Senate approves '08 goal to bring troops home

Breaking: Senate approves '08 goal to bring troops home

www.reuters.com

The Senate on Thursday defied President George W. Bush by passing a war-funding bill setting a goal of withdrawing all American combat soldiers from Iraq within a year.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 29-3-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Seems the Senate has finally agreed with the House on this. Lets see where this goes; will Bush veto?

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 29-3-2007 by LuDaCrIs]

Nothing will come about.

Bush will veto and he has gone on record to say it.

How is he going to get funding for the troops then? Didn't he say that funds would dry up in April if a new bill isn't passed?

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
How is he going to get funding for the troops then? Didn't he say that funds would dry up in April if a new bill isn't passed?

ermmm im not sure,
but he has gone on record to say he will veto this measure.

This moronic pseudo-President of ours is going to send these troops into a death spiral. Nice job retard!

He probably will veto the bill, he'll have to start using the CIA's drug money for funding this war. Maybe then people will really start to figure out what's going on. Until that time, I don't see much happening.

Good find, but its all over the news .

I didn't realize that there were two threads over the same news topic. I'll share my thoughts here, too.

I foresee one of two things happening...

1. President Bush will sign a veto and send the bill back to Congress, at which time Congress will (and can) pass the bill into law, anyway. Thus, putting the voice of America back into the White House over the Iraq conflict issue. Bush gets his money for the troops, but has to get them out.

2. President Bush will sit on the bill (pocket veto) and nothing will be done, and no money will be appropriated for "the troops", as Bush has cried for. As Bush has made it clear, he will attempt to coerce the American populous to think that Congress is at fault for not funding the troops, thus sending them to their deaths.


One other thing that I would like to see, is Congress get off their lazy cowardly asses and repeal Public Law 107–40 (War on Terror) and Public Law 107–243 (Use of Military Force in Iraq).

Promised veto unlikely to be overridden

Democrats acknowledge they do not have enough support in Congress to override Bush's veto, but say they will continue to ratchet up the pressure until he changes course.

I sure hope that all you ATS'ers out there write your Congressperson and urge/implore them to support these bills if/when Bush does in fact veto the bill.

Here's the means of contacting your representatives.

Senators may be contacted via this webpage.
House Representatives may be contacted via this page.

Without the voice of the American people "speaking", Bush can and will essentially do as he wishes, and that is not how it is supposed to be.

The Government works for the American people, not the other way around.

Here is a direct link to the article:

Senate approves '08 goal to bring troops home

You may want to update that because Reuters may move it from their home page.

No doubt that Bush will veto the bill. He said it was a bad bill not only because of the pullout date, but also because it contains pork. The attachments are to supply funding for other things like Walter Reed Hospital and veterans. How can he veto this bill and then say it is the democrats that don't support the troops?

Sickening, what is going on with our elected corrupted politicians . . . we have a president that considers anything for the benefit of our nation as pork but when it comes to the pursue of his wars thats what he cares about, he is the commanding in chief and the people's opinion matters not.

Our president is like a child he has gotten away with everything all his life, and he will veto this bill just because is stopping him from what he wants and he will see it as an embarrassment.

Now in the other hand I welcome the fight between congress and the president powers.

This is a refreshing change for once.

So do you want the US to lose this war? Sounds like it marg6043. As for me I love my troops and wouldn't dare put them in harms way without funding. What country are you posting from?

Originally posted by ConstantlyWondering
As for me I love my troops and wouldn't dare put them in harms way without funding. What country are you posting from?

Humm, playing the blaming game and the where are you from it most be my Spanish that gives me away. . .

Obviously you love the troops so I hope you are serving in Iraq also.

As for me I married a marine, is that love enough for you? I still have not told you my family members that had died for this nation.

Is that love enough.

Our president needs to be put in place he obviously think that the people of this nation is nothing but numbers and our soldiers are just spendable.

I think its about time we started seeing some back bone
in the ones elected to protect the interests of the American people.
I think its about time they stopped protecting the interests of Mr.Bush and actually started saying NO to him.

I'm still wondering myself where all the money went that was spent so far on this useless war could have gone, better schooling? housing? Other aid that could have gone to people in need in the US?

Originally posted by ConstantlyWondering
So do you want the US to lose this war? Sounds like it marg6043. As for me I love my troops and wouldn't dare put them in harms way without funding. What country are you posting from?

First and Foremost, CW... there's never been an official declaration of war. However, there was a modest attempt at declaring war on "terror", of which is kind of hard to do, since the war on terror is a war with a ghost.

Furthermore, the US would not "lose this war", because they accomplished in three weeks time of what they set out to do (or so according to one of the many lies sold to the American public by the Bush Administration). The continuance of the fighting in Iraq is a Civil War, it is not a war that the U.S. needs to be in the middle of.

In essence, the Bush Administration put not only the troops, but our fellow Americans here at home in more harms way by enticing the hatred of American people by following through with his agenda, whatever that may have been.

By me making sure that my child has the funding to purchase alcohol and drive under the influence... does that mean that I love my child? Poor way to equate your love.


marg6043, I too have family members that have been taken from us through the wars over the years. I can completely understand your point of view.


By no stretch of the means, does requesting that our brethren be brought home indicate that anyone not support or love the troops. If anything, love for our soldiers is shown by bringing them home to safety, as apposed to forcing them to continue to put their lives in harms way for no good reason at all.

I'm glad to see this happen, even if it most likely wont end up happening.

Bush will veto the bill, and there is'nt enough support in the Senate
to pass it without the presidents stamp of approval.

GWBush is exaggerating when he says the money will dry up in April,
the money wont start to dissipate until June or July, and even than
the military still has enough money to continue operations for awhile.



EDIT:
Spelling.

[edit on 3/29/2007 by iori_komei]

So, hang on a minute, after invading a nation, causing untold material damage and the deaths of many, many thousands of (completely innocent) people the "coalition" are going to up sticks and run?

Wow.

I'm sorry, even though I completely disagreed with the war from the outset, the US and UK have a moral obligation to stay there until either they sort out the ****ing mess, Iraq runs out of poor innocent people, or we run out of troops.

Perhaps we should hand the country over to Iran? They owned the place for hundreds of years before the Arab invasions.

Originally posted by infinite
but he has gone on record to say he will veto this measure.

What exactly does veto mean?

/7A

Originally posted by 7Ayreon

What exactly does veto mean?

/7A

Doesn't become law i think

(is not American)

Originally posted by DenyAllKnowledge
So, hang on a minute, after invading a nation, causing untold material damage and the deaths of many, many thousands of (completely innocent) people the "coalition" are going to up sticks and run?

Wow.

I'm sorry, even though I completely disagreed with the war from the outset, the US and UK have a moral obligation to stay there until either they sort out the ****ing mess, Iraq runs out of poor innocent people, or we run out of troops.

Perhaps we should hand the country over to Iran? They owned the place for hundreds of years before the Arab invasions.

Can you provide any one single shred of factual evidence as to say that the U.S. and U.K. were the only ones responsible for all the deaths and destruction that took place in Iraq?

Taking into consideration that much of the death and destruction was carried out by Iraqi's themselves, the coalition was done with their job in three weeks, and Iraq's been in the middle of a civil war since just shortly after the coalition was done... exactly how much are we responsible for? How many lives should we chalk up to make it better for Iraq?

The U.S. has already provided billions of our tax dollars to pay to rebuild Iraq, whether or not that money was spent accordingly... we, as citizens here, have no control over that.

Originally posted by 7Ayreon

Originally posted by infinite
but he has gone on record to say he will veto this measure.

What exactly does veto mean?

/7A

A "veto" by the President means.. he, the President of the U.S. simply does not sign a bill that has been agreed to by both House and Senate, of which that bill will not become law without the President's signature.

A "pocket veto" means that the President would simply keep the bill, not returning it to Congress (of which will happen with a "veto") and the bill does not get signed, as well, thus nullifying it.

Originally posted by 7Ayreon

Originally posted by infinite
but he has gone on record to say he will veto this measure.

What exactly does veto mean?

/7A

In the American system any bill has to be approved by the both sections
of the Congress, it is than sent to the president to sign into law, however
if he does'nt likie it, he can veto it, which basically sends it back, however
the senate, if there is enough support can pass it into law without the
presidents signature.