iraq.

It cited measured progress on the economic front. "Unemployment has eased slightly and inflation is currently abating," the report said. It omitted mention of a June 1 Pentagon report estimating an annual inflation rate at 33 percent and the Iraqi government estimate of joblessness at 17 percent.

In an evident jab at critics of Bush's war policies, the report also said progress toward political reconciliation was hampered by "increasing concern among Iraqi political leaders that the United States may not have a long term-commitment to Iraq."

Despite rising pressure from Republicans in Congress for a change in course, Bush was adamant.

"When we start drawing down our forces in Iraq, it will (be) because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not because pollsters say it'll be good politics," he said.

Before Thursday's House vote, GOP aides said they hoped to suffer only a few party defections, but the administration faced a more volatile situation in the Senate. There, three Republicans have already said they intend to vote for a separate withdrawal measure, and several others have signed on as supporters of a bipartisan bill to implement a series of changes recommended last winter by the Iraqi Study Group.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who announced his intention to seek a change in policy last week, issued a statement that said the administration's most recent assessment "confirms my worst fears that while the Iraqi government is making some progress on some benchmarks, it's not moving fast enough to make meaningful or lasting progress."

Even so, it appears the president's allies have the support to block a final Senate vote in a showdown expected next week.

If the report changed any minds in Congress, it was not immediately apparent.

"It is time for the president to listen to the American people and do what is necessary to protect this nation. That means admitting his Iraq policy has failed, working with the Democrats and Republicans in Congress on crafting a new way forward in Iraq and refocusing our collective efforts on defeating al-Qaida," said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

But Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said Congress has already decided it will be September before the administration's strategy can be evaluated properly. "Certainly the young soldiers and Marines risking their lives today on the streets of Baghdad and Ramadi would agree ? and they deserve our patience."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's good our Congress is keeping the pressure on the White House. Bush isn't up for re-election and knows Iraq will be the only thing his Presidency will be judged by, so he has no political reason to authorize a pullout before his term is over. Unfortunately for the GOP, his stubborn nature will drag the party down with him.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Unfortunately, enough dumb Republicans have voted along party lines that this was only a marginal pass and of course now Bush will veto it, even though September will quite inevitably not bring back positive results.

No matter. If there was a pull out too early and Iraq fell apart more (hard to believe, but it might when the prudent removal takes place as it will no later than the next president--a democrat), it's possible that the repubs would have enough time to blame the further collapse of iraq on the democrats next year and help swing the minds of imbeciles who really will do anything to vote republican just because it makes them feel good.

The US needs to go. Iraq is a lost cause. However, the US needs to atone for this mess and I am not sure quite how to do it. I suppose granting refugee status to all Iraqis who want to come would be a start. Heck, the population of iraq is what 25 million or something? Boot out the illegals now and replace them with Iraqis and you've got 40% of them sorted out anyway.
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
You know what I like the most? That the Democrats chant and chant about pulling out of Iraq, yet has anybody really looked at any of the plans they've put forth? Has anybody looked at Hillary's plan for "getting us out of Iraq"?

She says we should keep some troops there to train Iraqi's... and some more to secure some regions... and some more in this and some more in that... it's not a withdrawal at all... it's a damn redeployment and change of mission! The Democrats have no intentions of doing what people put them there to do... they are going to keep us in Iraq indefinitely!
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: jrenz
You know what I like the most? That the Democrats chant and chant about pulling out of Iraq, yet has anybody really looked at any of the plans they've put forth? Has anybody looked at Hillary's plan for "getting us out of Iraq"?

Hmmm, let's see.

Load planes.

Planes go fast.

Planes fly away.

Goodbye Iraq.

Much too difficult for Bush and his supporters especially on here to comprehend sadly :(
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Why is it every time a Republican changes his/her mind on Iraq it makes national headlines? Looking at this vote you can see that 10 Democrats sided with the Republicans and voted no, only 4 Republicans sided with the Democrats.
The way the press has been carrying on for the last few days you would believe that only a few Republicans are the only people in the country who support the war.


