Iraq

Posted: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:22 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Security

So what did the Senate Democrats win yesterday? One could argue that the Republicans finally allowed the Democrats to lay claim to some ownership of the Iraq issue. But Democratic ownership, of course, will be short-lived since Bush plans to veto the bill because it includes a specific withdrawal date. Politically, a Bush veto may be the best thing for Democrats since they can tell voters that they tried to get the troops out of the unpopular war -- but that the president and his party wouldn't allow it.

Per NBC’s John Yang, President Bush is slated to address the National Cattlemen's Beef Association later this morning. The White House has released excerpts dealing with yesterday’s Senate vote. "The bottom line is this: the House and Senate bills have too much pork, too many conditions on our commanders, and an artificial timetable for withdrawal,” Bush is expected to say.” As I have made clear for weeks, if either version comes to my desk, I will veto it. And it is also clear from the strong opposition in both houses that my veto would be sustained. Yet Congress continues to pursue these bills - and as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field. Funding for our forces in Iraq will begin to run out in mid-April. Members of Congress need to stop making political statements … start providing vital funds for our troops … and get a bill to my desk that I can sign into law."

More Bush: "Some Democrats believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely. That's not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

Both WH '08 and SEN '08 politics seemed to influence yesterday’s final vote count. The two Republicans to side with the Democrats were Chuck Hagel (who continues to mull a possible White House run) and Gordon Smith (who is up for re-election in '08 in the blue state of Oregon). As we mentioned yesterday, the DSCC released its own poll showing Rep. Pete DeFazio (D) narrowly leading Smith in a possible match up. The two Democrats to side with the GOP were Joe Lieberman (of course) and Mark Pryor (the Arkansas Democrat who is up for re-election next year; Some Arkansas Democrats are nervous about running statewide in 2008 if someone is perceived to be too liberal is leading the national ticket).

The Los Angeles Times says the overall Senate emergency spending bill, with its withdrawal deadlines and all, is poised to pass as soon as today.

As for the ramifications in the presidential race, Giuliani showed that there would be little difference between his stance on the issue and McCain’s. "I can't imagine in the history of war anybody announcing a timetable to run out and retreat," he said at a fundraiser yesterday. "I think it's a terrible mistake. To put up the white flag and announce a timetable for retreat seems like a very bad strategy to me." He added that he hopes Bush vetoes the bill.

Also of note, Americans United, the coalition of liberal groups which helped defeat Bush during the Social Security battles of 2005, is going up with a $200,000 ad buy in Kentucky targeting Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell on Iraq. The ad juxtaposes clips of McConnell offering optimistic assessments about the war with scenes of chaos in Iraq. "Tell Mitch McConnell: Stop blocking change in Iraq," the ad concludes. McConnell is up for re-election in 2008 and is likely to become a favorite target of the liberal netroots.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

MESSAGE TO DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS: STOP PLAYING POLITICS WITH OUR SOLDIERS LIVES! No matter which side of the Iraq issue you come down on you should agree this is unacceptable. Give them the funding, no strings attached. Continue to debate, to protest, to do whatever you think you must to end the war in Iraq if that's what you believe is right, but not this. It is shameful.

Darren Pope, MB, SC (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:43 AM)

Bush still does not understand that most people think staying in Iraq is a bad idea. It is obvious he considers his opinion supreme for some reason and intends to prove that by vetoing a bill that he should sign. Do the republicans realize how utterly stupid they look bringing up the pork in this bill when they have passed more swine laden bills in the past few years than Jimmy Dean. Mr. President rest assurred the American people know who to hold responsible, it's that guy starring back at you in the mirror.

