Senate rejects July 2007 deadline for withdrawal from Iraq (1 Viewer)

[Navy Pride]

Kerry cut and run amendment shot down 86-13

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/22/iraq.senate.ap/index.html

Thursday, June 22, 2006; Posted: 11:53 a.m. EDT (15:53 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The GOP-controlled Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly rejected a Democratic call to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by years' end, as the two parties sought to define their election-year positions on a war that has grown increasingly unpopular.

"Withdrawal is not an option. Surrender is not a solution," declared Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, who characterized Democrats as defeatists wanting to abandon Iraq before the mission is complete.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, in turn, portrayed Republican leaders as blindly following President Bush's "failed" stay-the-course strategy. "It is long past time to change course in Iraq and start to end the president's open-ended commitment," he said.

In an 86-13 vote, the Senate turned back a Democratic proposal that would require the administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, with redeployments beginning this year. A second vote on another Democratic proposal to begin withdrawing, but with no timetable for the war's end, was planned immediately afterward.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/22/iraq.main/index.html

Gen. George Casey is mulling a cut that gradually would reduce U.S. levels by an estimated 6,000 to 10,000 troops -- at most, about two brigades.
snipp.....

 

[Navy Pride]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/22/iraq.main/index.html

Gen. George Casey is mulling a cut that gradually would reduce U.S. levels by an estimated 6,000 to 10,000 troops -- at most, about two brigades.
snipp.....

That is great news but mulling a cut of personnel and setting a firm date to cut and run and aid the terrorists are 2 very different things...........

I think you will see a gradual withdrawal of personnel as the Iraqis stand up but we will not cut and run like Kerry wants to do..........

 

[ShamMol]

How bout the other amendment that stated that we would withdraw eventually? What are people's thoughts about that? I think it is one of those amendments that is good because it states what you stand for, but really doesn't do anything to advance leaving (which would be a bad thing right now). Thus, it is just saying...we want accountability.

 

[Navy Pride]

How bout the other amendment that stated that we would withdraw eventually? What are people's thoughts about that? I think it is one of those amendments that is good because it states what you stand for, but really doesn't do anything to advance leaving (which would be a bad thing right now). Thus, it is just saying...we want accountability.

I believe it was voted down 60-39 pretty much along party lines with a few dems joining the repubs.........

 

[::Major_Baker::]

That is great news but mulling a cut of personnel and setting a firm date to cut and run and aid the terrorists are 2 very different things...........

I think you will see a gradual withdrawal of personnel as the Iraqis stand up but we will not cut and run like Kerry wants to do..........

You would think this decision would be based on progress or redcution of casualties, and nothing less. I wonder what information the general knows about?

 

[Diogenes]

How bout the other amendment that stated that we would withdraw eventually?

I would be interested in a Democrat proposal for withdrawing from Germany, Japan and Korea. Or is it only Democrat wars that lead to either defeat or permanent occupation?

No amendment for eventual withdrawal from Iraq is necessary, since that's been the stated goal from the beginning.

 

[Gibberish]

Shot down as it should be. Pulling out will hurt Iraqi's much worse then America would be hurt if we stayed.

IMO we should stay till Iraq gets a stable government and security. We should not stay for the reason to win a war on the ideology of terrorism.

 

[hipsterdufus]

The VP of Iraq,Tariq al-Hashimi, told Bush during his recent visit that he wants a timeline for US troop withdrawal. The President du jour in Iraq, Jalal Talabani agreed.

Top Sunni asked Bush for pullout timeline
Associated Press
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's vice president has asked President Bush for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq, the Iraqi president's office said.

Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni, made the request during his meeting with Bush on Tuesday, when the U.S. president made a surprise visit to Iraq.

"I supported him in this," President Jalal Talabani said in a statement released Wednesday. Al-Hashimi's representatives could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/14823067.htm

 

[Navy Pride]

You would think this decision would be based on progress or redcution of casualties, and nothing less. I wonder what information the general knows about?

I don't know, as long as they don't set deadlines like Kerry wants I am for it.........

Deadlines only help one group..........The terrorists........

 

[hipsterdufus]

How bout the other amendment that stated that we would withdraw eventually? What are people's thoughts about that? I think it is one of those amendments that is good because it states what you stand for, but really doesn't do anything to advance leaving (which would be a bad thing right now). Thus, it is just saying...we want accountability.

We're building 12 permanent bases in Iraq, one the size of Vatican city. The Bush administration has no plans to leave.

 

[Navy Pride]

The VP of Iraq,Tariq al-Hashimi, told Bush during his recent visit that he wants a timeline for US troop withdrawal. The President du jour in Iraq, Jalal Talabani agreed.


http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/14823067.htm

Hey tht is fine..............when the elected government of Iraq wants us to leave we will do so............

 

[Gibberish]

I don't know, as long as they don't set deadlines like Kerry wants I am for it.........

Deadlines only help one group..........The terrorists........

This is why you can't win a war against terrorists. Every decision we make aids them. If we set a time-table then the terrorists can just lay-low and go into hiding until that date is met and solider leave. If we up announce a up in security then terrorists now know how not to attack so they don't get caught.

The only way to find terrorists is by moles in the terrorist network and/or after the terrorist attacks, and they happen to be caught or die in the process.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

"This Political Party will self-destruct in 10-seconds."

