Iraq Pullout Could Begin July 1 Under Democratic Plan

[Goobieman]

Iraq Pullout Could Begin July 1 Under Democratic Plan

The House Democratic plan for funding the war in Iraq could force a pullout of U.S. combat troops starting on July 1, with all American units out of the country by the end of 2007, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Thursday.

Even under the least aggressive timetable laid out by Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, U.S. forces will have withdrawn from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008.

When the pullout begins depends on the progress that the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki makes in meeting political and military benchmarks. President Bush would have to certify by July 1 that the Maliki government is "making progress" toward those goals, or a U.S. withdrawal would start immediately and be finished in six months.

If Bush says there is some progress in reaching the benchmarks, the Maliki government would have until Oct. 1 to formally enact them. If they aren't, pullout begins, and again, it's a six-month timetable to complete withdrawal.

If the Maliki government meets both those deadlines, and Bush certifies that it has, withdrawal would begin on March 1, 2008, with almost all U.S. units out of Iraq by that September.

So the range for U.S. withdrawal under the Democratic plan is as early as July 1, 2007, with departure no later than September 2008.

The Crypt's Blog - Politico.com

Bush will veto this.

And even of Congress overrides, Congress has no constitutional power to legislate the terms and conditions of military operations.

 

[Gibberish]

I didn't originally agree with setting a deadline.

Though in this instance it seems a timetable is needed to force the iraqi government and this administration to stop skipping along and actual produce substantial results. Giving a cutoff date will force them everyone to step up and produce results that should have been completed 2-3 years ago and not allow for the current administration to try and prolong th war until they are out of office.

 

[Goobieman]

Giving a cutoff date gives the enemy incentive to 'lay low' until said date.
"We will fight until (pick a date)" is a silly way to fight a war.

 

[Gibberish]

Giving a cutoff date gives the enemy incentive to 'lay low' until said date.
"We will fight until (pick a date)" is a silly way to fight a war.

Do you think we are going to sneak 100k+ troops out of Iraq unannounced? They are going to know when we are leaving given a deadline or not and are most likely going to give the impression of being eliminated in both instances.

We could claim victory and the day after we leave there could be suicide bombers attacking Baghdad with or without a deadline.

We need to stop fighting this war on the terrorists terms. We need to take back the control we should have had from the start of this war.

 

[Goobieman]

Do you think we are going to sneak 100k+ troops out of Iraq unannounced? They are going to know when we are leaving given a deadline or not and are most likely going to give the impression of being eliminated in both instances.

If the insurgents are defeated, it doesnt matter if they know we're leaving.
You win, then leave.

We need to stop fighting this war on the terrorists terms. We need to take back the control we should have had from the start of this war.

Telling the terrorists when we're going to pull out doesnt accomplish this.

 

[Ikari]

The sooner the better.

 

[Goobieman]

This is definately true, but on the flip side without being able to set any kind of specified date with real consequences for the Iraqi government, it is impossible to lay out clear disincentives for failing to develop, and thus we'll never be able to leave. When they stand up, we'll stand down, but they've shown that they're quite willing to lay down and rest while we handle it, and we've gotta be able to realistically say "Listen mother****er, STAND UP!!!"

The other option, of course, is for -us- to do what's necessary to eliminate the insurgency. Take off the gloves.

 

[Navy Pride]

This legislation is going no where..I doubt if the house will even pass it........

 

[Binary_Digit]

The other option, of course, is for -us- to do what's necessary to eliminate the insurgency. Take off the gloves.

We don't have enough troops to eliminate the insurgency. Besides, we should be fighting terrorists, not insurgents. Insurgents should be the problem of the Iraqi government.

 

[LaMidRighter]

We don't have enough troops to eliminate the insurgency. Besides, we should be fighting terrorists, not insurgents. Insurgents should be the problem of the Iraqi government.

We've got plenty of troops capable of getting the job done, the rules of engagement are what're getting them killed, but then again, we have alot of squeemish people in this country and if we allowed the military to do it's job the old way, it would be far too messy for most americans' taste. And, um, well, many of the insurgents are terrorists, so, get rid of all of them and secure the country, then leave.

 

[Navy Pride]

We don't have enough troops to eliminate the insurgency. Besides, we should be fighting terrorists, not insurgents. Insurgents should be the problem of the Iraqi government.

