new iraq bill..utter bullshit

the will of the people.

it's the best way for them to keep reminding everyone that this is bush's war.

and the payback's gonna be a muthaf****er in the next election.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

it's the best way for them to keep reminding everyone that this is bush's war.

and the payback's gonna be a muthaf****er in the next election.

Funny.... How many here think a democrat president will get the troops out of Iraq?

How the Democratic presidential candidates say they would handle Iraq if they were commander in chief:

Delaware Sen. Joe Biden:

Withdraw almost all U.S. forces by the end of 2007. Maintain a residual force of about 20,000 troops for counterterrorism efforts, protection from foreign threats and training for Iraqi security forces. Divide Iraq along autonomous ethnic lines, with a central Iraqi government only for border security, foreign policy and to divide fairly the nation's oil resources. Gain cooperation from Sunni Arabs by guaranteeing them 20 percent of oil revenues. Convene with the United Nations a regional security conference to pledge support for the power-sharing agreement. Increase reconstruction assistance and establish a jobs program to keep youth away from crime.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton:

Begin redeploying troops out of Iraq within 90 days. Supports a goal of all removing all combat troops except those needed for residual missions by March 2008. Residual forces would be charged with training and equipping Iraqi security forces, counterterrorism activities, protecting U.S. personnel and facilities, and protecting the Kurds in northern Iraq. Require the Iraqi government to meet benchmarks such as passage of oil law and reducing sectarian influence in security forces or cut off U.S. funding for security forces and reconstruction.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd:

Immediately redeploy combat troops out of Baghdad and other urban areas to other less populated areas; to bases in Kuwait and Qatar; and to Afghanistan. Remaining troops would have a narrow mission of training and equipping Iraqi security forces, counterterrorism activities and protecting U.S. personnel and facilities.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards

Immediately withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 troops, along with any sent over as part of President Bush's plan in January to add 30,000 troops eventually. Bring home all combat troops within 12-18 months. Leave a residual force to help protect the U.S. Embassy and Americans offering humanitarian relief, and keep a force in the region to prevent civil war from spilling over into other countries, becoming a genocide or spreading terrorism.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Close all U.S. military bases in Iraq and withdraw the troops, while simultaneously ordering the return of all U.S. contractors and turning over their work to the Iraqi government. Convene a regional conference to develop a security and stabilization force made up of troops from other nations that would replace U.S. troops, a process he says will take at least three months. Fund the peacekeeping mission, a national reconciliation and reparations to the Iraqi people.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama

Introduced legislation two months ago that would have begun bringing home troops by Tuesday, the fourth anniversary of Bush's speech declaring an end to major combat operations in Iraq. All combat troops would be deployed out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. Allow for a temporary suspension of the redeployment if the Iraqis meet specific security, political and economic benchmarks. Leave a residual force of a size to be determined to help train Iraqi troops, participate in counterterror operations, protect U.S. personnel and maintain a presence at the Defense Department's attache office. Intensify training of Iraqi security forces. Recommend the appointment of a special envoy to oversee international diplomatic efforts to end the civil war in Iraq.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson

Withdraw troops by the end of 2007, including residual forces, unless Bush can show the Iraqi government is meeting established benchmarks. Lead the way on providing aid for reconstruction and encouraging national reconciliation. Convene a regional conference.

reverend hellh0und wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

it's the best way for them to keep reminding everyone that this is bush's war.

and the payback's gonna be a muthaf****er in the next election.

Funny.... How many here think a democrat president will get the troops out of Iraq?

Poll: Americans Trust Democrats on Iraq War Policy

Of course this is before the democrats blinked.

As far as actual plans, there are some out there by democrats, I haven't heard any from Republicans. Just the same old "stay the course" nonsense.