BTW Dave, it will take at least 6 months to get out of Iraq, unless we leave all our neato stuff there.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: jrenz
You know what I like the most? That the Democrats chant and chant about pulling out of Iraq, yet has anybody really looked at any of the plans they've put forth? Has anybody looked at Hillary's plan for "getting us out of Iraq"?

Hmmm, let's see.

Load planes.

Planes go fast.

Planes fly away.

Goodbye Iraq.

Much too difficult for Bush and his supporters especially on here to comprehend sadly :(
Pretty much... to continue your list...

Iraq burns to the ground.

US is shamed even more deeply than it is now.

It's not that simple Dave. I want them gone too. But not at the expense of MILLIONS dying Khmer Rouge style. There has to be SOME level of stability in that country before we leave. As bad as it is now, can you imagine what it would be like the day we left? And the next year? And maybe the next decade? See Somalia for context.
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: jrenz
You know what I like the most? That the Democrats chant and chant about pulling out of Iraq, yet has anybody really looked at any of the plans they've put forth? Has anybody looked at Hillary's plan for "getting us out of Iraq"?

Hmmm, let's see.

Load planes.

Planes go fast.

Planes fly away.

Goodbye Iraq.

Much too difficult for Bush and his supporters especially on here to comprehend sadly :(

Did you hear what I said? The Democrats have no intentions of leaving Iraq, as they want you to believe. They makes plans that call for the redeployment of forces to "support and train the Iraqi's", which is exactly what we are doing now, and have no intentions of leaving anytime soon at all! You;ve got to be insane to believe a word they say.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
At least House Democrats are doing what their voters asked them to do.

Maybe the Senate Democrats might do so one day as well.


 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
between meaningless votes to "ban the war" and starting yet another investigation into the "Valerie Plame Affair" have the Democrats done anything since they took over Congress?

FYI, if they want to stop the war, they should just vote to defund it. That is if they have the votes in the Senate to override a veto. Oh ya, they don't.....

So basically, the Dems understand that everyone of these "votes" is purely political in nature, and they have no expectation of any of these bills getting signed into law.


"Move along, nothing to see here"
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,444
47,819
136
You know what I like the most? That the Democrats chant and chant about pulling out of Iraq, yet has anybody really looked at any of the plans they've put forth?


You know what I like most? That you Bushies are suddenly concerned about "having a plan."
Oh it's perfectly fine for this admin to have no exit strategy whatsoever going into the clusterfvck known as Iraq, but if ditching a situation we can't win and saving American lives in the process isn't done to your satisfaction well get out the pitchforks and torches, it's those damn Democrats again!

If I recall correctly, Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone in his staff that even proposed "a plan" as well - the silence from the right was deafening.

Things aren't moving at the speed of a rubber-stamp Congress anymore - deal with it.

 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Originally posted by: kage69
You know what I like the most? That the Democrats chant and chant about pulling out of Iraq, yet has anybody really looked at any of the plans they've put forth?


You know what I like most? That you Bushies are suddenly concerned about "having a plan."
Oh it's perfectly fine for this admin to have no exit strategy whatsoever going into the clusterfvck known as Iraq, but if ditching a situation we can't win and saving American lives in the process isn't done to your satisfaction well get out the pitchforks and torches, it's those damn Democrats again!

If I recall correctly, Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone in his staff that even proposed "a plan" as well - the silence from the right was deafening.

Things aren't moving at the speed of a rubber-stamp Congress anymore - deal with it.

A withdrawal is not as easy as jumping on a plane and going home.
 

tomywishbone

Golden Member
Oct 24, 2006
1,401
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: jrenz
You know what I like the most? That the Democrats chant and chant about pulling out of Iraq, yet has anybody really looked at any of the plans they've put forth? Has anybody looked at Hillary's plan for "getting us out of Iraq"?

Hmmm, let's see.

Load planes.

Planes go fast.

Planes fly away.

Goodbye Iraq.