MK,MO (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:47 AM)

Bush, and the G.O.P. in general, just don't get it. Do they? The American People voted republiCANTS OUT of office specifically so Democrats could / would pursue an end to The Iraq War. All the rhetoric Bush can muster won't change that. The House and Senate gave Mr. Bush what he wanted. Emergency funding for the military. But, along with that funding comes a stipulation that he must be more judicious about deciding where and when to deploy our troops in harm's way. If he doesn't adhere to that stipulation, and chooses to veto this measure, The American People will know who to hold accountable when more of our troops die needlessly for a cause that HE lied about to begin with. If he and The G.O.P. don't think a veto of this bill would cost them dearly in '08,' they should go back over the numbers from the last election, and remember that The Congressional Majority now held by Democrats can be INCREASED just as well as the republican majority was lost.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:48 AM)

The cost of funding the Troops is a pittance compared with funding Dubya's Pet Corporations in Iraq. That's what the "Funding Brouhaha" is about. If Congress fails to get the Troops out soon, voters will know who to blame next year.

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:07 AM)

even cavemen get it but bush/cheney/chickenhawks dont. America wants our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers home where they belong, not in some godforsaken stenchpit. Let all those warhawk/chickenhawks who want to stay in iraq hop on a plane and go do what they think is right. They dont have to be in uniform. they can just go and fight for what they think is right. The truth is none will go cuse hey they are chickenhawks.

mikeeg,abdn,wa (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:11 AM)

Darren, cutting off funding will bring soldiers home, and so will hardly be playing with their lives, it will be saving them.

Tom, Boston MA (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:38 AM)

The statements from McCain and Lieberman during the debate truly sound like they've become completely untethered from reality - for example, McCain's "just when we're starting to make progress." "Just" four years later? A bomb landed in the Green Zone yesterday, and we're "starting to make progress?" I'm also tired of the GOP line that "they'll follow us here." The Sunnis and Shias have their own fight - they're not going to follow us, we're just in the way - and since Dubya took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan there isn't a thing in the world that's preventing al-Quaida from following us right now. It isn't like we have them bogged down in Iraq.

Butch, Pine, Colorado (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:48 AM)

Republican Senators Gordon Smith and Chuck Hagel are to be commended for putting the welfare of our Troops, currently in the middle of 1000+ year old tribal Civil War, unleashed by Bush's unbelievable recklessness, ahead of their politics. The rest of the Republican Senators to include Sen. Lieberman, have clearly shown, that to continue to carry water for the failed, inept, and corrupt George W. Bush and nourish their political ambitions, while our Troops are in this impossible position, put them clearly with that 27% of our Nation who remains of a mind that the Iraq War, 100% owned by George W. Bush, is a proper use of our military. What must our troops think, as they watch virtually half of the Senate clinging to a position, that 70% of Americans, no longer (rightfully) believe has anything whatsoever to with the so called "war on terror", much less the events of 9/11/01. It is very disheartening to witness United States Senators, putting the welfare of 150K U.S. Military heroes, on the back burner, and putting their loyalty to a failed Commander-in-Chief foremost. The election of November 7, 2006 was not enough. The next election will add to the majority of Democractic Senators, and Democrats in the House of Representatives...and more importantly return the White House to a Democrat, who wants to fight the attackers responsible for the events of 9/11/01...and remove our Troops from what clearly can only be described as an ageless Secetarian War in Iraq. Many of us will work tirelessly to achieve these goals, our efforts were successful last November, and will be successful in November of 2008.

Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West Virginia (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:49 AM)

mikeeg. They could make as much money being mercenaries in the Corporate SS over there, as they make as Politicians back home. Plus, they'd get to shoot off their guns instead of their mouths.

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:50 AM)

I'm throwing the BS flag at Tom. This bill will do nothing, and anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that. GW has said for weeks he would veto any bill that puts a date on withdrawal of troops. Dems know that he will do just that. This is political grandstanding, nothing more. The "surge", that so many said wouldn't work, is showing signs of success. Dems know that if it continues to do so they will lose support. They are doing this to say "We tried but Bush and the GOP don't care what the American public think" thereby gaining more support in their quest for the White House in '08. This, more than anything else, is the priority of both parties. As I have said many times, everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe, but playing politics in this dangerous time in our nation's history is shameful. Say what you will about GW and the GOP, but they definitely aren't trying to gain political points with their stance on the war. If so the troops would already be home. I am still waiting for anyone who opposes the war to tell me exactly what they think would happen if we withdrew. And if the result would be acceptable. That question usually brings personal attacks, but no legitimate response. It is a false assertion that most Americans think the troops should withdraw immediately. A majority want them out, but not immediately. IO want them out, when the time is right. When no more terrorists are crossing Iraq's borders to kill and maim American soldiers. When we have shown them our steadfast resolve, our unbending determiniation to stop their radical philosophy. Anything less is unacceptable.

