Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
August 29, 2016
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Donald Trump in the Bayou

The Euro

Truthdig Bazaar
Street Without Joy

Street Without Joy

By Bernard Fall

more items

Ear to the Ground
Print this item

Withdrawal Timetable Defeated in the Senate

Posted on Mar 15, 2007

President Bush and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) embrace in this 2006 photo.

Despite the threat of a veto, withdrawal legislation moved forward in the House Thursday. Meanwhile, in the Senate, a weaker measure was successfully opposed by all but one Republican, two Democrats and Joe Lieberman.

Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Barbara Lee voted against the House bill because, she said, the proposed withdrawal would not take place soon enough.

AP via CNN:

Democrats aggressively challenged President Bush’s Iraq policy at both ends of the Capitol on Thursday, gaining House committee approval for a troop withdrawal deadline of September 1, 2008, but suffering defeat in the Senate on a less sweeping plan to end U.S. participation in the war.

Anti-war Democrats prevailed on a near-party line vote of 36-28 in the House Appropriations Committee, brushing aside a week-old veto threat from the administration and overcoming unyielding opposition from Republicans.

“I want this war to end. I don’t want to go to any more funerals,” said New York Rep. Jose Serrano, one of several liberal Democrats who have pledged their support for the legislation despite preferring a faster end to the war.

“Nobody wants our troops out of Iraq more than I do,” countered Republican Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida, who sought to scuttle the timeline for a troop withdrawal. “But we can’t afford to turn over Iraq to al Qaeda.”

Read more

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Bert, March 16, 2007 at 11:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Looks like a man-date, there, to ME! LOL

Report this

By Christopher Robin, March 16, 2007 at 6:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just a thought? couldn’t you blur or pixulate the visage of Lieberman? So as not to corrupt young impressionable children? I think even Lieberman would agree. We must spare our youth, from exposure to corrupting influences.

Report this

By Michael Murry, March 16, 2007 at 3:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Apparently, Republican Representative C. W. Bill Young of Florida does not know that America’s invasion and occupation of Iraq has resulted in some Al Quaeda operatives appearing there where Saddam Hussein would have never permitted it. According to Professor Juan Cole, when the American occupiers leave Iraq, the Sunnis and Shiites who regain control of their own country will promptly expel or slaughter any Al Quaeda types who will have outlived their usefulness attacking the loathed infidel American occupiers who have finally left Iraq—voluntarily or otherwise. Therefore, if Congressman Young really doesn’t want Al Qaeda in Iraq, he should support the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq so that Al Quaeda will have to go elsewhere.

Why does America, and especially the Republican Party, have such completely uninformed and asinine Congressional Representatives? And why does the Democratic Party majority in the House of Representatives even bother considering unwanted “supplemental” war spending requests from the current discredited and faithless Republican President of the United States? Given the huge backlog of national business left undone by the former corrupt Republican Congress, it surprises me that the new Democratic majority just doesn’t tell Sheriff Dick Cheney and Deputy Dubya Bush that Congress has too many urgent “other priorities” to deal with instead of squandering more blood and billions for no conceivable national interest in Iraq. I’d love to hear Speaker Pelosi explain: “We’ll perhaps get around to your unwanted and unnecessary war when the next President comes along. Or perhaps we won’t. We’ll just have to see. Meanwhile, you had better withdraw American military forces from Iraq forthwith because we have no intention of entertaining any spending for their unnecessary deployment and activities in Iraq: a sovereign country by your own declaration and one upon whom this Congress has not Declared War. You’ve blown enough blood and billions for nothing already.”

The Democrats in the House should yawn at spending proposals by Cheney and Bush—and then move on to the proper people’s business of jobs, educations, health care, the environment, and sound Social Security management. In any event, any “deal” struck with the faithless and dishonorable bait-and-switch Cheney/Bush cabal will just get an attached signing statement saying “We’ll take the money but we have no intention of compplying with any of your conditions.” So, since no Democratic Congress can deal with people as mendacious, incompetent, and untrustworthy as Dick Cheney and George W. Bush,  no spending bill whatsoever for American military operations in Iraq, by default, will have the desired result without requiring any Senate reconciliation or presidential signature.

American withdrawal from Iraq will take care of Al Quaeda in Iraq—and many other American and Iraqi problems as well. Yes. Time to move on to taking care of the people’s real business—which has nothing to do with making war on and occupying Iraq. Thus, the House of Representatives—where all spending bill must originate—just needs to originate no spending bills for Iraq and that will take care of matters nicely.

Report this

By Dennis D, March 15, 2007 at 10:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“But we can’t afford to turn over Iraq to al Qaeda after “George” invited them in by f**king up the entire Middle East.”
Since when did any member of Congress worry about affording anything. Everything they do is on other people’s lives, blood and money. Pathetic, spineless lemmings.

Report this

By Toby, March 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What do you suppose Bush is whispering in Joes ear?

“Stick with me kid and my God has promised you will get a ring side seat at the Fire Pit.”

or ...

“Stick with me kid and my God has promised he wont throw you in the Fire Pit.”

naw ...

Most likely he was saying, “Lets get together for a round of golf. I owe you for the outstanding job you did helping to get me into the White House in 2000.”

Yep, that’s Joe. Outstanding in his Field.
Out, standing in somebody’s field.
Those poor folks in Connecticut.

Report this

By Christopher Robin, March 15, 2007 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

My skin crawls, just to look at a photo of Lieberman.

This one’s a double whammy.

Report this

By Quy Tran, March 15, 2007 at 6:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Look at this picture you’ll see how the master tells his “puppy” what to do ? how to act ? and most important is how to kneel down to lick the master’s boots !

Report this

By robert davies, March 15, 2007 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Disgusting that Democrats can’t get 60 votes in the Senate.One progressive was right: We give Lieberman too much weight when he can block the wishes of most Democrats and a huge majority of Americans:he can then push Democrats even further to the right.
There is one thing to do: cut off funds for the Iraqi (and likely Iran) wars of agression.

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook