The Iraq War

[BlueAngel]

Why is it that Congress lacks enough votes to order the troops home?

----------------------------------------------

Senate approves $150B in war funding
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 16 minutes ago

October 1, 2007

WASHINGTON - Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 92-3 vote comes as the House planned to approve separate legislation Tuesday that requires President Bush to give Congress a plan for eventual troop withdrawals.

The developments underscored the difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and are divided on whether to cut money for combat, despite a mandate by supporters to end the war.

Hoping the political landscape changes in coming months, Democratic leaders say they will renew their fight when Congress considers the money Bush wants in war funding.

While the Senate policy bill authorizes the money to be spent, it does not guarantee it; Bush will have to wait until Congress passes a separate appropriations bill before war funds are transferred to military coffers.

"I think that's where you're going to see the next dogfight," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., of the upcoming war spending bill.

Democrats say their options include directing that the money be spent on bringing troops home instead of combat; setting a date when money for the war is cut off, and identifying a goal to end the war to try to pressure Bush to bring troops home.

Similar attempts have been made but fell short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate.

"Many of us have reached a breaking point on this," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "I've done this for too many years. I've waited for the president to start bringing this war to an end. I'm not going to sign up for this any longer."

In the House, Democrats are pushing for a bill that would require the administration to report to Congress in 60 days and every 90 days thereafter on the status of its redeployment plans in Iraq.

The bill, sponsored by Democrats John Tanner of Tennessee and Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, was initially cast aside as too mild by Democratic leaders focused on tougher proposals ordering troops home this fall.

But after Democrats were unable to peel off Republican support, the Iraq debate stalled and some four dozen rank-and-file Democrats demanded a vote on the Abercrombie-Tanner bill.

"This will be the first time since the war in Iraq began that we are working together as a Congress instead of one party or another to be a constructive voice in the civilian management of operations in Iraq," Tanner said in a statement e-mailed to the Associated Press.

In February, Bush requested more than $140 billion for the war, and is expected to ask for another $42 billion to cover costs in the 2008 budget year, which began Monday. The Senate's defense policy bill authorizes Bush's initial request, plus an additional $23 billion for the purchase of bomb-resistent vehicles.

In addition to war money, the Senate's defense policy bill authorizes more than a half trillion dollars in annual military programs, including such big-ticket items as $10.1 billion for missile defense.

Republicans predict the bill is on track to be vetoed by President Bush because it includes hate-crimes legislation by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. The White House has said Kennedy's proposal, which would let federal law enforcement help states prosecute attacks on gays, is unnecessary.

The House passed its version of the defense authorization bill in May by a 397-27 vote. That $646 billion measure would trim hundreds of millions of dollars from some weapons modernization programs and use the money instead to aid troops in combat.

The House bill has drawn a veto threat from the White House because of provisions insisting the military rely heavily on American-made products and proposed changes to the Pentagon's personnel policies.

[Delta]

Does you "husband" know just how childish you act on this site?

Do your "children" know how childish you act on this site?

Does your "husband" think you are setting a good example to your "children" with your childish behaviour on the internet?

Make a new years resolution to help yourself and your "husband" and "children"

It's a simple resolution: Just say not to the internet! You should not for you but for your "husband" and "children"

[BlueAngel]

Originally Posted by Delta

Does you "husband" know just how childish you act on this site?

Do your "children" know how childish you act on this site?

Does your "husband" think you are setting a good example to your "children" with your childish behaviour on the internet?

Make a new years resolution to help yourself and your "husband" and "children"

It's a simple resolution: Just say not to the internet! You should not for you but for your "husband" and "children"

Excuse me, Delta.

But, you would be the one who acts childish.

People are here to post topics of importance and you are nothing but a troll.

Remember, now, when you go to the polls to vote for our next President, John McCain will keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.

That's quite a demented statement, since he'll be dead before that time and won't have the power to affect anything or anyone.

[mangaman]

Originally Posted by BlueAngel

Why is it that Congress lacks enough votes to order the troops home?

That is what I have been asking myself for a while, I think that there are a lot of pro-war Dems in Congress, the Dems are just trying to keep that hush-hush though.

[BlueAngel]

Originally Posted by mangaman

That is what I have been asking myself for a while, I think that there are a lot of pro-war Dems in Congress, the Dems are just trying to keep that hush-hush though.

Because they don't work for the people but for the Military Industrial Complex.

[BlueAngel]

Obama's promise, as he was campaigning for the Presidency of the United States, was to GET OUT of Iraq in about 16 months after he takes office.

In actuality, he is most probably adhering to the CONTROLLERS' time line of 2010, which it has been all along.

Don't you find it interesting that one of the few Congressmen who voted against the war has been ushered into the OVAL office?

Do you feel the wool being pulled over your eyes?

[BlueAngel]

Why are they still debating over who is responsible for the lies that were fed to the American people and CONGRESS in order to make the case for war in Iraq?

If this investigation will end the war, good.

If heads are going to roll, fine.

Continue on.

If not, why the charade?

So that the American people think someone in Congress actually cares about this atrocity.

Report raps ex-White House pair on Iraq claims - Yahoo! News