Darren Pope, MB, SC (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:59 AM)

"The President believes that by delaying funding for our troops, he can force the congress to accept his way or no way for our commanders in Iraq, that he believes would make withdrawal and defeat more likely. That's not going to happen. If The President fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible." Giuliani showed that voting for him or McCain would be like puting President Bush back in the Oval office. "I can't imagine in the HISTORY of WAR anybody announcing a timetable to run out and retreat" accept the truth boys we "kicked ass and won the invasion of Iraq", now its time to come home to a hero's welcome. Giuliani says "I think it's a terrible mistake to put up the white flag and announce a timetable for retreat seems like a very bad strategy to me." Who in the Hell does he think he is, who and what are we retreating from a fat cat government in Iraq living off of the American people and a population that thinks they would be better if we withdrew "all" American troops. I don't recall any photos showing white flags flying and I have no doubt what so ever that every soldier in Iraq and every American citizen would die fighting "President Bush's War" before they would let that happen! President Bush, Vice President Cheney and a lot of Republicans have talked about raising that white flag of surrender surely they jest.

Paw Paw, NC (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:59 AM)

give the troops everything they need. we went to war with the army we had and no one seems to want to upgrade to the army we need. quit spending money on contract mercenaries and the contract support system and upgrade to an all armor vehicle fleet. IN OTHER WORDS, TAKE CARE OF THE TROOPS!

larry south, tx (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:05 AM)

Look at that, shrub saying we'd know who to hold responsible. Huh.

scott, winona mn (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:06 AM)

J. Merle gets a BS flag too. His post is straight from the DNC talking points. The web is full of paid bloggers, is J. Merle one of them?

Darren Pope, MB, SC (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:09 AM)

"If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible." Newsflash, Mr. Bush - Congress already has passed the bill. If Bush decides to veto it, I guess he would be the one to hold responsible.

Carrie, NW Iowa (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:17 AM)

Darren, two wrongs don't make a right. We attacked a country who didn't attack us and we attacked them based on outdated and erroneous information. That's one wrong. Then, after we win the initial battle, there was no plan to keep the peace, no plan for fighting an insurgency and, the one thing which would have brought some stability (keeping much of the standing army and the civil service)we dismissed which added fuel to the insurgency. That's wrong number two. In fact, there are so many wrongs in this war and what it has done to us back here at home, it can NEVER be made right. Our troops were sent into doing a job they were never trained to do; fight an insurgency and keep the peace. They were either given shoddy or incomplete equipment, and a large percentage of them were weekend warriors who had more experience drinking beer than shooting a rifle. They have dona a great job but now they are overworked, understaffed and their morale isn't what it should be because they don't know when or if they are going home anytime soon. The goal of the soldier is to survive; winning comes second. It is only the armchair quarterbacks and those who have never experienced the enemy face to face who think winning at all costs is the most important thing. If we care about our soldiers, we will bring them home from fighting in an illegal, ill-conceived, ill-planned war and one that has made us ill back home. Invading Iraq has hurt os as a nation more than anything the terrorists could have done to us. It is said you cannot always control what happens to you but you can control how you react to it. When 9-11 happened we had a chance to do some great things in the world but, instead, our President acted stupidly and let the real perpetrators go and attacked Iraq. Now, we have a breeding ground for terrorists not even Bin-Laden could have imagined in his wildest dreams. Or, maybe, he knew exactly how Bush would react and somewhere he's smiling, knowing he outsmarted the leqader of the greatest nation on earth.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:18 AM)

