House Passes $50B Iraq Withdrawal Bill

House Passes $50B Iraq Withdrawal Bill

www.breitbart.com

House Democrats pushed through a $50 billion bill for the Iraq war Wednesday night that would require President Bush to start bringing troops home in coming weeks with a goal of ending combat by December 2008.
The legislation, passed 218-203, was largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who already has begun reducing force levels but opposes a congressionally mandated timetable on the war.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.breitbart.com

[edit on 15-11-2007 by biggie smalls]

I would love for this to be true, but Bush has a pretty good sized red veto pen that is used quite often.

I'd be interested to see if Democrats grow some freaking balls and actually stand up for something. Its as Pelosi is a Hilldog in training with all the bureaucratic nonsense she's been spewing since she was nominated to Speaker.

Speaker of what? Big spending?

It would compel an unspecified number of troops to leave Iraq within 30 days, a requirement Bush is already on track to meet as he begins in coming weeks to reverse the 30,000 troop buildup he ordered earlier this year. It also sets a goal of ending combat by Dec. 15, 2008, and states that money included in the bill should be used to redeploy troops and "not to extend or prolong the war."

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

50 billion says he adds 25,000 troops and withdraws em keeping up with the bill. LMAO

Originally posted by Bushwacked
50 billion says he adds 25,000 troops and withdraws em keeping up with the bill. LMAO

Do you think its free to move massive amounts of soldiers from a virtually landlocked position halfway around the globe? Although the response to withdrawing isn't the greatest (I never said the democrats were geniuses) the alternative is much worse (every soldier dead and the Middle East turned into a nuclear wasteland).

At that point he'd be overreaching his power as President and either have to initiate martial law to quell the protests or be impeached through 'legal' means.

Let's see him extend his stay in the White House!

This means nothing.

What this is, is merely an attempt at saving face for their surrender mentality of the war. When they were pushing these bills through before it was because they were wanting to surrender and leave Iraq. Now that the surge has been successful and we are able to pull back our troop numbers, they want to push this bill again so it appears it was their doing.

After all, they wouldn't want people to think they were a bunch of military defeatists or anything would they?

Originally posted by biggie smalls
Do you think its free to move massive amounts of soldiers from a virtually landlocked position halfway around the globe?

It's all part of the plan.

Tax > Military suppliers, Contractors.

Whoever owns the money rules.

I'm planning to go on a pointless demonstration tomorrow. Suppose it keeps up the profile. It's funny how more is fought in the media than through genuine debate these days. But then, compared with 100 years ago, if a Republican openly agreed with Democrats nowadays, the media would lynch him, so you can assume these partisan divides, and no genuine debate.

reply to post by nyk537


I don't think surrender includes leaving a country after you've thoroughly whooped their military and 'President' aka dictator.

We've had our 'mission accomplished' for some time now according to our politicians.

When will our troops come home? Most of them have become severely psychologically tainted due to their experiences. Will you pay for their treatment or let the VA (a joke of an institution) do all the work?

You know what's unfortunate how our soldiers are being killed every day and in turn killing Iraqis, yet our politicians are sitting in their nice comfortable air-conditioned offices 'making' law.

Does that sound very fair?

I'd like to see our politicians strap on some body armor and jump out of a Huey sometime this winter. See how that shrapnel feels.