Quote:

How the Democratic presidential candidates say they would handle Iraq if they were commander in chief:

Delaware Sen. Joe Biden:

Withdraw almost all U.S. forces by the end of 2007. Maintain a residual force of about 20,000 troops for counterterrorism efforts, protection from foreign threats and training for Iraqi security forces. Divide Iraq along autonomous ethnic lines, with a central Iraqi government only for border security, foreign policy and to divide fairly the nation's oil resources. Gain cooperation from Sunni Arabs by guaranteeing them 20 percent of oil revenues. Convene with the United Nations a regional security conference to pledge support for the power-sharing agreement. Increase reconstruction assistance and establish a jobs program to keep youth away from crime.

Its at least an attempt. But it seems a lot of micromanaging...

Quote:

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton:

Begin redeploying troops out of Iraq within 90 days. Supports a goal of all removing all combat troops except those needed for residual missions by March 2008. Residual forces would be charged with training and equipping Iraqi security forces, counterterrorism activities, protecting U.S. personnel and facilities, and protecting the Kurds in northern Iraq. Require the Iraqi government to meet benchmarks such as passage of oil law and reducing sectarian influence in security forces or cut off U.S. funding for security forces and reconstruction.

You are kidding right? that may be her stance today but you know it changes with the wind.

Quote:

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd:

Immediately redeploy combat troops out of Baghdad and other urban areas to other less populated areas; to bases in Kuwait and Qatar; and to Afghanistan. Remaining troops would have a narrow mission of training and equipping Iraqi security forces, counterterrorism activities and protecting U.S. personnel and facilities.

The carnage that would cause....

Quote:

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards

Immediately withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 troops, along with any sent over as part of President Bush's plan in January to add 30,000 troops eventually. Bring home all combat troops within 12-18 months. Leave a residual force to help protect the U.S. Embassy and Americans offering humanitarian relief, and keep a force in the region to prevent civil war from spilling over into other countries, becoming a genocide or spreading terrorism.

Same.

Quote:

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Close all U.S. military bases in Iraq and withdraw the troops, while simultaneously ordering the return of all U.S. contractors and turning over their work to the Iraqi government. Convene a regional conference to develop a security and stabilization force made up of troops from other nations that would replace U.S. troops, a process he says will take at least three months. Fund the peacekeeping mission, a national reconciliation and reparations to the Iraqi people.

Wishful thinkiong.

Quote:

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama

Introduced legislation two months ago that would have begun bringing home troops by Tuesday, the fourth anniversary of Bush's speech declaring an end to major combat operations in Iraq. All combat troops would be deployed out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. Allow for a temporary suspension of the redeployment if the Iraqis meet specific security, political and economic benchmarks. Leave a residual force of a size to be determined to help train Iraqi troops, participate in counterterror operations, protect U.S. personnel and maintain a presence at the Defense Department's attache office. Intensify training of Iraqi security forces. Recommend the appointment of a special envoy to oversee international diplomatic efforts to end the civil war in Iraq.

"deployed out of iraq" Cant they say the word "withdraw, retreat, etc?"


Seriously though Obama has been the most consistant person on this side of the issue. I respect him for that. Disagree with him, but respect him.

Quote:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson

Withdraw troops by the end of 2007, including residual forces, unless Bush can show the Iraqi government is meeting established benchmarks. Lead the way on providing aid for reconstruction and encouraging national reconciliation. Convene a regional conference.

source

There is nothing of substance to reply to in your reply to my post, rh.

revel wrote:

There is nothing of substance to reply to in your reply to my post, rh.

I'll make my point simple. What they say and thier actions are not synergistic. Why? Simple, its all about power. They want a complete retreat before Bush leaves office not after if they win the whitehouse.





note even this:

"Notice they want withdrawal before the end of 2008... Care to guess why?


But still this is a small minority of democrats and what they say and what they are doing are two completley different thiungsd,. "

reverend hellh0und wrote:

revel wrote:

There is nothing of substance to reply to in your reply to my post, rh.

I'll make my point simple. What they say and thier actions are not synergistic. Why? Simple, its all about power. They want a complete retreat before Bush leaves office not after if they win the whitehouse.





note even this:

"Notice they want withdrawal before the end of 2008... Care to guess why?