Robert, a flag for you too. Two wrongs don't make a right, but can't never did do anything. Show me any war in history war that was planned from start to finish. Name one conflict where any army announced a date of withdrawal. That is, by definition, surrender. Let the real perpetrators go? Come on, you can do better than that. Many 9/11 conspirators are either dead or imprisoned. Bin-Laden is still in hiding, unable to move about freely, unable to exert the control he once had. His days are numbered, if he is even in fact still alive. Yes, I admit once again, mistakes have been made, some glaring, but you cannot name a single armed conflict that didn't include mistakes and outright blunders. Still no answers on the consequences of a US withdrawal? For all the accusations of rhetoric, that is what most of the anti-war crowd spouts. It's the same ol' same ol'. You have the absolute right to your beliefs, but your arguements are weak. You said, "You cannot control what happens to you but you can control how you react to it." Doesn't that apply to GW? How about "you can decide your actions but you can't decide the consequences"? What would the consequences of a withdrawal be, Robert? The enemy brought the fight to us in Iraq, AFTER many of the goals we set out to achieve had been met. Should we run from them? Another poster said the majority of Iraqis want us out now. that is not true, roughly 2/3 of them don't want us out now. Only about 1/4 of them believe Iraq is in a civil war. Those numbers are diametrically opposed to poll numbers here. Who do you think has a better idea of what's going on in Iraq? Us, or Iraqis who are in the midst of it? I despise war, but unfortunately it is sometimes neccesary. This, I believe, is one of those times.

Darren Pope, MB, SC (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:57 AM)

"the American people will know who to hold responsible." And he thinks that doesn't mean him - nothing psychotic about that....And speaking of the BS flag: 1) We're not paid - we're passionate - that's part of the rights' psychosis, thinking WE'RE teh lock-steppers 2) Darren, quit acting like if Bush accepts this bill it's the kiss of death on paper. Such extreme nosense. The troops would be fully funded for over a year - you think something else might work out in that time? It might. You must have some mental image of 120,000 Americans standing naked in Baghdad. Try to relax - the veterans' party, aka Democrats, aren't going to let that happen. PRESIDENT Divine Choice is going to start responding to the will of the American people. Why that so frightens so many people in this country I find acutely embarrassing.

Lee Steele Mountain View CA (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:01 PM)

Bush has been hoping for some reason to claim that the Democrats are cutting funding to the troops. I don't think this is it. His problem is that, with a 35% approval rating, he can no longer sway the American public. Most Americans have tuned him out, and no longer believe anything he says. The Dems would be wise to say, "take it or leave it". We will fund the troops as long as you start bringing them home. I think this is where the public is on this issue. Bush will keep his 35% who are still drinking the koolaid, but he has lost the support of the rest.

Al, Burlington KS (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:04 PM)

another leader who continued to believe in the success of his effort against all accepted reality was adolf hitler. bush now has to be considered as a psychological obstacle- not a political one. he is a very weak man as his addiction propensities indicate. he is too weak to ever face what he has done without years of intensive psychotherapy. should he have to witness a diplomatic end to all this, self-harm is a real possibility . he thinks things would be unimaginably bad without him. he clings to the illusion of worse possibilities than chlorine gas attacks as a bulwark for his emotional composure and stability. there is nothing to him but fear; he is merely the sum of his fears. and now he's being used to make money by war profiteers. so impeachment as a POLITICAL process has missed the mark. the grounds for impeachment always have been mental illness in his case. he needs evaluation by top-notch clinical professionals as a first step. you may someday soon recall this comment when he uses a nuclear weapon to prevent some worse horror that only exists in his mind.

ken, deep blue city MN (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:13 PM)

Withdraw now! End this war against Iraq, and go back to the war on terror!!

blacksheep, Pope County, Ar. (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:24 PM)

Robaert: De-Baathification of the civil service dismissed thousands of Sunnis from their jobs. Liquidation of the Iraqi army did the same. The Sunnis knew they would lose political power to the Shias. These moves constituted an INCITEMENT of the Sunnis to insurgency. What do they have to lose? These aren't mistakes, this is criminal stupidity. Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld did everything to get the Sunnis to revolt. They made no provision for law or stability in Iraq. They were more interested in having Halliburton and Blackwater (and other Republican corporations) loot the Iraqi economy. Frankly, to think that Bush wanted to "democratize" Iraq is foolish. Bush always planned to set up a lap dog, puppet state in Iraq (see Egypt, Jordan). Why waste those many lives and that much money to allow Iraqis to make their own decisions ?? This wasn't nation building. This was an expansion of the American Empire. Americans are learning that their nation is not invincible. The world is discovering a new "Evil Empire"

Sierra, San Francisco (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:37 PM)

Darren to answer your question about what would happen if we withdrew from Iraq? The religous factions would continue to kill each other. What will happen if we stay in Iraq? The religous factions will contnue to kill each other. Only difference is Americans won't be getting killed. Which one is more acceptable to you?

MK,MO (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:51 PM)

You underestimate me Lee. Of course it doesn't mean that. And of course the dems aren't going to let it happen. As I said, it is political grandstanding, nothing more, nothing less. BTW, it isn't the presidents job to bend to the will of "the American people". It is to uphold the constitution and provide for the common defense. I'm sure a majority of Americans, if polled, would say they would like the government to provide them with a free home. That doesn't mean it should happen. I'm throwing the flag back. Nice try.

Darren Pope, MB, SC (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:54 PM)

What will happen if I'm thinking of throwing the BS Flag at Bush-Cheney LLC.

scott, winona mn (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:56 PM)

well said, ken, deep blue

Mark Thieme (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:03 PM)

Please note - the troops (which are the most important here) are funded in the bill passed by both House & Senate. They are funded. Please note that the rhetoric of "we fight them there so we don't fight them here" is BS. Plain & simple. Whatever our goal was or is, four years in Iraq has cost US lives, treasure and goodwill. No, I don't believe that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11, nor that any of the reasons for the U.S. to be in Iraq other than WMDs imminent use was even remotely justified. Once that issue was not proven (yes, I know that small amounts of chemical weapons were found, but let's be real - that was not the implied threat) then our reason to be in Iraq fell apart. Sorry, but any other reason just doesn't cut it. Frankly, a surgical strike a la the Israeli attack in 1982? would have been better misson for the U.S. forces. So let's all think for a moment how having U.S. troops exposed to harm on an indefinate basis is going to either justify the terrible loss of life to date, or make us safer here in the U.S., or fight the "Global War on Terrorism". For my vote, I'd like to see stonger border enforcement, less deficit spending and a focus on real, not illusionary, security at home. For example, I fly every week, and I have zero faith in the TSA security measures - because I am afraid of how little care is taken to secure our airports, cargo handling and access to sterile areas. Flame away, Darren!!

BG Portland (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:04 PM)

How about our own country? Its going to hell real fast because we're pouring all our money and resourse into Iraq. Time to pull out and go home. No more trying to save face for our president. He's on his own now, just what he deserves.

j clearwater, fl. (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:17 PM)

I keep hearing how the progress is already showing from this 'surge' that's going on (even without all the added troops in place, yet!), and how it'd be such a shame to end it now. I also am hearing that the end of our involvement being called for is August of NEXT year. If it's suddenly going so well, seems like nearly an additonal year and a half should do it easily. No more insurgents, civil war, or bad guys following us home- right? I know, I know, the bad guys will 'pretend' to have gone away, and come out when their calendar shows the magic date has arrived. Well, what would prevent them from doing that anyway in, say, 10 or 20 more years? I guess I feel a little sorry for Shrub as I watch him try to make his case now, but then I keep thinking of that old kiddie tale about a boy and crying 'wolf'. By the way, you all know what the REAL problem is, don't you? Ol' Bill 'got some'.

Glen in Indy (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:46 PM)

The Democrats, in negotiating to produce a new bill, should remove or alter the deadline for withdrawal, but they should leave in the funding for other pressing needs (some of it "pork," yes) among them veteran's care and peanut storage. But most importantly, they should leave in and make more explicit language mandating our troops are rested, equipped, and trained before our chickenhawk President, who shirked his service in the Guard, sends them to be maimed and killed (sorry Bush-shillers, but that is not rhetoric, but reality!) In this way, Bush can waive these requirements to rush them into battle unprepared, as he has in the past, but "the American people will know who is to blame." It would be awful hard for Republicans to vote against such a bill and if it saves one more American life (or arm or leg or brain), then it's worth it to send them with, say, the body armor and urban guerilla warfare training they need.

Vridar, Seattle (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:48 PM)

I'll throw some BS flags at Bush/Cheney with you. My support of the war, as I have said numerous times, does not indicate my complete support of Bush. As for the answer(thank you for at least some kind of response)to my question of consequences of a US withdrawal, think about this. Many here constantly accuse Bush of creating the mess in Iraq(see above examples). Now, I could be wrong, but I have always been taught that if you create a mess, it is your responsibilty to do what you can to clean it up. Should we say to the Iraqis, "Sorry, we miscalculated. We're outta here." ??? Regime change was Bush's primary reason for entering Iraq, because Sadaam would have tried to reaquire WMD, and he would have put them in the hands of terrorists to use against us given the chance. Part of a regime change is staying until the newly established government can stand on its own. Leave a job half done? Seems to go against everything I have been taught about responsibiltiy. But, then again, America seems to have a problem with personal responsibility lately. The biggest problem I have with those who want us to withdraw is that the reasons keep changing for many of them. (BEFORE YOU JUMP NOTICE I SAID MANY, NOT ALL)Any new bad news that comes out of Iraq is a new reason to get out. Any good news or successful reports are largely ignored.

Darren Pope, MB, SC (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:55 PM)

Whatever else that can be said, quite truthfully, about Herr Rove's villainy, treachery, and double-speak as parroted by Dubbya, the man has a knack for 'sloganistic talking points. The "support our troops" mantra that Bush/Cheney spout as well as "keep them safe" and "give them what they need to finish their mission" that they use interchangeably to resist all demands to get the US military out of a [un]civil, theocratic 'payback' bloodbath between differing ethnic and religious groups in Iraq. The US Military is NOT a UN Peacekeeping force; actually it's an invading army in the Arabic Heartland. However, my point is for Dubbya to use the Support our troops talking point to bash Congress is hypocritical, outrageous and a bald-faced lie! His administration has STILL NOT provided body armor for all the troops in Iraq, still not provided the necessary training and the vital equipment troops redeploying in Iraq need just to keep alive, let alone accomplish their mission; whatever that may be. Dubbya has also under funded the military hospital systems that are supposed to care for our wounded, nor met the needs for ensuring the VA post treatment system is equipped to meet their additional responsibilities for Iraqi veterans, and he has increased the costs for active duty military to receive care. His and his incompetents caused all of the collateral damage to our troops by their lack of planning, ideological blind sight and just plain stupidity by ignoring the advice and demands of the military professionals at the Chief of Staff levels as well as combat generals. And now, he wants to blame the Democratic Congress and Senate for attaching restrictions on funding, future deployments, training and equipment and set a timetable for bringing our troops home; he calls it micromanagement - Well Damn Straight, he has repeatedly demonstrated his incompetence and inability - let someone else have a chance to correct his FUBAR in Iraq! It’s about time this administration is forced to listen to the American Congress and voters, it’s about time the Congress starts turning over rocks to uncover all the dirty little deeds committed by Dubbya, et al in his rush to power, rush to war, rush to break our laws, rush to break his oath of office, rush to appoint ideological idiots to Director positions in the Federal government who also rush to lie while dismantle the protections legislated to protect Americans, rush to politicize the Federal Bureaucratic structures and emplace some sort of quasi-religious, semi-conservative and purely partisan fervor to rubber stamp his treacherous attacks on our Democracy. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! IMPEACH THIS LYING CHARALATAN AND HIS CRONIES! Then indict them all for treason [acts to aid the enemy while the US is at war], freeze all their assets, take their passports, appoint Fitz as a Special Prosecutor, let him have the 8 just terminated for doing their ‘Real Job’ and start picking up their ‘Smoking Guns.”