The object for the surge is to get the Iraqi army in Baghdad and they will fight the insurgency..........

 

[Goobieman]

We don't have enough troops to eliminate the insurgency.

We do... if we 'take the gloves off.

 

[Ikari]

so....kill more civilians? Get more Americans killed? Bomb Iraq some more? Torture? What's taking the gloves off?

I still don't see what Iraq ever had to do with us or why my brethren have to die for a cause that is not ours.

 

[Iriemon]

This is definately true, but on the flip side without being able to set any kind of specified date with real consequences for the Iraqi government, it is impossible to lay out clear disincentives for failing to develop, and thus we'll never be able to leave. When they stand up, we'll stand down, but they've shown that they're quite willing to lay down and rest while we handle it, and we've gotta be able to realistically say "Listen mother****er, STAND UP!!!"

They won't stand up, if they ever do, until we stand down. Why should they? Let the Americans fight their wars and take the blame for every problem.

 

[Iriemon]

We've got plenty of troops capable of getting the job done, the rules of engagement are what're getting them killed, but then again, we have alot of squeemish people in this country and if we allowed the military to do it's job the old way, it would be far too messy for most americans' taste. And, um, well, many of the insurgents are terrorists, so, get rid of all of them and secure the country, then leave.

I thought that is what they've been trying to do for 4 years now.

 

[Iriemon]

I think they are going about it the wrong way.

The US Govt should be honest and say:

"We screwed up, we thought there were WMDs but there weren't, we should not have invaded, but we did, and we've tried to set the foundations for a new govt.

We said when we invaded we had limited objectives to get rid of Hussein and what we thought were his WMDs. There were no WMDs, but we did get rid of Hussein. We said we would leave Iraq, that we did not want their oil or to country their country. We are doing what we said we would do, and in 12 months all US troops will be out of Iraq. If the Iraqis can establish a functioning Govt we will give that Govt assistance to help rebuild the damage our mistake has caused."

That would be the honorable thing to do. Some people would respect it.

 

[MSgt]

I think they are going about it the wrong way.

The US Govt should be honest and say:

"We screwed up, we thought there were WMDs but there weren't, we should not have invaded, but we did, and we've tried to set the foundations for a new govt.

We said when we invaded we had limited objectives to get rid of Hussein and what we thought were his WMDs. There were no WMDs, but we did get rid of Hussein. We said we would leave Iraq, that we did not want their oil or to country their country. We are doing what we said we would do, and in 12 months all US troops will be out of Iraq. If the Iraqis can establish a functioning Govt we will give that Govt assistance to help rebuild the damage our mistake has caused."

That would be the honorable thing to do. Some people would respect it.

Respect what? Truth?....

In February 2003 the Administration circulated drafts of a resolution
at the U.N. that would have permitted military action against Iraq. While the U.N. Security Council had agreed to inspections for WMD, the Administration began to add additional ideas. Administration officials called for “regime change” in Iraq, and the establishment of a democracy that would serve as a model and a spur for new representative governments throughout the Middle East.http://www.ambafrance-us.org/franceus/US_frenchrelations.pdf

But according to you it was all about WMD and we made a mistake. Why? Why do you insist on poretending that it was all about WMD when it was obviously not? With our vast satellite and spy network, why do you insist that our government actually was confused about something of this magnitude? If it was about WMD, guess what...there would have been wharehouses of it. Get past your needs to select the portions of the truth that allows you your stage.

 

[MSgt]

We are at the beginning of the end anyway. What's left is the continual encouragment for the Iraqi government to come to political compromise between the sects with regards to economical securities and agreed upon rule of law. The Democratic Party is climbing aboard what is already in process.

 

[WI Crippler]

We are at the beginning of the end anyway. What's left is the continual encouragment for the Iraqi government to come to political compromise between the sects with regards to economical securities and agreed upon rule of law. The Democratic Party is climbing aboard what is already in process.

The sad thing for me, is that if the war is considered victorious or if it is a failure, it will all be politicized by both sides, and they will blame each other for failure ( Dems saying that the Repubs got us into it, and repubs saying that the dems forced a withdrawal to early ) and will take credit themselves if it ends up being successful ( Dems saying that bringing our troops home solved the problem, and Repubs saying that their plan for regime change was a success ). Meanwhile the politicos of either side could give less than a damn about the Iraqi lives, as long as they can lay claim to victory, or blame for failure.

