The only cutting and running going on in the Iraqi Bush War right now is being done by Congressional Democrats.

In a transparent effort to pull the wool over the eyes of millions of antiwar voters, the congressional Democratic leadership has taken up the issue of the war in Iraq for the first time in two months, scheduling days of debate and voting on measures that would not—even in the unlikely event they were adopted and signed by Bush—actually bring an end to the war.

The House of Representatives held the first vote, approving by a narrow 218-203 margin a $50 billion emergency funding bill for military operations in Iraq that would require Bush to withdraw an unspecified number of troops (as few as one soldier) within 30 days, and set a nonbinding goal of December 15, 2008 for an end to most combat operations in the occupied country.

The bill would also ban the use of federal funds to establish permanent bases in Iraq or to establish US control over Iraq’s oil supplies, although both provisions are worded so loosely that they would not be enforceable—the current massive US bases, for instance, are described as “temporary” by the Pentagon.

The bill also bars the use of torture in interrogations by all US government personnel, extending the current ban on military torture to apply to the CIA and other intelligence agencies. That provision alone would ensure the bill’s ultimate veto.

The vote was largely along party lines. Fifteen Democrats opposed the bill, most because they opposed any limits on the US presence in Iraq, a few because they felt the bill was too weak. Only four Republicans supported it.

There initially appeared to be some doubts about the House passing the bill at all, since its restraints on the war were so toothless that many Democrats felt it would only anger opponents of the war. Eventually, however, after a delay in the vote of several hours, until nearly 10 p.m., three California Democrats who lead the misnamed “Out of Iraq” caucus, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, agreed to support the measure, ensuring its passage.

(Martin (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/nov2007/cong-n16.shtml))

File under, "You're not even trying, are you?"
____________________

Notes:

Martin, Patrick. "Congressional Democrats resume phony “antiwar” votes". World Socialist Web Site. November 16, 2007. See http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/nov2007/cong-n16.shtml

What are they supposed to do? And thanks for that from the National Socialists. Which House resolution is that you're talking about?

i heard the senate is refusing to pass spending bills for iraq unless they are attached to troop withdrawels

OK, I found the bill in question:
H.R. 4156, The Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act, 2008

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c11036QoBY::

From Pelosi's website:

President Bush has asked Congress for an additional nearly $200 billion for Iraq. The House instead passed a $50 billion package, instituting a redeployment timeline and other critical directives aimed at transitioning our role in Iraq and bringing our troops home. The bill provides $50 billion to meet the immediate needs of our troops, but defers consideration of the remainder of the President’s nearly $200 billion request. At current rates of expenditures, the additional funds last only four months.

This Bill Requires Redeployment of Our Troops Within 30 Days, With A Goal for Completion of Deployment by December 15, 2008

From John Murtha:

* Requires the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin within 30 days of enactment, with a target for completion of December 15, 2008.
* Requires a transition in the mission of US forces in Iraq from primarily combat to: force protection and diplomatic protection; limited support to Iraqi security forces; and targeted counterterrorism operations.
* Prohibits deployment of any troops not fully equipped and trained; waivable with a presidential national security certification.
* Extends to all US government agencies and personnel the limitations in the Army Field Manual on permissible interrogation techniques.
* Provides $50 billion to meet the needs of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but defers the consideration of the remainder of the President’s nearly $200 billion request.

Sounds like a good bill to me, and it's only for the next 4 months.

Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a $50 billion Iraq war bill because it had a troop pullout plan, defeating Democrats' latest attempt to end the war while continuing the battle over funding it.

The Senate action stopped a Democratic proposal that had passed the House of Representatives on a largely partisan vote on Wednesday. The measure needed 60 votes to pass under Senate rules; it only got 53 votes, with 45 senators voting against.

The measure would have given President George W. Bush about one-fourth of the $196 billion he wants for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal 2008, while setting a goal that all U.S. combat soldiers withdraw from Iraq by December 15, 2008.

Earlier, Democrats blocked a Republican proposal to give Bush $70 billion of the war funds he seeks, but without the withdrawal timetable attached.



Yeah, I guess a more radical bill that would have pleased Tiassa would have had a better chance of passing. :rolleyes:

What are they supposed to do? And thanks for that from the National Socialists. Which House resolution is that you're talking about?

I invoke Godwin.

• • •


i heard the senate is refusing to pass spending bills for iraq unless they are attached to troop withdrawels

And that's great, except, what if it's, as the article notes of this one, "toothless"?

As the article notes:

The bill could be taken up in the Senate as early as Friday morning, under an arrangement being worked out between Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Republicans will filibuster against the bill until Reid allows a separate vote on a bill to provide $70 billion in emergency funding with no strings attached.

A similar deal was worked out in the spring: the Republicans agreed not to filibuster the bill so the Democrats could cast an “antiwar” vote, Bush vetoed the bill, and then the Democrats agreed to pass a “clean” bill providing the funding without any restrictions on the duration or extent of the war.

(Martin (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/nov2007/cong-n16.shtml))

I gave the Democrats the spring vote. I didn't like it, but I understood the politics involved. They're out of excuses. Either pass new legislation pulling HJR 114's authorizations and let Bush veto it, or table every military spending bill until the White House gives over.

The longer this one goes nowhere in the Senate, the better.

The cons will keep our troops hostage and use the perception that we don't support the troops to elect Ghouliani, then we're fucked.

Hizzoner is far too vulnerable. He has no respect for the U.S. Constitution whatsoever. Expect to see the dirty side of his "cleaning up New York" splattered all over the place if he gets the nomination. In fact, I would encourage his opponents to go to any number of sites to get free blogs and make sure the electorate is informed. Stuff worth digging up in time for the convention:

• Arrest and release: a form of harassment aimed at marijuana users intended to disrupt their lives by jailing them as long as the law allows, and then releasing them without charge. The courts had to step in and tell him to stop.

• Police as thugs: Giuliani only denounced the actions of his city's police officers when he had no other choice. Otherwise, he would go to extremes to protect them, including opening and presenting to the public sealed juvenile records of victims of police violence in order to justify that a "career criminal" (e.g., one shoplifting arrest at 13, never prosecuted) had been taken off the streets.

• No-knock raids: Lacking anything else, Giuliani's NYPD liked citing potheads for "Quality of Life" crimes.

And expect Michael Moore to sound off on Hizzoner's nomination. Giuliani once gave Moore a key to the city, only to kick the filmmaker (and his six-foot crimefighting chicken) out of a press conference for asking when the city would reclaim money given to a company to protect jobs; the company pocketed the money and laid off the workers, anyway.

Add to that the spectacle of a thrice-divorced, cross-dressing family values candidate, the crass exploitation of mass-murder for political gain, his ties to Bernard Kerik, and the profits he's received from business dealings with a known al Qaeda supporter, and I think Hizzoner is extremely vulnerable.

If the American people elect Giuliani, duck. Because if the terrorists hit again after that, it will be hard to say we did nothing to deserve it.