Much too difficult for Bush and his supporters especially on here to comprehend sadly :(


Sorry, all that beautiful oil won't fit in any plane. We ain't goin' anywhere.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: kage69
You know what I like the most? That the Democrats chant and chant about pulling out of Iraq, yet has anybody really looked at any of the plans they've put forth?


You know what I like most? That you Bushies are suddenly concerned about "having a plan."
Oh it's perfectly fine for this admin to have no exit strategy whatsoever going into the clusterfvck known as Iraq, but if ditching a situation we can't win and saving American lives in the process isn't done to your satisfaction well get out the pitchforks and torches, it's those damn Democrats again!

If I recall correctly, Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone in his staff that even proposed "a plan" as well - the silence from the right was deafening.

Things aren't moving at the speed of a rubber-stamp Congress anymore - deal with it.

A withdrawal is not as easy as jumping on a plane and going home.


Its not all that hard either.

can't take something with you? blow it up. Been there, done that.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
between meaningless votes to "ban the war" and starting yet another investigation into the "Valerie Plame Affair" have the Democrats done anything since they took over Congress?

FYI, if they want to stop the war, they should just vote to defund it. That is if they have the votes in the Senate to override a veto. Oh ya, they don't.....

So basically, the Dems understand that everyone of these "votes" is purely political in nature, and they have no expectation of any of these bills getting signed into law.


"Move along, nothing to see here"

In the same post you both criticize them for allegedly not doing anything in Congress and you admit they don't have enough votes to do anything. :confused:
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,444
47,819
136
A withdrawal is not as easy as jumping on a plane and going home.


Please don't confuse what I said with the cut-n-dry hopes of others in this thread. I in no way implied it was as easy as getting on a plane and leaving.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
between meaningless votes to "ban the war" and starting yet another investigation into the "Valerie Plame Affair" have the Democrats done anything since they took over Congress?

FYI, if they want to stop the war, they should just vote to defund it. That is if they have the votes in the Senate to override a veto. Oh ya, they don't.....

So basically, the Dems understand that everyone of these "votes" is purely political in nature, and they have no expectation of any of these bills getting signed into law.


"Move along, nothing to see here"

In the same post you both criticize them for allegedly not doing anything in Congress and you admit they don't have enough votes to do anything. :confused:
The new Democratic leadership of Congress rode into Washington loudly proclaiming on how they were going to fix all the problems.

Now, did they not know the rules of the game or did they want to cover up the fact that they knew they couild not accomplish waht they were claiming to get done?

 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,444
47,819
136
Sorry, all that beautiful oil won't fit in any plane. We ain't goin' anywhere.


You're right. I believe the neocons saw this situation as an opportunity to get rid of a pesky dictator and at the same time insure that the country's considerable resources were available to the international market via the currency of our choosing (obviously not the Euro). Getting buttered up by exiled Iraqis just enhanced their resolve.

To meet that end, there will be US troops in Iraq for the foreseeable next few decades, at least. It's just a question of how much life and money we're willing to throw into the meat grinder to preserve our consumptive way of life. Saving the American economy from having to adapt to a changing energy landscape is more important to our corporatist politicians than the lives of our service people, which is why we won't be seeing a total, absolute withdrawal.

It's not about spreading democracy, it's not about having a front for the oddly named WOT, but it's also not the too-often heard "we're there to steal oil!" en vogue with the ultra-left crowd.

It's about being able to buy the oil we want, the way we want.



my $0.02 anyway...

 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,444
47,819
136
I'm astonished that the democrats made a promise they couldn't (or won't) fulfill.


The sarcasm would work better if you hadn't already had 7 years of republicans doing the same.
 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
between meaningless votes to "ban the war" and starting yet another investigation into the "Valerie Plame Affair" have the Democrats done anything since they took over Congress?

FYI, if they want to stop the war, they should just vote to defund it. That is if they have the votes in the Senate to override a veto. Oh ya, they don't.....

So basically, the Dems understand that everyone of these "votes" is purely political in nature, and they have no expectation of any of these bills getting signed into law.


"Move along, nothing to see here"

In the same post you both criticize them for allegedly not doing anything in Congress and you admit they don't have enough votes to do anything. :confused:
The new Democratic leadership of Congress rode into Washington loudly proclaiming on how they were going to fix all the problems.

Now, did they not know the rules of the game or did they want to cover up the fact that they knew they couild not accomplish waht they were claiming to get done?

So in six months you expected them to 'fix all the problems' caused by Bush and Repubs in the last six years much less 12 years?
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
between meaningless votes to "ban the war" and starting yet another investigation into the "Valerie Plame Affair" have the Democrats done anything since they took over Congress?

FYI, if they want to stop the war, they should just vote to defund it. That is if they have the votes in the Senate to override a veto. Oh ya, they don't.....

So basically, the Dems understand that everyone of these "votes" is purely political in nature, and they have no expectation of any of these bills getting signed into law.


"Move along, nothing to see here"

In the same post you both criticize them for allegedly not doing anything in Congress and you admit they don't have enough votes to do anything. :confused:
The new Democratic leadership of Congress rode into Washington loudly proclaiming on how they were going to fix all the problems.

Now, did they not know the rules of the game or did they want to cover up the fact that they knew they couild not accomplish waht they were claiming to get done?

They lied to get get more votes. Ain't democracy grand?
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: kage69
I'm astonished that the democrats made a promise they couldn't (or won't) fulfill.


The sarcasm would work better if you hadn't already had 7 years of republicans doing the same.

The republicans have done what they promised. Cut taxes, gone to war, "stayed the course". Much easier of course when you are in power.

But the dems have the power and aren't using it. Just don't pass legislation funding the war, it's over. That's all it will take.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,808
11,454
136
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
between meaningless votes to "ban the war" and starting yet another investigation into the "Valerie Plame Affair" have the Democrats done anything since they took over Congress?

FYI, if they want to stop the war, they should just vote to defund it. That is if they have the votes in the Senate to override a veto. Oh ya, they don't.....

So basically, the Dems understand that everyone of these "votes" is purely political in nature, and they have no expectation of any of these bills getting signed into law.


"Move along, nothing to see here"

Ha! You bash them for not being able to do anything, and then admit they don't have the numbers to do anything. Congrats.

As for purely political votes, were you screaming about the ban internet gambling, ban flag burning, ban gay marriage, terry schiavo votes as well?
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,444
47,819
136
The republicans have done what they promised.


After reading depressing story after depressing story, I'd like to thank you for the laugh that gave me. :laugh:


I wish I had time to post everything I want, but I have to leave on a road-trip shortly. Guess I just missed that marriage amendment we heard so much about. When I get back I hope you'll have provided a link or something that illustrates this stellar rate of delivery you're speaking of. Specially that marriage amendment, I'd love to hear all about as so many folks were riled up over the issue. Who knows, maybe you'll educate me on how Iraq has already been won on the cheap with oil revenues for all.


Cheers! ;)


 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Donny Baker
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
between meaningless votes to "ban the war" and starting yet another investigation into the "Valerie Plame Affair" have the Democrats done anything since they took over Congress?

FYI, if they want to stop the war, they should just vote to defund it. That is if they have the votes in the Senate to override a veto. Oh ya, they don't.....

So basically, the Dems understand that everyone of these "votes" is purely political in nature, and they have no expectation of any of these bills getting signed into law.


"Move along, nothing to see here"

In the same post you both criticize them for allegedly not doing anything in Congress and you admit they don't have enough votes to do anything. :confused:
The new Democratic leadership of Congress rode into Washington loudly proclaiming on how they were going to fix all the problems.

Now, did they not know the rules of the game or did they want to cover up the fact that they knew they couild not accomplish waht they were claiming to get done?

So in six months you expected them to 'fix all the problems' caused by Bush and Repubs in the last six years much less 12 years?

I would expect them to not promise what they know they can not deliver.
The leadership has been around Washington long enough to know how things work.