Democrats Remove Troop Withdrawal Timetable from Legislation

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 2 Timothy2:1-4, May 23, 2007.

  1. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Washington, May 3 (RHC).- U.S. President George W. Bush and congressional leaders on Capitol Hill began negotiating a second war funding bill on Wednesday, with Democrats offering their first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from occupied Iraq.
    Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. occupation forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy.





    http://www.periodico26.cu/english/news_world/iraq050307.htm

    wow! that is quite a failure.
     
  2. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    They were just playing politics. They knew it had no chance from the get go.

    Just trying to please their radical leftwing nutball base.
     
  3. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree. I believe they wanted it and made every attempt to make it happen. Apparently they do not have the mandate they wanted.
     
  4. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yea, I agree Bush should have never gotten us into the war. What a failure.

    It's too bad the Congress didn't have the guts to stand for what they believed in. Oh well.. Dr Paul will try to fix things when he is elected in 08. :)

    Jamie
     
  5. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    True. If they weren't then they would have stuck to what they wanted. But this isn't any different than when the Republicans had the Congress.

    Like I said before in the aboved post. Dr Paul will try to begin to fix things when he is elected. That is if he is voted for by the same people that claim they want change and a conservative government.

    Time will tell if the conservative base really wants to be conservative or do they just want to have power?

    Jamie
     
  6. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Easy to throw jabs from the sidelines isn't it? They are no better or no worse then the other party. Until we reconize that and vote in someone that is true to their word and form, then we get exactly what "we the people" ask for.

    Jamie
    Ron Paul - President 2008!
     
  7. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    Believe me. By far the biggest failure is GW Bush and the NeoCons.
     
  8. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh....No. can't do that.
     
  9. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    I would say that they did, and that they have failed to deliver, which explains their eroding approval ratings.

    As for the "mandate," it's worth noting that not one single Democratic incumbent lost in 2006. That would be more of a "mandate" than when the VP claimed the Administration had one in 2004.
     
  10. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems that all of the arguing about whether or not we should have gotten into Iraq, and all of the posts about George Bush's failed leadership, although true, serve no purpose at this point in time. The fact is we are in Iraq, George Bush is President, and his time is short. It seems we could spend all of that energy to use the time he has left (18 months) to do something to resolve the mess we are in with everyone working together.

    The only thing I wonder about anymore, with Iran coming to the front again is, that when Mr. Bush defined the axis of evil in 2003, would our nation have been better served by going after Iran first, and using some other method on Iraq. Any thoughts?
     
  11. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    THANK YOU!
    As I have written before, Iraq is a quagmire.
    There is no way out of Iraq, and because of this, we are now stuck there.

    If we invade Iran, we are playing right into the hands of the extremists, who would undoubtedly proclaim to the Islamic world that the 4th crusade has begun. That could potentially cause problems for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and even some of the countries in Southeast Asia.

    Regards,
    BiR
     
  12. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    It might have been better. But I do not remember a compelling reason back then to go into Iran.
     
  13. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    Amen, Brother!:applause:
     

Share This Page

Loading...