My God, incompetence everywhere----we have truly elected some slugs to leadership positions in America. It doesn't matter which party, slugs are slugs, it just so happens that while they may both be incompetent as it concerns leading a nation, the republicans know how to run for office. By contrast, it appears the Democrats are trying to lose.

Normally, I believe the saying goes, "If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys", well, in the case of OUR Representatives, "If a Special Interest pays millions, WE get Monkeys." What the hell happened to my country?

 

[ShamMol]

I believe it was voted down 60-39 pretty much along party lines with a few dems joining the repubs.........

My question is what do you think of it? I, while being for finishing the task of security in Iraq, am for it and I was wondering your views.

We're building 12 permanent bases in Iraq, one the size of Vatican city. The Bush administration has no plans to leave.

Then they need to realize the American public isn't the same as in the 1950s...they won't stand for this again.

 

[Gibberish]

Then they need to realize the American public isn't the same as in the 1950s...they won't stand for this again.

Today's government does what it wants despite the publics thoughts. I would have to agree that this becauce the majority of the public is basically emotionally driven, which leads to very short-term positives and long-term negatives.

My liberal side wants to say that the American public has lost control of it's government to political personal interest groups and big business. My moderate side would agree there is major influence but wouldn't do so far as to say the public has lost control, just that we don't enforce it.

 

[Navy Pride]

This is why you can't win a war against terrorists. Every decision we make aids them. If we set a time-table then the terrorists can just lay-low and go into hiding until that date is met and solider leave. If we up announce a up in security then terrorists now know how not to attack so they don't get caught.

The only way to find terrorists is by moles in the terrorist network and/or after the terrorist attacks, and they happen to be caught or die in the process.

The president has said many times the war on Terrorism will be a long one but make no mistake about it we can win the battle in Iraq......

 

[Gibberish]

The president has said many times the war on Terrorism will be a long one but make no mistake about it we can win the battle in Iraq......

We can win the battle by passing over the security enforcing the Iraqi's once they are capable. We will never stop attacks from happening though, just possibly containing them or isolating them.

The War on terror will not be "a long one" it will be a forever one. Countries have been fighting terrorists since the such entities have ever exsisted (tens of thousands of years), what makes us so arrogant to think we can stop terrorism?

 

[Navy Pride]

My question is what do you think of it? I, while being for finishing the task of security in Iraq, am for it and I was wondering your views.
Then they need to realize the American public isn't the same as in the 1950s...they won't stand for this again.

The vote does not surprise me at all.....It shows most dems are for setting dates and pulling out........Most repubs are against that....

 

[ShamMol]

The vote does not surprise me at all.....It shows most dems are for setting dates and pulling out........Most repubs are against that....

Well, one of those is true. The one about pulling out...EVENTUALLY. That is the key word. They don't set a date in the one that garnered the most Democrat support, and the other bill did not have much support. That is the point, they don't want to set timetables for the most part, but they do want us out of there eventually, after we have done the job. I agree with them.

 

[Gibberish]

The vote does not surprise me at all.....It shows most dems are for setting dates and pulling out........Most repubs are against that....

What are these dems thinking trying to get a timetable and exit strategy?

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” - George W. Bush, 4/9/99


“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.” - George W. Bush, 4/9/99

 

[BWG]

What are these dems thinking trying to get a timetable and exit strategy?

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” - George W. Bush, 4/9/99


“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.” - George W. Bush, 4/9/99

But..but..that was different..

Funny cons :sinking: :2rofll:

 

[Deegan]

We're building 12 permanent bases in Iraq, one the size of Vatican city. The Bush administration has no plans to leave.

Of course we are going to protect the investment we have made there, just as we did in Germany, and Japan for instance. Do you disagree with a base there? I don't, it has not hurt either Japan or Germany, in fact, it has been quite profitable for those towns and cities where our bases are located. It's also important to keep tabs on these governments in their infancy, but as these other countries have shown, that can take many, many decades.

 

[Alex]

Kerry cut and run amendment shot down 86-13

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/22/iraq.senate.ap/index.html

Thursday, June 22, 2006; Posted: 11:53 a.m. EDT (15:53 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The GOP-controlled Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly rejected a Democratic call to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by years' end, as the two parties sought to define their election-year positions on a war that has grown increasingly unpopular.

"Withdrawal is not an option. Surrender is not a solution," declared Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, who characterized Democrats as defeatists wanting to abandon Iraq before the mission is complete.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, in turn, portrayed Republican leaders as blindly following President Bush's "failed" stay-the-course strategy. "It is long past time to change course in Iraq and start to end the president's open-ended commitment," he said.

In an 86-13 vote, the Senate turned back a Democratic proposal that would require the administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, with redeployments beginning this year. A second vote on another Democratic proposal to begin withdrawing, but with no timetable for the war's end, was planned immediately afterward.

"Cut and run?" Do hardcore conservatives have a single thought that is their own or are they robots who are programable only by Conseratives? All I ever hear from them are the catch-phrases that Republicans make up to draw in simple-minded people who cannot think for themselves. Sad.

 

[Navy Pride]

"Cut and run?" Do hardcore conservatives have a single thought that is their own or are they robots who are programable only by Conseratives? All I ever hear from them are the catch-phrases that Republicans make up to draw in simple-minded people who cannot think for themselves. Sad.

Ah, you mean like the dems "Culture of Corruption" or "Lie and die." :roll: