Iraq War Comming To An End...?
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Thu Mar 8, 2007 @ 12:59pm |
 Coolness: 145345 | WASHINGTON - In a direct challenge to
President Bush, House Democrats unveiled legislation Thursday requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the fall of next year. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) said the deadline would be added to legislation providing nearly $100 billion the Bush administration has requested for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. She told reporters the measure would mark the first time the new Democratic-controlled Congress has established a "date certain" for the end of U.S. combat in the four-year-old war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops. The White House had no immediate reaction, although Bush has repeatedly rejected talk of establishing a deadline for troop withdrawals. Within an hour of Pelosi's news conference, House Republican Leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) attacked the measure. He said Democrats were proposing legislation that amounted to "establishing and telegraphing to our enemy a timetable" that would result in failure of the U.S. military mission in Iraq. "Gen. (David) Petraeus should be the one making the decisions on what happens on the ground in Iraq, not Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha (news, bio, voting record)," the Ohio Republican added. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, has been heavily involved in crafting legislation designed to end U.S., participation in the war. According to an explanation of the measure distributed by Democratic aides, the timetable for withdrawal would be accelerated if the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not meet goals for providing for Iraq's security. Democrats won control of Congress last fall in midterm elections shadowed by public opposition to the war, and have vowed since taking power to challenge Bush's policies. Pelosi made her announcement as Senate Democrats reviewed a different approach — a measure that would set a goal of a troop withdrawal by March of 2008. Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada called a closed-door meeting of the rank-and-file to consider the measure. In the House, Pelosi and the leadership have struggled in recent days to come up with an approach on the war that would satisfy liberals reluctant to vote for continued funding without driving away more moderate Democrats unwilling to be seen as tying the hands of military commanders. The decision to impose conditions on the war risks a major confrontation with the Bush administration and its Republican allies in Congress. But without a unified party, the Democratic leadership faced the possibility of a highly embarrassing defeat when the spending legislation reaches a vote, likely later this month. To make the overall measure more attractive politically, Democrats also intend to add $1.2 billion to Bush's request for military operations in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is expected to mount a spring offensive. The bill also would add $3.5 billion to Bush's request for veterans' health care and medical programs for active duty troops at facilities such as the scandal-scarred Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington. Democrats also proposed $735 million for a health care program for low-income children. The program is popular among governors of both political parties, but the administration has not signaled its acquiescence to the additional money. As described by Democrats, the legislation will require Bush to certify by July 1 and again by Oct. 1. whether the Iraqi government is making progress toward providing for the country's security, allocating its oil revenues and creating a fair system for amending its constitution. They said if Bush certified the Iraqis were meeting these so-called benchmarks, U.S. combat troops would have to begin withdrawing by March 1, 2008, and complete the redeployment by Sept. 1. Otherwise, the deadlines would move up. If Bush cannot make the required certification by July 1, troops must begin a six-month withdrawal immediately. If Bush cannot make the second certification, the same six-month timetable would apply. The legislation also requires the Pentagon to adhere to its existing standards for equipping and training U.S. troops sent overseas and for providing time at home between tours of combat. Pelosi said the provision was designed to make sure the government would "not be sending our troops into battle without the proper training, the proper equipment." Yet it also permits Bush to issue waivers of these standards. Democrats described the waiver provision as an attempt to embarrass the president into adhering to the standards. But they concede the overall effect would be to permit the administration to proceed with plans to deploy five additional combat brigades to the Baghdad area over the next few months. The measure emerged from days of private talks among Democrats following the collapse of Rep. John Murtha's original proposal, which would have required the Pentagon to meet readiness and training standards without the possibility of a waiver. Murtha, D-Pa., and chairman of a House Appropriations military subcommittee, said its implementation would have starved the war effort of troops because the Pentagon would not have been able to find enough fully rested, trained and equipped units to meet its needs. Several moderate Democrats spoke out against it, though. And Republicans sharply attacked it as the abandonment of troops already in the war zone. from [ news.yahoo.com ] |
| I'm feeling surly right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Sat Mar 10, 2007 @ 7:20pm |
 Coolness: 201370 | The Iraq war won't come to an end, it will get worse.
The Bush administration fucked up royally, but as soon as they leave, Iraq is toast. The best thing to do would be to leave Baghdad and fortify the borders to keep all the "freedom fighters" (AKA as terrorists) from entering the country. Urban warfare is the main reason this campaign is such a disaster they need to get out of the cities and cut all the supply routes. |
| I'm feeling gangsta right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Sun Mar 11, 2007 @ 6:29pm |
| Coolness: 145345 | the prez said today if he has to he will use the power of the veto to carry the war to the last day of his term...the Dems don't have the necessary support across the ailes to get an overriding majority (2/3) to beat out the veto |
| I'm feeling surly right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Sat Mar 17, 2007 @ 7:49pm |
| Coolness: 201370 | if only he would cheat on his wife so he could be impeached |
| I'm feeling gangsta right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sat Mar 17, 2007 @ 10:30pm |
 Coolness: 339810 | clinton wasn't impeached. |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Sun Mar 18, 2007 @ 3:07pm |
| Coolness: 145345 | ya he was by the house but not by the senate |
| I'm feeling surly right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sun Mar 18, 2007 @ 5:19pm |
| Coolness: 339810 | [ en.wikipedia.org ]
President Bill Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999 of the December 19, 1998, impeachment charge by the House of Representatives. The charges were perjury and obstruction of justice, arising from the Lewinsky scandal. After a 21-day trial, the Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction and removal from office under the Constitution. The impeachment proceedings were largely party-line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only three Democratic Representatives voting for impeachment. In all, 55 senators voted "not guilty," and 45 voted "guilty" on the charge of perjury. The Senate also acquitted on the obstruction charge with 50 votes cast each way. |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Sun Mar 18, 2007 @ 7:35pm |
| Coolness: 145345 | [ en.wikipedia.org ]
Clinton, like the only other president to be impeached, Andrew Johnson, served the remainder of his term. |
| I'm feeling surly right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sun Mar 18, 2007 @ 10:24pm |
| Coolness: 339810 | That line sticks out strangely in that passage, since the rest of the paragraph basically says that he wasn't impeached. |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Mon Mar 19, 2007 @ 11:52am |
| Coolness: 145345 | are you saying that i added that in on wikipedia?
besides the tittle of the article you posted is even "Impeachment of Bill Clinton" and further down..."Impeachment by the House of Representatives" impeachment (i think) in a strict technical sense doesn't necessarily mean forced to leave office... |
| I'm feeling surly right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Mar 19, 2007 @ 12:14pm |
| Coolness: 339810 | Well, nothing in that article says something along the lines of "Bill Clinton was impeached on Feb 12th, 1999" or anything close to that.. |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Mon Mar 19, 2007 @ 12:24pm |
| Coolness: 145345 | this is why it's pointless to argue with you on the internet because you re not interested in learning a damn thing, don't admit when your wrong or when you don't know something
from [ dictionary.com ] 1. the impeaching of a public official before an appropriate tribunal. 2. (in Congress or a state legislature) the presentation of formal charges against a public official by the lower house, trial to be before the upper house. 3. demonstration that a witness is less worthy of belief. 4. the act of impeaching. 5. the state of being impeached. Usage Note: When an irate citizen demands that a disfavored public official be impeached, the citizen clearly intends for the official to be removed from office. This popular use of impeach as a synonym of "throw out" (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. As recent history has shown, when a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office. In strict usage, an official is impeached (accused), tried, and then convicted or acquitted. The vaguer use of impeach reflects disgruntled citizens' indifference to whether the official is forced from office by legal means or chooses to resign to avoid further disgrace. now go on, make some dumb ass comment that i'll ignore and we can be done with this thread... |
| I'm feeling surly right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Mar 19, 2007 @ 12:35pm |
| Coolness: 339810 | Originally Posted By BASDINI
this is why it's pointless to argue with you on the internet because you re not interested in learning a damn thing, don't admit when your wrong or when you don't know something now go on, make some dumb ass comment that i'll ignore and we can be done with this thread... Why are you getting angry..? What I said stands, nothing in that article says that he was infact impeached, instead there's some vague comments indirectly saying that he was impeached, but the actual evidence provided suggests the opposite. If the majority of congress voted against impeachment, why would he have been? |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Mon Mar 19, 2007 @ 12:36pm |
| Coolness: 145345 | [ en.wikipedia.org ] Update » basdini wrote on Mon Mar 19, 2007 @ 12:44pm Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives |
| I'm feeling surly right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Mar 19, 2007 @ 1:40pm |
| Coolness: 339810 | Well there you go, he was. But you didn't quote that the first time, and that's a different URL.. |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» m3lang3 replied on Mon Mar 19, 2007 @ 5:56pm |
 Coolness: 82565 | |
| I'm feeling walnut cakes right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Mar 19, 2007 @ 6:18pm |
| Coolness: 339810 | gold. |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Mon Mar 19, 2007 @ 6:24pm |
 Coolness: 685735 | that was great.
 |
| I'm feeling bleh right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Wizdumb replied on Sat Mar 24, 2007 @ 2:52pm |
 Coolness: 122455 | that video's great |
| I'm feeling dead right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Trey replied on Thu Mar 29, 2007 @ 12:55pm |
 Coolness: 102910 | The United States won't leave Iraq until it sets up a puppet government who can defend itself. To cut losses and leave isn't United States way of asserting itself as the World Superpower. To control the World oil resources is to control the World economy.
If the US leaves then Iraq might become, whether through democracy process or civil war, an enemy of US. The US wants Iraq to become a vassal state. The US Imperialism need to control the Geopolitical in the Middle East Theather. They are Israel greatest ally, and the Saudi Kingdom, which btw is the most repressive Muslim state. They have military bases in Afghanistan for strategic purpose but don't care what is happening there as there is no oil resources. And that is the thing with Democracy, what if the people elected a government who is unfriendly to the US. They might become allies with Iran, and pool their oil with the Asia Energy Security Grid. China, India, Russia, and Iran makes a powerful rival group against the US in economic power. Update » Trey wrote on Thu Mar 29, 2007 @ 1:23pm Forgot to add former Soviet States in Central Asia and Pakistan. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is like the Asian version of NATO except if is formed in response to United State dominance. For the first time ever, Russia and China recently did military maneuvers and exercises together.. that is scary. |
Iraq War Comming To An End...?
[ Cumbre de Página ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Cumbre de Página ] |