It is lucky for the Iraqis that the people that are actually doing something over there to protect the Iraqis ( our military ), aren't so biased and conceited. I am hoping that the proper solution happens before we leave, no matter what time it is. Not for any party to claim they were right, but for the safety and security of a democracy that has all the ability to flourish and become a jewel of human civilization once again. I only want the best for the safety and prosperity of the individual Iraqi.

 

[RightOfCenter]

But according to you it was all about WMD and we made a mistake. Why? Why do you insist on poretending that it was all about WMD when it was obviously not? With our vast satellite and spy network, why do you insist that our government actually was confused about something? If it was about WMD, guess what...there would have wharehouses of it. Get past your needs to select the portions of the truth that allows you your stage.

So, we didn't go into Iraq to stop Hussein from acquiring WMD's and supplying them to terrorist cells? Then why the hell are our troops there? Yes removing a dictator was good, but there are hundreds of dictators in the world, are we going to remove them all? I can understand remaining there to clean up our mistake and establish a democracy, but WMD's are the reason we entered Iraq.

 

[Goobieman]

The OTHER important part of this article, however, is that Congress is trying to do something it doesnt have the power to do...

If this were a 'check' or 'balance' over the Article II powers of the CinC, it would not havew to go to the CinC to be signed into law.

 

[Gibberish]

The OTHER important part of this article, however, is that Congress is trying to do something it doesnt have the power to do...

If this were a 'check' or 'balance' over the Article II powers of the CinC, it would not havew to go to the CinC to be signed into law.

They shouldn't get to far then. If it gets to a point where Bush has to Veto it then they obviously did have power to do something.

 

[WI Crippler]

The OTHER important part of this article, however, is that Congress is trying to do something it doesnt have the power to do...

If this were a 'check' or 'balance' over the Article II powers of the CinC, it would not havew to go to the CinC to be signed into law.

I am not in deep into the consitutional knowledge, but if this is indeed unconstitutional then...... congress has no authority.

I thought they had they authority on funding though, so are they using the funding powers unconstitutionaly to force a result, or is it a loop-hole they have exploited and within their powers???

 

[Goobieman]

I am not in deep into the consitutional knowledge, but if this is indeed unconstitutional then...... congress has no authority.

I thought they had they authority on funding though, so are they using the funding powers unconstitutionaly to force a result, or is it a loop-hole they have exploited and within their powers???

Congress is dictating that the CinC order troops to do X.
Congress has absolutely no authority to do so.

 

[MSgt]

So, we didn't go into Iraq to stop Hussein from acquiring WMD's and supplying them to terrorist cells?

Not really. Saddam Hussein invaded two neighboring countries in his time and terrorized Muslims in all directions (not to mention Israelis). He merely produced for us a golden oportunity to get our foot in the door. Nobody would miss him and his brutality gave us an edge to act.

Do you really think our vast spy network and global spanning sattelites had us fooled about what he had? We can produce pictures of Iranian nulcear sites going back two decades, but we can't produce "proof" of what Saddam had?

Think about it. "WMD" sold our real motives.

Then why the hell are our troops there? Yes removing a dictator was good, but there are hundreds of dictators in the world, are we going to remove them all?

Like what "hundreds" of dictators? Here's a list.

It's a simple as selection. Which dictators are do-able? Which dictators give us opportunity against the Middle Eastern's religious Radical problem that gives way to wide sweeping religious terrorism?

Our main reason for going to Iraq was about correcting the path that the Middle East was on. It makes absolutely no sense to waste our time chasing down terrorists and retaliating after every never ending attack while we leave the Middle East, from where they come from, unmolested. It would be like punching thin air.

In February 2003 the Administration circulated drafts of a resolution
at the U.N. that would have permitted military action against Iraq. While the U.N. Security Council had agreed to inspections for WMD, the Administration began to add additional ideas. Administration officials called for “regime change” in Iraq, and the establishment of a democracy that would serve as a model and a spur for new representative governments throughout the Middle East.http://www.ambafrance-us.org/franceu...hrelations.pdf

We are seeing effective changes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.