But still this is a small minority of democrats and what they say and what they are doing are two completley different thiungsd,. "

The issue in the article I posted is what the candidates would do if they were commander in chief. Not what they will do when if they win the presidential election and become commander in chief after 2008. I posted the article because at least it gives an indication that some democrats have alternative plans other than just staying the same failing course in Iraq. I see no reason why those plans could not be put into action if one of them is elected and if the house and senate remains in democrat hands.

revel wrote:

reverend hellh0und wrote:

revel wrote:

There is nothing of substance to reply to in your reply to my post, rh.

I'll make my point simple. What they say and thier actions are not synergistic. Why? Simple, its all about power. They want a complete retreat before Bush leaves office not after if they win the whitehouse.





note even this:

"Notice they want withdrawal before the end of 2008... Care to guess why?


But still this is a small minority of democrats and what they say and what they are doing are two completley different thiungsd,. "

The issue in the article I posted is what the candidates would do if they were commander in chief. Not what they will do when if they win the presidential election and become commander in chief after 2008. I posted the article because at least it gives an indication that some democrats have alternative plans other than just staying the same failing course in Iraq. I see no reason why those plans could not be put into action if one of them is elected and if the house and senate remains in democrat hands.

Whats the difference between if they were and if they were? What?!!?



a democrat in the white house while troops are in Iraq will not call for imediate withdrawal. No way no how. In either scenario described above no matter what they are saying now.

I have a trend in not making myself clear, my bad.

I meant the issue in the article is:

If they (the ones listed in the article) were commander in chief now (instead of Bush)what would they do nowin Iraq. The issue was not what they would do after Bush leaves office in 2008.

I believe one of them or another democrat will call for a withdrawal from Iraq , leaving a residue of troops behind for an indefinite length of time (until there is clearly no longer a need)for the reasons listed in the article. It makes sense.

revel wrote:

I have a trend in not making myself clear, my bad.

I meant the issue in the article is:

If they (the ones listed in the article) were commander in chief now (instead of Bush)what would they do nowin Iraq. The issue was not what they would do after Bush leaves office in 2008.

I don't see what the difference is.

Quote:

I believe one of them or another democrat will call for a withdrawal from Iraq , leaving a residue of troops behind for an indefinite length of time (until there is clearly no longer a need)for the reasons listed in the article. It makes sense.

The only one that would IMO would be Obama, the rest of them would do whatever helps thier poll ratings.

The difference is that a post or two back you made a big deal of the fact the candidates only talked of what they would do in Iraq before 2008 rather than after 2008, saying how they wanted Bush to clean up before they became president. (people should clean up after themselves) I attempted to explain to you the time period in which the candidates were asked what they would do if they were in charge (which was now instead of after Bush left office.)

If you still don't understand, never mind.

As far as what the rest of them would do. If in fact you are right and they would do what helps their poll ratings. Good, the polls want us out of Iraq. At least then we would have a President who actually listen to the will of people who put him/her in office instead of some kind of dictator (or the "decider") like we have now.

revel wrote:

The difference is that a post or two back you made a big deal of the fact the candidates only talked of what they would do in Iraq before 2008 rather than after 2008, saying how they wanted Bush to clean up before they became president. (people should clean up after themselves) I attempted to explain to you the time period in which the candidates were asked what they would do if they were in charge (which was now instead of after Bush left office.)

If you still don't understand, never mind.

This is why I say what I say.

Quote:

As far as what the rest of them would do. If in fact you are right and they would do what helps their poll ratings. Good, the polls want us out of Iraq. At least then we would have a President who actually listen to the will of people who put him/her in office instead of some kind of dictator (or the "decider") like we have now.

Look back up about "cleaning up messes". Do you see how these two are contradictory? If the polls are right would't a democrat prez be a hero then if we took office and called for an immediate withtdrawal or one of the plans outlined above?


Why give Bush the credit. There is a reason they as you say "Want him to clean up his mess". Its because they don't want to be the ones who retreated.