JanB, Tucson, AZ (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:02 PM)

j in clearwater:Our country is going to hell, not because of the war in Iraq, but because of partisanship, political correctness, and lack of acceptance of personal responsibility. BG: I agree. More border enforcement and less deficit spending. Like the pork that was put into the emergency funding bill just passed by our House and Senate.

Darren Pope, MB, SC (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:13 PM)

So pull our troops to the outskirts of Iraq...let the Iraqies have their civil war and then we can go in and take over from whoever wins. In the meantime we could spare a few troops to actually go after terrorists responsible for 911. If you want to be in the war on terror, then start fighting the terrorists!!

just lovely (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:29 PM)

Mark Thieme: In all fairness, I diagnosed him first - right here in this thread, in fact. The man has NEVER had to face the consequences of his actions (got reward for trading away Sammy Sosa, for driving a drilling company "into the ground," walked away from the TANG, got a felony buried so he could even run for president, won in two stolen elections and thought himself Ceaser, was excused a cocaine addiction by the same hypocrites that excoriated former PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON - last legally elected U.S. President - for smoking pot in the 60's) and now all he is doing is "digging up." I'm telling you - he's going to detonate a nuke if we don't throw the net over him.

Lee Steele (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:42 PM)

Mr. Pope, I get, and respect your opinion in regards to troop withdrawl in Iraq. What I wonder, is do you believe that Iraq is where we should be? Do you believe it is our place to be policing a civil war?

Susan, Nebraska (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:44 PM)

I find it Ironic that GOP senator's did'nt want to try & muster up the votes needed to defeat this measure. Time will tell if they finally saw the writing on the wall & to let let the Blame go back to the OWNER. McConnell already know's there is a much greater emphasis on his senate seat in my Home state. Steve turner (Iowa) you may actually have something there. Michael Ware just shot down McCain & his comment about walking the streets of baghdad for westener's. VETO this bill, GWB, the VOTER already know's where to place BLAME & it's not with the DEmocratic congress, it's your baby to put to sleep, once & for all.

rick,ky (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:55 PM)

I don't understand, didn't just a couple of months ago, Dub say that we should be moving troops out of Iraq by November of 2007? Isn't that what the "surge" is supposed to produce? More soldiers coming home? Or was that all just a lie.. like all the lies. Surge=escalation=many more years, dollars and deaths. Seems to me, 2008 is generous. If we can't get out of this mess in a year in a half, maybe we should throw in the towel now.

An American, Atlanta GA (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:56 PM)

Another excerpt from de Georgie's speech to troops down here at Ft. Benning in January: "We're going to help them. I was telling the General we'll double (note-double) the number of provincial reconstruction teams; our commanders and civilians will have greater flexibility (note-greater flexibility) to spend money on the ground. For those of you who have been there, it's called CERP money. You know it's an effective tool to help part of the 'build' part of 'clear'---build and hold.".(correct phrase was "clear, hold and build"). He stated that the Iraq gov't would be "pledging" $10billion of their own money to help. It irks me that he is so free with our money. We're building schools, buying textbooks (which they are quick to say are free from propaganda), we're giving them healthcare facilities, water systems, and the list goes on. He's literally rebuilding their whole country all in the name of giving them a better place to live when he establishes a "democracy" for them. All of this money is in addition to any ASAID. He probably thinks they're going to build some shrine to him when we leave. Maybe name a city after him. I have a proposed name for that city. NUTBUSH (sorry Tn.) Do you think all these promises to spend more money could be the main reason he's sweating? Maybe those contractors are still standing in line waiting for payday? No oversight, no benchmarks, aaah Corporate America. Priceless.

M.E., Albany, Ga. (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:30 PM)

Attention all hysterical scolds: The only way the troops' funds get cut off is if PRESIDENT Nero vetoes the bill. IF the situtation is exactly the same in 15 months, then you can start screaming, again.

Lee Steele (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:38 PM)

Where will the nuke land; Iran or Indianapolis? How about NO, LA? Our POTUS.

