House Passes Bill Requiring Troop Withdrawal Within 120 Days of Enactment

[WifeOHunkyJohn 2]

House Passes Bill Requiring Troop Withdrawal Within 120 Days of Enactment

Thursday, July 12, 2007

WASHINGTON — The Democratic-controlled House shrugged off another veto threat from President Bush in approving a measure requiring the withdraw U.S. troops by spring.

Earlier, Bush ruled out any change in war policy before September.

Democratic leaders engineered a 223-201passage 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 Qaeda and other terrorists.

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

"The report makes clear that not even the White House can conclude there has been significant progress," said 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 Qaeda," 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."

Iraq has achieved only spotty military and political progress toward a democratic society, the Bush administration conceded Thursday in an unenthusiastic assessment that war critics quickly seized on as the .

"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 others.

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.

Refresh the pages for updates on this developing story.

[peejay 327]

I smell the strong odor of a Presidential veto. "Nuff said.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

Since Congress has the sole consitutional authority to declare war, and while they voted to give President Bush to authority to invade Iraq after all other options were tried, they can now take that away from him.

[GaryC 7]

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.

Since Congress has the sole consitutional authority to declare war, and while they voted to give President Bush to authority to invade Iraq after all other options were tried, they can now take that away from him.

The only way they can do that is to defund the war. The statement is correct, congress has no business trying to run the war. They only have the purse-strings. The executive branch runs the war. If congress had the balls they would cut off funding, but they don't.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

Since Congress has the sole consitutional authority to declare war, and while they voted to give President Bush to authority to invade Iraq after all other options were tried, they can now take that away from him.

The only way they can do that is to defund the war. The statement is correct, congress has no business trying to run the war. They only have the purse-strings. The executive branch runs the war. If congress had the balls they would cut off funding, but they don't.

They can certainly vote on whether to end it or not. That's not running the war...that's just exercising their constitutional power...something Bush uses as an executive privilege quite often.

[GaryC 7]

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.

Since Congress has the sole consitutional authority to declare war, and while they voted to give President Bush to authority to invade Iraq after all other options were tried, they can now take that away from him.

The only way they can do that is to defund the war. The statement is correct, congress has no business trying to run the war. They only have the purse-strings. The executive branch runs the war. If congress had the balls they would cut off funding, but they don't.

They can certainly vote on whether to end it or not. That's not running the war...that's just exercising their constitutional power...something Bush uses as an executive privilege quite often.

Sorry to disagree. Congress does not have the power to stop a war other than cutting off the funding. They have the right to declare war but not the power to declare peace.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

Since Congress has the sole consitutional authority to declare war, and while they voted to give President Bush to authority to invade Iraq after all other options were tried, they can now take that away from him.

The only way they can do that is to defund the war. The statement is correct, congress has no business trying to run the war. They only have the purse-strings. The executive branch runs the war. If congress had the balls they would cut off funding, but they don't.

They can certainly vote on whether to end it or not. That's not running the war...that's just exercising their constitutional power...something Bush uses as an executive privilege quite often.

Sorry to disagree. Congress does not have the power to stop a war other than cutting off the funding. They have the right to declare war but not the power to declare peace.

So if they pass a resolution for troop withdrawal, you're saying the President can challenge that on Constitutional grounds?

[GaryC 7]

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.

Since Congress has the sole consitutional authority to declare war, and while they voted to give President Bush to authority to invade Iraq after all other options were tried, they can now take that away from him.

The only way they can do that is to defund the war. The statement is correct, congress has no business trying to run the war. They only have the purse-strings. The executive branch runs the war. If congress had the balls they would cut off funding, but they don't.

They can certainly vote on whether to end it or not. That's not running the war...that's just exercising their constitutional power...something Bush uses as an executive privilege quite often.

Sorry to disagree. Congress does not have the power to stop a war other than cutting off the funding. They have the right to declare war but not the power to declare peace.

So if they pass a resolution for troop withdrawal, you're saying the President can challenge that on Constitutional grounds?

I am saying they can pass a hundred resolutions to withdraw and the president can ignore them constitutionally. Only the executive can run the war, congress has no power there.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

Since Congress has the sole consitutional authority to declare war, and while they voted to give President Bush to authority to invade Iraq after all other options were tried, they can now take that away from him.

The only way they can do that is to defund the war. The statement is correct, congress has no business trying to run the war. They only have the purse-strings. The executive branch runs the war. If congress had the balls they would cut off funding, but they don't.

They can certainly vote on whether to end it or not. That's not running the war...that's just exercising their constitutional power...something Bush uses as an executive privilege quite often.

Sorry to disagree. Congress does not have the power to stop a war other than cutting off the funding. They have the right to declare war but not the power to declare peace.

So if they pass a resolution for troop withdrawal, you're saying the President can challenge that on Constitutional grounds?

I am saying they can pass a hundred resolutions to withdraw and the president can ignore them constitutionally. Only the executive can run the war, congress has no power there.

Has there ever been any historical precedence where that has happened? This will be interesting if the President would actually do that.

Here's from a letter written to AG Alberto Gonzalez by Senate Judicary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA)...

In a recent column in The New York Times, Adam Cohen recalled the observation of James Madison that “the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it” and that it was to counteract this danger that the Constitution “with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.” Mr. Cohen goes on to recall the case of the Flying Fish in 1799, the Steel Seizure case in 1952, and the Hamdan case in 2006, all of which circumscribed presidential action. He recalls the capping of the number of American military personnel in South Vietnam in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 and the provisions of the Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act of 1983. He concludes: “The Constitution’s text, Supreme Court cases and history show, however, that Congress can instead pass laws that set the terms of military engagement.”

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002437.php

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The Dems know the President will veto this and they know they don't have the supermajority necessary to override his veto. This is just red meat for the far left, they've been pissed at the lack of 'action'.

[GaryC 7]

Let me tell you a dirty little secret. The dems have the power to stop the war today. They could defund the war without any sayso from Bush. But they will never do it. You know why? Because they want Bush to end the war. They want to be able to say that Bush pulled the troops out as a way of imbarrising him. The dems are desperate for Bush to end the war before the election. This is because if a dem inherits the war then it will be up to him/her to pull the troops out. When they do that they know Iraq and the ME will implode and they will get the blame. So you know what is going to happen? If the troops are still in Iraq at the close of 2008 the next president will keep them there. He/she will have to and that pisses off the dems. That is why you are getting all these calls for withdrawal. They are trying to force the troops out before the next election so they can blame Bush for what they know will happen next. The dems are a bunch of cowards and are using our military for their own political ends.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bush won't pass any of those bills because it would be political suicide for him (not that this matters at this point) and more importantly, that it would likely guarantee the defeat of the Republican party at the Presidential election.

Let me tell you a dirty little secret. The dems have the power to stop the war today. They could defund the war without any sayso from Bush. But they will never do it. You know why? Because they want Bush to end the war. They want to be able to say that Bush pulled the troops out as a way of imbarrising him. The dems are desperate for Bush to end the war before the election. This is because if a dem inherits the war then it will be up to him/her to pull the troops out. When they do that they know Iraq and the ME will implode and they will get the blame. So you know what is going to happen? If the troops are still in Iraq at the close of 2008 the next president will keep them there. He/she will have to and that pisses off the dems. That is why you are getting all these calls for withdrawal. They are trying to force the troops out before the next election so they can blame Bush for what they know will happen next. The dems are a bunch of cowards and are using our military for their own political ends.

I thought that's what Bush et al have been doing since 2003....

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The dems are a bunch of cowards and are using our military for their own political ends.

I thought that's what Bush et al have been doing since 2003....

Yes, the Dems have certainly been saying that. And then they turn around and do the same thing. Shameful.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The dems are a bunch of cowards and are using our military for their own political ends.

I thought that's what Bush et al have been doing since 2003....

Yes, the Dems have certainly been saying that. And then they turn around and do the same thing. Shameful.

I don't think there's much to choose between then, but to be fair however - Bush's lot did have a majority in Senate and Congress back then.

[GaryC 7]

I thought that's what Bush et al have been doing since 2003....

If that were true then it sure hasn't worked. Come on Fishdud, you know that this war has never been a political thing for Bush. It is the worst thing he could do politicly. No matter what your opinion of the way the war has been you have to see that it is been something that Bush really believes in. No one can accuse Bush of doing this for political gain that has eyes to see.