Flat-earther, Georgia (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:41 PM)

Lee-"throw the net over him". I like that you didn't say "straight jacket", as that would apply to a human. But you aptly said what you did, as that's what is most times done to capture an animal. Sometimes along with "tranquilizer guns". Just a thought, but you think maybe that was the kind of gun they were sneaking in yesterday?

M.E., Albany, Ga. (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:52 PM)

Darren-I"ll say it again our country is going to hell due to all the things you mentioned AND mostly from the rotten stinken bull**** war in Iraq!All those billions could have been spent here!!You KNOW that!

j clearwater fl (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:53 PM)

Darren, the consequences of pulling out of Iraq would be left to the Iraqis. We overthrew the man who held them down with the heel of his boot, now it is up to them to build their nation by themselves. Sure, mistakes are made in any war but seldom has the war itself been a mistake. Yes, there will be consequences to an American withdrawal but most of those are a result of our being in Iraq in the first place. It is true we can't undo what is already been done, however, it is not our responsibility alone to correct what has gone so very wrong. The longer we are over there, the worse it will get. We have lost our credibility with the Iraqi people through our missteps. Now, is the time for the Arab League and the United Nations to step in and broker a resolution. We are obviously incapable of doing so. If we pull out, there may be a massacre or "ethnic-cleansing." If we pull out, Iran may become a stronger presence in the region. If we pull out, the whole Middle East may blow up into a Sunni vs Shiite conflagaration. These eventualities are as a result of our invading Iraq in the first place. Have you ever thought of any eventuality instead of the worse case scenario? Maybe, just maybe, if we pull out, the Arabs may decide it is time to talk and learn how to live with one another in a grudging tolerance for one another. As far as our standing in the world goes, our credibility in the Middle East is shot. Nothing we can do will make anything better. We lost our chance the minute we invaded Iraq and continued to blindly support Israel. I am not worried about what will happen there after our troops come home. I will just be happy to see them. If some enemy knocks on our door (as opposed to us going out of our way to find him), I am sure who ever is the next president will deal with it in a competent manner. Remember, Darren, when you do what is right at the moment, the future takes care of itself. When you keep screwing up all you have to look forward to is a screwed up future. Oh, yes, I would like to add that while some of the 9/11 planners and some terrorists have been brought to justice, their chief is still out there, inhibited in his movements or not.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:06 PM)

For Darren Pope: Who knows exactly what would happen if we withdrew immediately? The only real goal here has been instability, and it's likely that would continue. But here are a few certainties: 1) American troops would stop dying in Iraq. 2) Iraqis would be forced to govern themselves, which may be the greatest thing we could do for them at this point. 3) America would not be able to add Iraq to its empire. 4) America would not be able to profit from Iraq's natural resources (about $10 trillion over 30 years, according to the Iraqi Oil Law). 5) Arabs around the world would consider that America lost the war, and is weak & inept, and that its days of Imperialism are over. That sucks, but they didn't put us into that position, we put ourselves in it. Yes, as you pointed out, we are taught to clean up our messes. But when your attempts to clean them up fail time after time, and actually result bigger and bigger messes, which incidentally, also results in the fattening of your bank account, then I would be insulted, angered and I would want to stop you from continuing, without so much as a "Nice try."

Allen Barnowich, Ft Lauderdale, FL (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:19 PM)

"Don't worry, be happy." - Meher Baba and George Hershey Wonka Bush

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:41 PM)

I will say one thing about darrin, he is the expert on bs.

mikeeg,abdn,wa (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:31 PM)

King George says a timetable to get out of Iraq is unacceptable, but he wants Iraq to know that our stay there is not open-ended. So we stay until when? The end of the world? There's no date for that, as far as I know.

Jane, Southern Mississippi (Sent Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 AM)

I'm sure Bush appreciated Jon Stewart's take on his comments last night. Can imagine what he'll do tonight with Carl Rove's little dance at the "Bush Banquet" last night. South Park wasn't too shabby either with it's "snukes" and Hillary.

M.E., Albany, Ga. (Sent Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:37 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=103228